US Operation in Venezuela Sparks Global Concern

DID Press: US intervened in Panama, Nicaragua, and other Latin American countries under banners such as “defending democracy” or “combating drug trafficking,” Decades ago. In practice, those operations often produced instability and long-lasting crises.

In the early hours of 3 January 2026, U.S. armed forces launched a large-scale operation against Venezuela, bombing multiple locations in Caracas and ultimately detaining President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. The mission, conducted under the codename “Operation Absolute Resolve,” marks the most direct U.S. intervention in Latin America in recent decades.

According to U.S. officials, Maduro and his spouse were captured by special forces and transferred to New York to face charges related to “narco-terrorism” and drug trafficking. The U.S. president has said Washington will temporarily oversee Venezuela’s transition until a “safe political transfer” takes place, framing the move as an effort to secure freedom and prosperity for the Venezuelan people.

However, these claims sit uneasily with political and legal realities. The use of military force to detain the head of a sovereign state, without UN Security Council authorization or the consent of the target government, is difficult to justify under international law and recalls Washington’s earlier interventionist policies in the region.

Global reactions underscore widespread concern. China labeled the move a “clear violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty,” while several Latin American governments, including Colombia and Mexico, condemned the operation. By contrast, some regional leaders, such as Argentina’s president, voiced support, calling it a step toward “freedom.” These divergent responses highlight the depth of the geopolitical crisis and the gap between international legal norms and great-power politics.

Analysts argue the operation reflects Washington’s bid to reassert influence in Latin America and secure strategic assets, particularly Venezuela’s oil sector. The stated war on drugs, they contend, serves as a pretext for renewed regional dominance — a strategy that carries significant political and humanitarian risks.

The move is also likely to exacerbate Venezuela’s internal divides. While parts of the opposition have welcomed Maduro’s arrest, many citizens and political groups fear long-term instability. Warnings of potential refugee flows and possible resistance from local military units illustrate the complexity of the crisis.

Critics question how a U.S. administration can order military action and temporary control over a sovereign country without meeting international legal thresholds or securing the target state’s consent — a decision that may erode trust in Washington and set a dangerous precedent for the international order.

Ultimately, the arrest of Maduro and the U.S. military operation appear less a solution to Venezuela’s domestic problems than a return to historical interventionism — a policy framed as delivering “freedom and welfare,” yet aimed at preserving regional hegemony. The likely consequences include deeper internal turmoil, broader regional instability, and heightened geopolitical tensions — raising the question of whether the United States is prepared to manage the fallout.

By Ehsanullah Ghori – DID News Agency