Editorial News Uncategorized

The Shockwave from Caracas: The United States Removes Maduro and Transforms Latin America

Maxime Marquette

2026-06-21 00:06:20

Months of preparation in the strictest secrecy

Behind the scenes of the U.S. government, this operation was meticulously planned over many months, far from prying eyes and media leaks. General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, revealed that U.S. forces had rehearsed their maneuvers tirelessly, learning everything about Maduro down to the smallest details of his daily life: his habits, his movements, even what he ate and the quirks of his pets. This methodical, almost obsessive approach had a single goal: to ensure that no mistakes could occur during the execution of the mission. U.S. intelligence worked tirelessly to map out the protective networks surrounding the Venezuelan president, identifying his safe houses, potential escape routes, and vulnerabilities in his security apparatus.

The choice of date was by no means coincidental. This operation was carried out exactly thirty-six years after the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1990, which had led to the capture of leader Manuel Noriega. This calendar coincidence cannot be a matter of chance and points to continuity in the doctrine of U.S. intervention in the region. Preparations included a massive deployment of naval forces off the Venezuelan coast, as well as a series of preliminary strikes against ships suspected of drug trafficking in the eastern Pacific and the Caribbean. These actions were aimed at weakening Maduro’s support networks and creating the necessary conditions for the main operation. The week before the assault, the CIA had even carried out a drone strike against a docking area used by Venezuelan drug cartels, marking the first direct operation on Venezuelan soil since the start of the strike campaign in September.

There is something both fascinating and terrifying about these preparations, which are straight out of a spy thriller. The idea that hundreds of agents, analysts, and military personnel spent months studying every move and every habit of a man as if he were a target in a video game is blood-curdling. War is often sold to us as a series of decisions made in haste, in the heat of the moment, but the reality is far more prosaic: it is a cold, methodical, relentless bureaucracy that reduces human lives to data in spreadsheets. And the scariest part is that it works. It works with such efficiency that it makes you wonder: what’s stopping us from being next on that list?

A surgical strike under the cover of darkness

The assault itself took place in the early hours of the morning, taking advantage of the darkness to maximize the element of surprise and minimize the risk of interference. U.S. special forces cut off power to several neighborhoods in Caracas, plunging the city into darkness that facilitated their advance. At least seven explosions were heard across the capital—precise strikes targeting the regime’s military infrastructure and key facilities. Witnesses reported streaks of light in the sky and plumes of smoke rising from several sites, including a hangar at a military base and La Carlota Airport. The assault was swift, brutal, and incredibly effective, leaving Venezuelan forces little time to mount any resistance.

Maduro and his wife were extracted from their residence, located in a fortified area of a military base, in what Trump described as a heavily guarded location, like a fortress. The two were immediately transferred to a U.S. warship, the USS Iwo Jima, which was anchored off the Venezuelan coast. From there, they were flown to the United States, arriving on the evening of January 3 at Stewart International Airport, north of New York City. Footage of their arrival, released by AFP, shows a man in handcuffs, escorted by federal agents, walking cautiously down the airplane gangway before being led to a waiting vehicle. Maduro was then transferred to the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center, where he is awaiting trial.

This image of Maduro, blindfolded, adrift somewhere between the warship and New York, is something that will remain etched in my memory as an icon of our time. There is an almost medieval dimension to this scene, as if the United States had decided to bring the practices of chivalry and hostage-taking back into the 21st century. Except that instead of dungeons and chains, we have federal detention centers and charges of narco-terrorism. It’s the same logic of domination, the same desire to show who holds the power, but with all the trappings of legal and technological modernity. And it reminds me of that terrible line by George Orwell: “Who controls the past controls the future.” Maduro controlled Venezuela’s past; now it is the United States that controls its present and its future.

Section 3: Maduro Faces U.S. Justice

Serious Charges of Narcoterrorism

Nicolas Maduro is no stranger to the U.S. justice system. He has been facing charges since 2020 for narco-terrorism and conspiracy to import large quantities of cocaine into the United States. These charges, brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, describe a corrupt regime that has turned Venezuela into a narco-state, using government institutions to facilitate large-scale drug trafficking. The indictment, released on Saturday, portrays Maduro and his wife as the architects of a sophisticated criminal network that has flooded American streets with cocaine for years, while personally enriching themselves through the illicit profits of this trafficking. U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi emphasized that the couple faces serious charges, including conspiracy to import cocaine and participation in a narco-terrorism conspiracy.

Maduro’s transfer to the United States marks a crucial step in this case, paving the way for a trial that promises to be high-profile. According to Justice Department spokespeople, Maduro is expected to make his first court appearance before a federal court in Manhattan in the coming days. This trial, if it takes place, will provide the U.S. government with an opportunity to present in detail the evidence gathered against the ousted leader, including testimony from cooperating witnesses, intercepted communications, and financial evidence. The charge of narco-terrorism, in particular, constitutes a major legal innovation, merging the concepts of drug trafficking and terrorism to justify direct military action against a foreign head of state. This approach, criticized by many legal experts, nevertheless represents a bold extension of U.S. jurisdiction on the international stage.

There is something about these narco-terrorism charges that leaves me perplexed, even deeply troubled. On the one hand, acts of corruption and collusion with drug cartels are real and well-documented, and deserve to be brought to trial. But on the other hand, using this charge as a pretext for military intervention strikes me as extremely dangerous. It is as if we had found the magic word that allows us to circumvent all the rules of international law and all the protections of state sovereignty. Tomorrow, which leader will be accused of narco-terrorism? What criteria will be used? Who decides? This opens the door wide to arbitrariness, and that is precisely what international law was supposed to prevent. I cannot help but think that if the same accusations had been leveled against a U.S. ally, the reaction would have been very different.

An Unprecedented Legal Proceeding

The legal proceedings initiated against Maduro raise numerous questions regarding their legality and legitimacy. No foreign head of state had ever been captured by U.S. military force and tried on U.S. soil for crimes committed in the course of his official duties. This operation, carried out without the approval of the U.S. Congress or authorization from the United Nations, constitutes a major breach of international law. Renowned legal experts immediately highlighted the dangers of this precedent, warning that this action could be used by other powers to justify similar interventions against U.S. or allied leaders in the future. Representative Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, publicly demanded immediate briefings from the administration on the plan to ensure stability in the region and the legal justification for this decision.

Former State Department General Counsel Harold Koh called the operation grossly illegal, noting that it violated both U.S. and international law. He noted that even previous administrations, including that of George W. Bush, had acknowledged that the United States could not legally go to war against another country without congressional authorization, except in cases of immediate self-defense. However, no such case of self-defense has been invoked in the case of Venezuela. On the contrary, the Trump administration has presented the operation as an international law enforcement action—a characterization that does not fit within any existing legal framework. This “creative,” to say the least, approach to the law raises fundamental questions about the very nature of the rule of law in a world where military power can dictate its own rules.

That is what terrifies me most about this situation: the apparent disregard for the rules that have governed our societies for centuries. It feels as though the United States has said to itself: we have the power, we have the will, therefore we have the right. This is the logic of the leader of the pack, of the strongest—the kind of logic we thought we had left behind since the darkest ages of history. And what scares me even more is that no one seems truly able to stop them. The UN? A meeting is scheduled for Monday, certainly, but who will really have anything to say or do? The European allies? Softer words and calls for restraint, but not much else. China and Russia? Condemnations, certainly, but no concrete action. It’s as if the whole world were watching, powerless, as a new era of impunity for the powerful unfolds before our eyes.

Section 4: Venezuela in Turmoil

A Divided and Disoriented Population

The news of Maduro’s capture has plunged Venezuela into a state of deep confusion, revealing the fractures in a society deeply divided by twelve years of Chavista rule. In the streets of Caracas, reactions were immediate and contradictory, reflecting the extreme polarization that characterizes the country. Hundreds of regime supporters gathered near the Miraflores presidential palace, chanting slogans in support of the kidnapped leader and demanding his return. Carmen Meléndez, the mayor of Caracas, joined the crowd, leading the chants: “Maduro, hold on; the people are rising.” Other areas of the capital remained deserted, with residents too afraid to go out, as Noris Prada, sitting on an empty avenue and staring at his phone, attested: “How do I feel? Scared, like everyone else. Venezuelans woke up scared; many families couldn’t sleep.”

On the opposite end of the political spectrum, opponents of the regime expressed visible relief, often tinged with disbelief. Maria Corina Machado, the opposition leader and 2025 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, proclaimed that the hour of freedom had arrived, calling on the opposition candidate in the 2024 presidential election, Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, to immediately assume the presidency. In the city of Maracay, Carolina Pimentel, a 37-year-old shopkeeper, summed up the sentiment of many: “I’m happy; for a moment I doubted this was really happening because it’s like a movie.” This dichotomy in reactions perfectly illustrates the depth of the divide among Venezuelans—a divide that Maduro’s absence will not be able to bridge overnight. The country continues to face immense economic and social challenges, exacerbated by years of mismanagement, international sanctions, and widespread corruption.

This image of a divided Venezuela—these crowds shouting their support or joy in the streets of Caracas—reminds me that the fall of a dictator never solves everything, far from it. On the contrary, it often reveals the wounds that the dictator had hidden or worsened. Maduro’s supporters aren’t going to disappear just because he’s been taken away. They are there, real, alive, convinced they are defending a certain vision of their country—even if that vision seems incomprehensible to us. And the opponents won’t see their problems magically disappear. Inflation will continue, the shortage of medicines will continue, and violence will continue. It’s as if someone had lifted the lid off a pressure cooker without really knowing what would come out.

A Power in Uncertain Transition

Maduro’s capture has created an immediate power vacuum that the regime is scrambling to fill. According to the Venezuelan constitution, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was supposed to assume the role of interim president in the event of the incumbent’s absence. However, Rodríguez refused to take on that title, insisting in a televised address that there was only one president in Venezuela and that his name was Nicolás Maduro Moros. A Venezuelan court nevertheless ordered Rodríguez to assume the position of interim president, creating a complex and potentially unstable constitutional situation. This confusion at the highest levels of government illustrates the difficulties the regime faces in maintaining a facade of normalcy while its leader is detained thousands of kilometers away.

The regime’s institutions continued to function, at least on the surface. State television broadcast footage of supporters flooding the streets, while ministers and senior officials issued a flurry of declarations of loyalty to the kidnapped president. Defense Minister General Vladimir Padrino López promised the massive deployment of all land, air, naval, riverine, and ballistic resources to defend national sovereignty. Yet the reality on the ground appears more nuanced. Certain sectors of the military might be tempted by an opportunity for change, especially if the United States manages to exploit existing fractures within the Venezuelan military apparatus. The coming days will be crucial in determining whether the regime can maintain its cohesion or whether it will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions and internal divisions.

This power vacuum—this parade of leaders who refuse to assume their constitutional responsibilities—resembles a tragic farce. Delcy Rodríguez, who does not want to be president because she knows that title is now synonymous with being a target, is a character straight out of an absurdist play. And yet, at the same time, it’s terrifyingly real. It’s a sign that a system is falling apart, that the structures that supported the dictatorship are cracking under the pressure. But what worries me most is what will replace this system. Because a power vacuum is never truly empty. It is always filled by something or someone, and that something or someone isn’t necessarily better than what came before. History is full of examples of revolutions that have led to even worse tyrannies.

Section 5: Trump Claims a Historic Victory

A Triumphant Press Conference

Donald Trump held a marathon press conference from Mar-a-Lago, surrounded by his top advisors, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The U.S. president put on a veritable display of bravado, detailing the phases of the operation in great detail and boasting of its success. “The United States carried out an extraordinary operation,” he declared, praising the meticulous planning and flawless execution of the mission. Trump revealed that he had watched the capture live, adding that no American soldiers had been killed, although two men had been wounded and were in good condition. The president also released a photo of Maduro aboard the USS Iwo Jima, blindfolded—an image destined to become one of the most striking symbols of this crisis.

Trump used this platform to announce ambitious plans for Venezuela’s future, revealing that the United States would lead the country pending a safe and orderly transition. “We will ensure a just transition,” he said. “We want peace, justice, and freedom for the Venezuelan people,” he declared, while categorically rejecting the possibility of a member of Maduro’s political family coming to power. The president clarified that the U.S. Navy would remain in place for as long as necessary, adding that the military was ready to launch a second, larger attack if needed, although he considered the first wave a great success. This statement marks a significant escalation of U.S. involvement, transforming a capture operation into a potential long-term occupation.

This press conference, with Trump strutting in front of the cameras like a triumphant general of the Roman Empire, makes me want to laugh bitterly. I laugh because it’s so theatrical, so caricatured, that one would almost forget the gravity of the situation if it weren’t so frightening. But what strikes me most is this total lack of humility, this conviction that the United States has the right—indeed, the duty—to decide the fate of other nations. It’s pure arrogance, the certainty of being on the right side, on the side of history, without ever questioning its own motivations or methods. And when Trump talks about running Venezuela as if it were a family business, I get that chill running down my spine—the one that reminds me we live in a world where the rules of the game can be rewritten by those in power.

Bold Economic Promises

Beyond the military and political aspects, Trump has emphasized the economic opportunities presented by Venezuela, particularly its vast oil reserves. The president announced that major U.S. oil companies would invest heavily in the country to renovate an oil infrastructure severely degraded by years of mismanagement and sanctions. “We are going to invest billions of dollars in oil infrastructure,” he promised, highlighting the potential of Venezuela, which possesses the world’s largest oil reserves. Trump also stated that the United States would sell large quantities of Venezuelan oil to other nations, suggesting that the proceeds from these sales would be used to finance the occupation and reconstruction of the country.

This approach immediately drew comparisons to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where U.S. officials had promised that the country’s oil resources would pay for the war and reconstruction. Subsequent academic estimates showed that the actual cost to the United States of its involvement in Iraq amounted to at least 2,000 billion dollars, far exceeding initial projections. Trump attempted to reassure the public by claiming that the occupation of Venezuela would not cost American taxpayers a penny, as they would be reimbursed by the money coming out of the ground. However, many experts question this optimism, pointing out that restoring Venezuela’s oil industry would require massive investments over several years, with no guarantee of a quick return on investment.

It is this obsession with oil that both fascinates and terrifies me. It’s as if nothing has changed since the early 20th century, as if the motivations behind U.S. policy in Latin America were exactly the same as they were a hundred years ago. Trump doesn’t even try to hide it; he openly embraces this raw greed, this desire to lay claim to another country’s natural resources as if it were his due. And the worst part is that many people in the United States approve of this, seeing this operation as a way to make a profit, create jobs, and strengthen the U.S. economy. It is economic nationalism taken to its extreme, a worldview where resources are not shared but conquered, where the prosperity of some is built on the exploitation of others.

Section 6: International Reactions Under Strain

Strong Condemnation from Caracas’ Allies

The international community reacted strongly to the U.S. intervention, revealing the deep divisions that run across the globe on this issue. Venezuela’s traditional allies immediately condemned the operation with unprecedented vehemence. The Russian president described the U.S. attack as deeply troubling and reprehensible, calling for a halt to any further escalation. Beijing, for its part, stated that China firmly opposes such hegemonic behavior on the part of the United States, which would seriously violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty and threaten peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean. Tehran also strongly condemned the U.S. military attack, denouncing it as an illegal act of aggression and calling for the immediate release of the Venezuelan president.

Latin American countries also reacted, though with significant nuances reflecting their own geopolitical positions. Brazilian President Lula denounced a serious violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty, asserting that the bombings on Venezuelan territory and the capture of its president crossed the line of what is acceptable. He urged the United Nations to respond vigorously to this interference. Mexico also condemned the operation, recalling the dark days of U.S. interventionism on the South American continent. Colombian President Gustavo Petro announced that he had ordered the deployment of troops to the border with Venezuela and described the bombings as an act of aggression against Latin American sovereignty, warning that they would lead to a humanitarian crisis.

This wave of condemnations is like a distant echo of what we’ve heard during other U.S. interventions in the past. The words may change, but the tune remains the same. Russia condemning interference in another country’s internal affairs—that’s ironically comical coming from Moscow. China speaking of hegemonic behavior—that, too, is quite something. But that doesn’t mean they’re wrong. On the contrary, their condemnation reveals something important: the multipolar world is very much here, and it does not hesitate to oppose American hegemony when it deems it necessary. What terrifies me is that this opposition could lead to more serious confrontations—to a new Cold War, or even a hot war—with consequences we can barely imagine.

A Divided Western Stance

Western countries have adopted a more nuanced position, seeking to reconcile their opposition to the Maduro regime with their reluctance to justify unilateral military intervention. In France, President Emmanuel Macron called for a peaceful and democratic transition, referring to the end of the Maduro dictatorship while emphasizing the need to respect international law. Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stated that no lasting political solution could be imposed from the outside, a position that reflects France’s traditional approach to regime change. Spain has offered to act as a mediator in the crisis, calling for de-escalation and restraint.

The European Union, through its High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas, reiterated that the principles of international law and the United Nations Charter must be respected under all circumstances—a statement that, while diplomatic, constitutes an implicit criticism of the U.S. approach. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed concern that international law had not been respected, deploring a dangerous precedent that could have unpredictable consequences for the world order. These shared positions illustrate the difficulty Western democracies face in balancing their desire to see democracy take root in Venezuela with their reluctance to endorse methods they deem contrary to the principles they otherwise uphold.

This “variable-geometry diplomacy” of Western countries fascinates me with its almost pathetic lukewarmness. You can sense that they’re uncomfortable, that they disapprove but don’t dare say so too openly, for fear of alienating their American ally. These calls for restraint, these reminders of international law—they’re just smoke and mirrors, a way to save face without taking any risks. It’s the diplomacy of “we’re sad but we don’t dare say anything”—the diplomacy of calculated hypocrisy. And it makes me sick, because it is precisely this lukewarm attitude that allows these excesses to occur. If Europe had been firmer, if it had said “no” clearly and unequivocally, perhaps the United States would have hesitated. But as always, economic and political interests take precedence over principles.

Section 7: Disturbing Historical Parallels

Echoes of the Invasion of Panama

Comparisons with the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1990 were immediate and numerous, given the striking similarities between the two operations. Thirty-six years ago to the day, the United States invaded Panama to capture its leader, Manuel Noriega, who was accused of drug trafficking and money laundering. Like Maduro, Noriega had been a U.S. ally who had become persona non grata, and his arrest required direct military intervention on Panamanian soil. Operation Just Cause, as it was dubbed, lasted several weeks and resulted in hundreds of deaths among Panamanian civilians—a death toll that remains controversial to this day. Noriega was eventually extradited to the United States, where he was sentenced to forty years in prison for drug trafficking.

However, the differences between the two operations are also significant. The invasion of Panama was preceded by a prolonged diplomatic crisis and enjoyed a certain degree of international consensus, particularly from Latin American countries that viewed Noriega as a corrupt and dangerous leader. In contrast, the operation in Venezuela was carried out without prior consultation with the United States’ international partners and drew much broader condemnation, including from countries traditionally close to Washington. Furthermore, the oil dimension of the Venezuelan crisis adds an economic and geopolitical complexity that did not exist in the Panamanian case. The United States had not promised to occupy Panama indefinitely or to exploit its natural resources after Noriega’s departure.

These historical parallels remind me of that quote by Karl Marx: history repeats itself—the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Except that in this case, it feels like we’re getting both at the same time. The tragedy of a military intervention that kills civilians, violates a country’s sovereignty, and creates lasting trauma. And the farce of a U.S. president strutting in front of the cameras as if he’d just won a great personal victory, completely ignoring the lessons of the past. It’s as if nothing has been learned since 1990, as if every generation were destined to repeat the same mistakes with the same devastating consequences.

The Unlearned Lessons of Iraq

The parallels with the 2003 invasion of Iraq are perhaps even more troubling. Like George W. Bush before him, Donald Trump presented the intervention in Venezuela as a liberating mission aimed at overthrowing a tyrannical regime and bringing democracy and prosperity to an oppressed people. Like Bush, Trump promised that the operation would be short, inexpensive, and beneficial to all, claiming that the occupation would be funded by the country’s own natural resources. Like Bush, he downplayed the risks of a prolonged occupation and expressed confidence in the United States’ ability to reshape a foreign country according to its own values and interests.

Yet the Iraqi experience has demonstrated the dangers of such promises. The occupation of Iraq lasted eight years, cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and destabilized the entire Middle East region, directly contributing to the emergence of the Islamic State. The financial cost to the United States amounted to more than 2,000 billion dollars, far exceeding initial estimates. Promises of democratization have given way to a reality of sectarian violence, widespread corruption, and persistent foreign interference. Experts warn that Venezuela could follow a similar path, with exacerbated ethnic and political divisions, potential resistance to occupation, and the risk of it turning into another protracted conflict in the Western Hemisphere.

What sends a chill down my spine is this collective amnesia that seems to afflict our leaders. It’s as if each new generation of politicians must forget the lessons of the past in order to repeat the same mistakes. Trump has never served in the military; he has never witnessed the horrors of war firsthand, so he can speak of occupation and transition with such frightening flippancy. But for the soldiers who will be sent there, for the Venezuelan civilians who will endure this occupation, it won’t be a video game; it won’t be a triumphant press conference. It will be the raw reality of violence, death, and destruction. And what fills me with despair is that we’re going to watch this unfold, powerless, knowing exactly how it will end but unable to do anything to prevent it.

Section 8: Implications for International Law

A flagrant violation of sovereignty

The U.S. operation in Venezuela constitutes a flagrant violation of one of the fundamental principles of international law: the sovereignty of states. Since the 1945 United Nations Charter, the international community has recognized the right of every state to freely determine its political destiny without foreign interference. This principle has been reaffirmed time and again, notably in General Assembly resolutions on the inadmissibility of intervention in the internal affairs of states. The capture by military force of a foreign head of state on his own territory represents an unprecedented breach of this established norm, setting an extremely dangerous precedent for the world order.

The UN Security Council, acting on an urgent request from Colombia, has scheduled a meeting on U.S. operations in Venezuela for Monday morning, but it is unlikely that this session will result in a formal condemnation of U.S. actions due to the United States’ veto power on the Council. This impotence of the international institution most supposed to guarantee world peace illustrates the limitations of the system established after World War II in the face of actions by major powers. Renowned legal scholars have warned that this precedent could be used by other countries to justify similar interventions in the future, creating a world where military force would become the primary arbiter of international relations at the expense of law and diplomacy.

It is this slow death of international law that terrifies me the most. Not a sudden, spectacular death, but this gradual erosion, this accumulation of violations that ultimately create a new reality where rules no longer have any meaning. We are told that the international order is dead, that it has been moribund for a long time, but I cannot help but think that it is dying today, right before our eyes, and that we are all complicit in this death through our silence, our inaction, and our resignation. Because the law is not just text in books; it is a system of beliefs, a shared faith that certain principles are sacred and must be protected. When that faith disappears, when the powerful decide that the rules do not apply to them, there is nothing left.

The specter of impunity

Beyond the violation of sovereignty, the U.S. operation raises fundamental questions about the impunity of major powers on the international stage. If the United States can capture a foreign head of state by force and try him on its own territory without significant consequences, what message does that send to the rest of the world? That military might takes precedence over the law? That major powers are above the laws governing relations between nations? This perception of impunity could have disastrous long-term consequences, encouraging other countries to act in a similar manner and undermining confidence in the international institutions meant to regulate conflicts.

Maduro’s case is particularly emblematic because he is a head of state accused of serious crimes, including human rights violations and corruption. But the way these accusations have been used to justify unilateral military intervention raises troubling questions about the selective application of international justice. Why Maduro and not other leaders accused of similar crimes? Who decides which leaders are worthy of prosecution and which are protected by their status as allies? These questions will likely never be clearly answered, but they will remain hanging like swords of Damocles over the international system, reminding everyone that justice, in this world, remains profoundly unequal and selective.

It is this inequality in justice that revolts me the most—this sense that the world is divided between those who judge and those who are judged, between those who can violate the rules with impunity and those who are punished for the slightest infractions. Maduro is certainly no saint—far from it—but is it really the role of the United States to judge him, capture him, and imprison him? Is it really up to a foreign power to decide who leads Venezuela? It is this moral arrogance that both fascinates and terrifies me—this conviction of being on the right side, on the side of justice, without ever questioning one’s own methods or motivations. And what fills me with despair is that nothing seems capable of stopping this machine—that verbal condemnations, UN resolutions, diplomatic protests—none of it seems to have any effect on a power determined to do as it pleases.

Section 9: The Role of Oil in the Equation

Reserves That Are Highly Coveted

Venezuela possesses the world’s largest oil reserves, surpassing even those of Saudi Arabia. According to OPEC estimates, the country holds approximately 303 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, located primarily in the Orinoco Belt. These reserves account for about 18% of total global reserves, a potential windfall that has long been coveted by the world’s major powers. However, Venezuela’s oil industry has suffered from decades of mismanagement, underinvestment, and international sanctions, leading to a dramatic decline in production. From more than 3 million barrels per day in the early 2000s, production fell to less than 700,000 barrels per day in 2025, transforming the country—once OPEC’s wealthiest member—into an economically dependent nation.

Trump acknowledged this reality during his press conference, announcing that major U.S. oil companies would invest heavily in the country to renovate severely deteriorated infrastructure. According to experts, this restoration could take years and require investments of tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars. Refining, transportation, and export infrastructure have all suffered from neglect, and skilled workers have fled the country en masse during the economic crisis of recent years. Furthermore, U.S. sanctions imposed since 2019 have further complicated the situation, preventing Western companies from investing in Venezuela’s oil sector. The gradual lifting of these sanctions, combined with the investments promised by Trump, could theoretically revive Venezuela’s oil industry, but this process will be long, costly, and fraught with obstacles.

Oil, always oil. It’s like an obsession, a curse that has haunted this country for generations. I feel that Venezuela is cursed by its natural resources, that this oil—which should be a blessing—is in fact a curse that attracts all manner of greed, interference, and violence. And what fills me with despair is that nothing seems capable of breaking this cycle, that Venezuelans will continue to suffer because of this wealth they cannot truly possess. Trump talks about investments, reconstruction, and prosperity, but I can’t bring myself to believe that his motivation is truly to help the Venezuelan people. It’s probably too naive of me, but I refuse to accept that greed could be the sole driving force behind world politics.

Promises of Funding for the Occupation

One of Trump’s most controversial statements was his promise that the occupation of Venezuela would cost American taxpayers nothing, as it would be funded by the money coming out of the ground. This phrasing, which explicitly refers to oil revenues, is reminiscent of similar promises made before the invasion of Iraq, when U.S. officials claimed that the country’s oil resources would pay for the war and reconstruction. That promise proved illusory, as the actual costs to the United States amounted to more than 2,000 billion dollars—far exceeding Iraq’s oil revenues.

Energy experts warn that the situation in Venezuela is even more complex than that of Iraq in 2003. Venezuela’s oil infrastructure is in an advanced state of disrepair, and current production represents only a fraction of what it was twenty years ago. Restoring the industry would require massive investments and many years before significant revenues could be generated. Furthermore, the global oil market is currently saturated, and adding large quantities of Venezuelan oil could drive prices down, thereby reducing potential revenues. Finally, oil investments are inherently risky and uncertain, depending on geopolitical, economic, and technological factors beyond the control of the United States.

This promise of a free occupation, funded by oil, would make me laugh if it weren’t so tragic. It’s as if Trump were selling a car on credit while promising that the payments would be covered by a salary the buyer hasn’t even started earning yet. It’s pure irresponsibility, demagoguery in its rawest form. And what terrifies me is that many people will believe it, will accept this promise without ever questioning it, without ever asking how it will work in practice, what the human costs will be, the economic consequences, the political risks. We live in a post-truth era where promises matter more than realities, where words matter more than actions, and that fills me with deep despair.

Section 10: The Consequences for the Venezuelan People

A humanitarian crisis that is likely to worsen

Venezuela is already experiencing one of the most severe humanitarian crises in modern Latin American history. According to United Nations estimates, more than 7 million Venezuelans have fled their country since 2014—representing about 25% of the population—in one of the world’s largest forced migrations. Those who remain face chronic shortages of food, medicine, and basic goods, while hyperinflation has rendered the national currency virtually worthless. The healthcare system has collapsed, public infrastructure is deteriorating, and violence is wreaking havoc in the poorest neighborhoods. The U.S. operation and the occupation that could follow risk dramatically exacerbating this humanitarian crisis.

Population displacement could accelerate as Venezuelans flee not only poverty and repression but also potential fighting and political instability. Neighboring countries, already overwhelmed by the influx of refugees, could be forced to close their borders, creating a catastrophic humanitarian blockade. The collapse of public services could worsen with the destruction of infrastructure during military strikes and the disruptions caused by the occupation. Furthermore, potential resistance to the U.S. occupation—from pro-Maduro factions or other actors—could lead to an escalation of civil violence, endangering innocent civilians caught between the warring parties.

It is the faces of the Venezuelans that haunt me—those faces we see in news reports, faces marked by hunger, fear, and exhaustion. Children growing up in refugee camps without ever having known a stable home. Parents who must choose between staying and starving to death or leaving and risking death on the road. It is this invisible, daily, ongoing suffering that breaks my heart because it seems endless, like a curse descending upon a people who do not deserve this fate. And now, with this intervention, this occupation, this suffering risks worsening, turning into something even more terrible.

The Challenges of Reconstruction

Even in the best-case scenario, where the U.S. occupation manages to establish relative stability and set up a transitional government, rebuilding Venezuela will be a monumental challenge. The economy is in ruins, institutions are corrupt or have collapsed, and society is deeply divided and traumatized. Getting the country back on its feet will require massive investments, meticulous planning, and unprecedented international cooperation. Oil revenues, even if managed efficiently, will not be enough to solve all the structural problems that have plagued the country for decades.

Reconstruction will have to begin with national reconciliation—an extremely difficult process in a country polarized by more than twenty years of Chavista politics. Maduro’s supporters and opponents will have to learn to live together, forgive past wrongs, and build a shared future. Democratic institutions will have to be rebuilt from scratch, with guarantees of transparency, accountability, and respect for human rights. The education system will have to be reformed to train a new generation of citizens capable of actively participating in democratic life. And all of this will have to take place in a context where trust in institutions—including trust in a foreign occupation—will likely be low.

I’ve heard the word “reconstruction” so many times—after so many wars, so many disasters, so many crises. And every time, I wonder what it really means. Does it mean rebuilding buildings? Does it mean rebuilding economies? Or does it mean rebuilding lives, souls, and shattered hopes? Because buildings can always be rebuilt, but shattered lives, deep traumas, and invisible scars—those can’t really be rebuilt. And what fills me with despair is that we’ll forget the Venezuelans once the cameras are gone, once the media’s attention has shifted elsewhere. They’ll be left alone to face their ruins, their suffering, and their uncertain future.

Section 11: Risks for Latin America

A Return to the Monroe Doctrine

The U.S. operation in Venezuela marks an explicit return to the Monroe Doctrine, formulated in 1823 by President James Monroe, which asserted the United States’ right to intervene in the affairs of American nations to prevent the influence of European powers. Trump himself referred to this doctrine during his press conference, suggesting a modernized version that he dubbed the “Donroe Doctrine”—a play on his own name. This revivalist approach to U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere has sparked deep fears in many Latin American countries, which remember past U.S. interventions and their devastating consequences.

Latin American history is littered with U.S. interventions, from the Veracruz Expedition in Mexico in 1914 to the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba in 1961, including CIA-backed coups in Chile, Argentina, Brazil, and many other countries. These interventions have left deep scars in the collective Latin American memory and have fueled a lasting distrust of U.S. motives in the region. The return of this doctrine of aggressive interventionism risks reigniting these old resentments and further polarizing relations between the United States and its southern neighbors, making any future cooperation on issues of common interest—such as trade, security, or the environment—more difficult.

This Monroe Doctrine—this notion that Latin America is the United States’ private backyard—outrages me to the core. It’s as if these countries, these cultures, these peoples had no right to determine their own destiny, as if they were children who need a guardian to guide them. It is a condescending, even racist, view that denies the ability of Latin American peoples to govern themselves. And what fills me with despair is that this view seems to be making a comeback, that we are returning to an era I thought was long gone, where military might dictates international relations without regard for the dignity of weaker nations.

Potential Regional Instability

The operation in Venezuela also risks destabilizing the entire Latin American and Caribbean region in several ways. First, it could encourage other powers to intervene militarily in their neighbors’ affairs, setting a dangerous precedent for regional security. Second, it could intensify geopolitical rivalry between the United States and its international adversaries, such as China and Russia, which have invested heavily in Latin America in recent years and may seek to respond to U.S. action with countermeasures. Third, it could exacerbate internal tensions in countries across the region, where populist and anti-American movements could gain ground by presenting themselves as defenders of national sovereignty.

Already, countries such as Argentina under President Javier Milei have welcomed Venezuela’s newfound freedom, while others, such as Brazil and Mexico, have condemned the intervention. These differences risk creating rifts within regional organizations such as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) or the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), making it more difficult to mount a coordinated response to common challenges. Furthermore, potential instability in Venezuela could spread to neighboring countries, particularly Colombia and Brazil, which share long borders with Venezuela and could be affected by refugee flows, activities by armed groups, or cross-border political tensions.

What terrifies me is this cascade of unpredictable effects that could result from this intervention. It’s as if a stone had been thrown into a calm pond and we were watching the ripples spread farther and farther, affecting everything in their path. Governments falling, borders closing, societies becoming polarized, economies collapsing. And all because one power unilaterally decided to change the government of another country. It’s the butterfly effect applied to geopolitics—the flutter of an American president’s wings triggering a hurricane thousands of kilometers away. And the worst part is that no one seems able to predict with certainty how this will end, what damage will be caused, or whose lives will be shattered.

Section 12: The American Perspective

A Political Victory for Trump

For Donald Trump, this operation represents a major political victory that could significantly strengthen his position both at home and abroad. After months of criticism over his handling of the economy, the pandemic, and international relations, the dramatic capture of Maduro offers a rare opportunity to project an image of strength and determination. Polls have shown that foreign policy issues are generally not a priority for American voters, but this type of forceful action traditionally has a positive effect on presidential popularity, at least in the short term. Trump has skillfully framed the operation as a victory against narco-terrorism and a defense of national security—two themes that resonate particularly strongly with his electoral base.

However, this victory could prove to be a double-edged sword. A potential occupation of Venezuela risks becoming a protracted quagmire that could undermine Trump’s promises to end the endless wars that have cost the United States so dearly in lives and money. Members of his own party, including Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, have already expressed concern, arguing that this is precisely what many MAGA supporters thought they had voted to end. This potential rift within the Republican Party could weaken Trump’s position as the costs and difficulties of the occupation become more apparent. Furthermore, the Democrats, who have so far taken a cautious stance, could use the difficulties of the occupation to attack Trump on his foreign policy, particularly as the November midterm elections approach.

This politicization of the war—this transformation of a military operation into an electoral issue—repulses me. It’s as if the lives of soldiers and civilians don’t matter, as if all of this were just a political game, a way to score points in the polls. Trump struts in front of the cameras like a war hero, but what’s really happening in Venezuela is that people are dying, families are being torn apart, and lives are being shattered forever. And what fills me with despair is that many Americans will cheer him on and vote for him because of this, without ever thinking about the real human consequences of his actions.

The Economic and Human Costs for the United States

The occupation of Venezuela will represent a considerable financial and human commitment for the United States, far beyond Trump’s optimistic promises. According to experts’ estimates, the cost of a prolonged occupation could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention the indirect costs associated with economic disruption and diplomatic tensions. U.S. soldiers deployed to Venezuela will face constant risks, not only from hostile factions but also from tropical diseases, harsh weather conditions, and the psychological trauma associated with serving in a war zone. The families of these soldiers will have to bear the burden of absence and uncertainty, just as so many other American families did during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

From an economic standpoint, the promised investments in Venezuela’s oil industry will represent a massive capital commitment that could take years to generate returns, if any. Major U.S. oil companies will have to navigate a complex legal and political environment, with risks of nationalization, corruption, and political upheaval. Furthermore, the occupation could disrupt global oil markets, with unpredictable consequences for the U.S. and global economies. Finally, the diplomatic costs of the operation—including the deterioration of relations with Latin American countries and escalating tensions with China and Russia—could have lasting repercussions on the United States’ standing in the world.

It is these invisible costs—this suffering that doesn’t make the headlines—that haunt me. The soldiers who return home broken, unable to reintegrate into normal life. The families who are left wondering forever whether their father, son, or husband will ever come home alive. Taxpayers who see their money invested in occupations on the other side of the world instead of funding schools, hospitals, and infrastructure at home. And all of this for what? For oil? For geopolitics? For a president’s ego? It is this absurd logic—this prioritization of the interests of the powerful over the needs of ordinary people—that makes me so sad and angry.

Conclusion: Toward a New World Order

The Era of Great Power Impunity

The capture of Nicolas Maduro and the potential occupation of Venezuela likely mark the beginning of a new era in international relations—an era in which the great powers will not hesitate to use military force to defend their interests and impose their will on the world stage. Strict adherence to international law—already eroded by decades of interventions and violations—now seems to belong to a bygone era. In this new world, military and economic power will dictate the rules of the game, and weaker states will have to either align themselves with the dominant powers or face the consequences.

This shift has profound implications for the future of humanity. If major powers can intervene militarily in other countries without significant consequences, what future awaits smaller nations? What about democracy? For human rights? We risk returning to an era where might makes right, where the powerful dictate the fate of the weak without regard for their aspirations or fundamental rights. This is a terrifying prospect for all who believe in an international order based on respect for sovereignty, cooperation among nations, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

When I look to the future, I feel that mix of fear and resignation that overtakes me every time I realize just how quickly the world has changed. We are living in a time of upheaval, where the rules we thought were eternal are being redefined before our very eyes. And what despairs me most is that I don’t know if we can stop this evolution, if we can build a better world on the ruins of the one that is collapsing. There are days when I feel as though we are powerless spectators of a tragedy whose ending we know but cannot prevent.

Venezuela as a Mirror of Our World

Venezuela, with its immense natural resources and its suffering population, serves as a mirror to the contradictions and injustices of our modern world. On the one hand, it possesses the world’s largest oil reserves—a resource that could theoretically guarantee prosperity for all its inhabitants. On the other, it is undergoing one of the most severe humanitarian crises in contemporary history, with a starving population, a collapsed infrastructure, and an economy in ruins. This dichotomy perfectly illustrates the failures of our global economic system, where wealth does not benefit those who need it but instead attracts the greed and violence of external powers.

Venezuela’s history also reminds us that forced political transitions—even when aimed at overthrowing tyrannical regimes—do not necessarily guarantee a better future. Democracy cannot be imposed from the outside by military force; it must be built from within by the citizens themselves, often through long and difficult processes that require time, patience, and compromise. The U.S. occupation of Venezuela risks delaying rather than accelerating this democratic transition, by creating lasting resentment against any foreign intervention and undermining the legitimacy of internal political forces that might otherwise work toward change.

And here I am, watching it all unfold, feeling so small, so powerless. Like an ant watching a hurricane pass by, knowing there’s nothing to do but wait for it to pass and pray that the damage won’t be too irreparable. My heart breaks for Venezuela, for its people who deserve so much better than what the world has given them. I’m afraid for the future—for my own country, for my children who will grow up in a world where might trumps right, where power dictates the rules. But at the same time, I refuse to give up hope. Because if we give up hope, if we accept this as the new normal, then all is truly lost. We must continue to say no, to protest, to resist, even if it seems futile. Because history has taught us that even the most impregnable dictatorships eventually fall, that even the most unjust systems can be changed by the courage and determination of those who refuse to accept the unacceptable.

Sources

Primary Sources

France Info – Capture of Nicolas Maduro, strikes on Caracas: What We Know About the U.S.’s Unprecedented Military Operation in Venezuela – Published January 3, 2026

Reuters – Trump says U.S. will run Venezuela after U.S. captures Maduro – Published January 3, 2026

PBS NewsHour – U.S. strikes Venezuela and says leader Maduro has been captured and flown out of the country – Published January 3, 2026

Le Monde – U.S. Military Intervention in Venezuela: Yet Another Denial of a Moribund International Order – Published January 3, 2026

Secondary Sources

Associated Press – Trump says U.S. will run Venezuela after raid captures Maduro – Published January 4, 2026

CNN – January 3, 2026 — Maduro in U.S. custody – Published January 3, 2026

BBC Africa – What We Know About Maduro’s Capture – Published January 4, 2026

Wikipedia – 2026 U.S. strikes on Venezuela – Updated January 4, 2026

This content was created with the help of AI.

Commentaires

0 0 votes

Article Rating