Timing and Political Considerations
In the early hours of Saturday, January 3, 2026, Caracas awoke to a sudden and dramatic escalation: powerful explosions, low-flying aircraft, and smoke rising from strategic military locations. The La Carlota military airfield and the sprawling Fuerte Tiuna complex, the headquarters of Venezuela’s armed forces were primary targets. Reports from Aragua, Miranda, and La Guaira indicated a coordinated, multi-site operation rather than symbolic strikes.
The operation followed months of tension between the United States and Venezuela. Just a day earlier, President Nicolás Maduro had signaled willingness to negotiate with Washington on drug trafficking cooperation. Yet overnight, the standoff escalated into direct military action. Analysts have noted the timing could have been influenced by domestic U.S. considerations: in the days preceding the strikes, Attorney General Pam Bondi faced scrutiny over incomplete public release of high-profile court files, and President Trump was confronting political pressure surrounding unaddressed congressional contempt citations. Critics suggest the operation may have shifted media attention, though the White House maintains it was dictated by tactical intelligence and optimal conditions in Caracas.
Legal Gray Zones: International vs. Domestic Law
International Perspective
From the international perspective, legality is highly contested. Most international legal experts argue that, absent a UN Security Council mandate or an imminent armed attack, using force against another sovereign nation violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Venezuela, which did not attack the U.S., has labeled the strikes a “crime of aggression,” with UN Secretary-General António Guterres warning that “the rules of international law have not been respected,” describing the precedent as dangerous.
Yet the U.S. frames the operation differently. Washington argues that the Maduro regime has forfeited sovereign immunity by functioning as a narco-state posing a direct threat to U.S. national security through drug trafficking. By treating Maduro as a fugitive from justice rather than a head of state, the U.S. claims the operation is law enforcement, not war.
U.S. Domestic Law
Domestically, legality hinges on presidential authority. Supporters cite Article II of the Constitution, arguing the President has inherent power to protect Americans from “narco-terrorism” without congressional approval. Critics, however, point to the War Powers Act, asserting that any military operation without a congressional Declaration of War or Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) is unconstitutional.
The gray area is sharpened by precedent. In 1989, the U.S. executed a similar logic in Panama to remove Manuel Noriega. While U.S. courts upheld the operation domestically, the UN General Assembly condemned it as a violation of international law. This duality persists: domestically permissible but internationally controversial.
Law Enforcement or Act of War?
Operation Absolute Resolve blurs the lines between policing and warfare. The U.S. presents Maduro’s capture as high-risk law enforcement, an arrest of a criminal indicted by the Southern District of New York for narco-terrorism, cocaine importation conspiracy, and possession of destructive devices.
Yet the scope of U.S. involvement complicates this framing. President Trump stated the U.S. will “run the country” temporarily, sending oil companies to restore infrastructure and control production. By extending authority beyond the arrest into governance, the operation steps into the realm of occupation and regime change. This raises a legal paradox: if Maduro is “innocent until proven guilty,” dismantling his government beforehand challenges the fundamental principle of due process.
The capture of Cilia Flores, Maduro’s wife, intensifies the legal debate. While the U.S. treats her as a criminal co-conspirator within the “Cartel of the Suns,” international law generally protects family members of heads of state. Critics have called it a kidnapping and a significant violation of norms.
Regional and Global Reactions
The international response has been swift and varied. Latin American leaders express alarm:
- Colombia: President Gustavo Petro condemned the strikes, describing Caracas as being “bombed with missiles,” and called for an emergency UN Security Council meeting.
- Brazil: President Lula da Silva deemed the strikes an “unacceptable line” reminiscent of historical interference.
- China and Russia: Both governments described the operation as hegemonic aggression that violates sovereignty.
Even U.S. allies tread carefully:
- EU Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas noted Maduro’s lack of legitimacy but emphasized adherence to the UN Charter.
- UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer expressed the need to confirm facts while upholding international law.
Meanwhile, leaders like Daniel Noboa of Ecuador and Giorgia Meloni of Italy praised the removal of a narco-dictatorship, signaling approval of Maduro’s criminal prosecution while cautioning restraint and adherence to law.
Inside Venezuela, the reaction is mixed. In Maduro strongholds like 23 de Enero, collectivos mobilized in protest, chanting, “Maduro, aguanta, el pueblo se levanta!” Conversely, opposition supporters quietly celebrated, seeing a possible restoration of democracy, though fear of U.S. military presence tempers their jubilation.
The Inside Job: A 30-Minute Extraction
The tactical success of the operation is being hailed as a masterclass in military precision. For a sitting president to be extracted from Fuerte Tiuna, the nation’s most fortified complex in under 30 minutes with minimal U.S. casualties suggests internal collusion. Analysts speculate that high-ranking Venezuelan generals may have allowed the operation in exchange for immunity or future influence under the new administration.
This raises questions about the composition of the “group” now effectively running Venezuela. If insiders facilitated Maduro’s removal, the U.S. may have achieved its objective quickly, but the political landscape remains volatile.
The Power Vacuum
Removing Maduro generates a classic power vacuum, a phenomenon long warned against by political theorists. Yeats’ words echo vividly: “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.” Thomas Hobbes similarly noted that without central authority, “A war of every man against every man... and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Even Aristotle recognized that “Nature abhors a vacuum” without a central power, violence and opportunism thrive.
In Venezuela, the vacuum is immediate. The Maduro era may be over, but competing armed groups the ELN, Tren de Aragua, and collectivos are now vying for control. The military’s allegiance is uncertain, and civilian populations face disruption, fear, and scarcity.
The Legal and Strategic Contradiction
The operation exposes a profound legal contradiction: if the U.S. claims law enforcement authority, the mission should end with the suspects in custody. Yet by asserting control over governance and oil resources, Washington moves from policing to occupation. International legal norms are challenged, and the precedent is dangerous: a country’s leaders can now be seized under domestic indictments, bypassing sovereign protections.
This “kidnap precedent” has far-reaching implications. If a U.S. indictment suffices to justify cross-border operations, no mayor, governor, or president in the world can feel truly secure in their office. The question of sovereignty itself is in flux, and the legal gray zone of 2026 will be studied for years.
The Road Ahead
The Maduro operation demonstrates both the power and the peril of unilateral military actions under domestic justifications but contested international legality. Regional leaders, UN actors, and legal scholars are watching closely. Venezuela’s future depends not only on the outcome of its criminal trials but on the fragile balance between local authority, insurgent groups, and foreign intervention.
The U.S. may have achieved its immediate objectives on January 3, 2026, but the strategic and legal consequences are unresolved. As one analyst summarized: the “centre cannot hold,” the vacuum is real, and the precedent of foreign abduction for domestic criminal enforcement is now a permanent fixture in global politics.
0 Comments