.jpeg)
While people across the world were celebrating the New Year, U.S. President Donald Trump launched air strikes last Friday on four Venezuelan cities and several military bases. By Saturday, reports emerged that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife had allegedly been taken hostage and transported to the United States. President Trump initially claimed that Maduro was involved in a “drug war” against the United States, accusing him of narco-terrorism.
However, during a Saturday night press conference, when Trump made sweeping claims about Venezuela’s oil reserves, his real intentions became evident. While congratulating himself on the alleged success of the operation, he announced that Venezuela would now be placed under American supervision. He further declared that the task of rebuilding the country would be entrusted to leading American oil companies, using Venezuela’s own oil revenues. These statements made it clear that the primary objective of the intervention was control over Venezuela’s oil wealth. The accusations against Maduro appeared to serve merely as a pretext.
Independent American analysts have described the arrest of President Maduro—long a political target of Trump—as a grave violation of international law. Invading a sovereign nation, arresting its sitting president, and transporting him to the United States represents an extraordinary act of international lawlessness. Even more alarming was Trump’s declaration that Washington would govern Venezuela until a so-called “transition of power” takes place. Such assertions set a dangerous precedent that could be replicated well beyond Latin America.
There is no denying that Maduro’s removal will provoke mixed reactions within Venezuela. For years, a global campaign had been underway to demonize him. He has been accused of economic mismanagement, suppressing dissent, election manipulation, and forcing millions to migrate. Allegations of drug trafficking have also been levelled against his government. Yet many experts in international relations argue that Trump’s actions were driven not by a concern for democracy or justice, but by the strategic objective of securing Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. Launching a military operation to arrest a foreign head of state and then ruling the country from Washington is a textbook expression of imperial ideology.
This display of American unilateralism is likely to have far-reaching geopolitical consequences. Even U.S. allies who were critical of Maduro have expressed concern. Russia and China have condemned Washington’s actions as a threat to the so-called rules-based international order. At the same time, the crisis offers China an opportunity to counter U.S. criticism of its own regional ambitions, particularly with regard to Taiwan.
America’s actions inevitably revive memories of its invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan—wars launched amid overconfidence and justified through questionable claims, only to end in humiliating withdrawals. Those countries have yet to return to stability. Trump’s assertion that the operation against Maduro will be funded through Venezuela’s oil revenues underscores Washington’s intent to control natural resources. The U.S. has also failed to clarify who will lead Venezuela or how the aspirations of its people for peace, security, and accountable governance will be met. India is among the countries that have voiced concern, reflecting wider global unease. History suggests that while removing an authoritarian ruler may be easy, achieving lasting peace and stability is far more complex.
The arrest and forced deportation of President Maduro also constitute a violation of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. By intercepting oil tankers in the Caribbean and allegedly killing civilians aboard ships without credible anti-drug justification, the United States has bypassed the UN Security Council and appointed itself judge and executioner. This intervention follows a familiar calculation.
First, it seeks to revive the Monroe Doctrine to reassert American dominance in the Americas—an order that governments like Venezuela, often in alliance with Cuba, had attempted to resist. Second, it aims to weaken Latin America’s growing economic ties with China, particularly in oil and infrastructure. Third, it represents a naked attempt to seize Venezuela’s enormous crude oil reserves, viewed as a strategic prize for American corporations.
America’s claims of victory may ultimately prove hollow. Although Maduro’s governance was authoritarian, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela continues to enjoy significant popular support. The Bolivarian movement emerged as a response to the extreme inequalities fostered under earlier, U.S.-backed elite regimes. By forcibly imposing a new political order, the United States is not liberating Venezuela but reinforcing fears of colonial plunder. The hypocrisy is unmistakable.
While the Trump administration declared Maduro the head of a drug cartel without presenting public evidence, it simultaneously ordered the release of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted on drug trafficking charges, and facilitated the rise of Washington-backed leader Nasry Asfura. In the post–Cold War, globalized, and interdependent world, hopes for a stable and liberal international order have repeatedly been undermined by the actions of major powers, including both the United States and Russia. Washington’s withdrawal from climate agreements and its escalation of trade wars reflect a broader contempt for international norms—arguably more dangerous than any single military action.
The attack on Venezuela is thus a natural and violent outcome of the isolationist–imperialist blend of Trumpism. If the international community remains silent, it risks endorsing a world order in which sovereignty exists only at Washington’s discretion.
Claims that President Maduro had links to Venezuelan drug cartels remain unsubstantiated. Trump’s attack on Caracas and the capture of Maduro and his wife inevitably recall the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Then, President George W. Bush falsely accused Saddam Hussein of possessing weapons of mass destruction—a claim amplified by much of the American media. The world now acknowledges that the invasion was based on fabricated evidence, with oil control as a central motive. Saddam Hussein was later executed after deeply flawed legal proceedings, and although U.S. forces withdrew under President Barack Obama, Iraq was left devastated.
Venezuela holds nearly 17 per cent of the world’s proven oil reserves. After the death of Hugo Chávez, an outspoken critic of U.S. foreign policy, Nicolás Maduro assumed leadership. Ideologically, he positioned himself as Chávez’s successor, implementing policies aimed at improving living standards for the majority—measures that deeply unsettled capitalist interests in the United States.
At the same time, Maduro faced serious allegations of repressing opposition and manipulating elections, especially after opposition leader María Corina Machado was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025. Yet accusations and counter-accusations are a feature of domestic politics worldwide. They do not confer moral authority on the United States to violate another nation’s sovereignty.
During Trump’s first term, attempts to seize Venezuela’s oil reserves failed. At the beginning of his second term, his intentions became unmistakable. Preparations had been underway for months: attacks on oil vessels, seizures at sea, and sustained media narratives. The final assault, culminating in the detention of President Maduro and his wife, revealed a stark reality—global politics today is governed less by democratic principles than by economic interests.
Comments