US Military Intervention in Venezuela: A Controversial Strike or a New World Order?

The American military intervention in Venezuela has sparked global dismay and criticism, reverberating even within the United States. On Saturday morning, a command operation orchestrated by President Donald Trump resulted in the arrest of Nicolás Maduro, the autocratically ruling head of state, along with his wife, Cilia Flores, in the capital city of Caracas. They were subsequently flown to the U.S. to face charges, including alleged drug trafficking. Following the completion of the operation, named 'Absolute Resolve,' Trump announced that the U.S. would assume control over Venezuela, declaring, 'We will govern the country.' Nevertheless, the specifics of this governance remain ambiguous. Trump also proclaimed that American energy companies would invest billions in Venezuela's oil industry, an assertion underscored by Vice President's statement that 'We will never be a colony again.' The U.S. troops, after their operation, withdrew from Caracas without any casualties reported on their side. However, social media reports indicated that around 40 individuals, including civilians, may have lost their lives during the operation. As Trump aims for a realignment of global power dynamics, this military intervention has been interpreted as a move to entrench a new world order wherein the U.S. could outperform Russia and China in geopolitical influence, according to analysts like Herfried Münkler. In the wake of the intervention, the country’s Supreme Court appointed Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, a close ally of Maduro, as the interim president. Rodríguez stated emphatically, 'We will never be a colony, no matter which empire.' International law experts have strongly criticized the operation, with Christoph Safferling labeling the intervention as devoid of legal basis and likening it to kidnapping. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres described the action as a 'dangerous precedent,' indicating that the U.N. Security Council would address the issue imminently. Both Russia and China, major supporters of the former Venezuelan regime, voiced demands for Maduro's immediate release, declaring the action as a violation of fundamental international norms. Even traditional allies appeared cautious. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer refrained from directly criticizing but emphasized the need to respect international law. Meanwhile, Chancellor Friedrich Merz labeled the legal classification of the U.S. action as complex, as Vice Chancellor Lars Klingbeil reiterated the applicability of international law to the U.S.'s conduct. Within the U.S., the military operation has provoked outrage, particularly among Democrats, as it proceeded without prior notice to Congress. Hakeem Jeffries, the head of the Democratic party in the House of Representatives, stressed that promoting security and stability in a region is far more intricate than mere military force, recalling painful lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan. Questions abound regarding the underlying motivations for the intervention. While drug smuggling and Maduro’s alleged involvement in drug trafficking serve as surface-level justifications, many speculate that the true driving force may lie in Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, known to be the largest in the world. Analysts suggest that this could represent a continuation of traditional American interests in Latin America—territory the U.S. has viewed as its sphere of influence since the 19th century. Furthermore, the intervention signals power dynamics against China, which has significantly bolstered its economic footing in Venezuela, becoming the largest purchaser of its oil. It remains unclear who would lead Venezuela following Maduro’s ouster. When approached regarding potential successors, Trump refrained from endorsing opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate María Corina Machado, instead hinting at the appointment of Vice President Rodríguez, who herself has denied collaborating with the U.S. As the complexities of this situation unfold, the implications for Venezuelan sovereignty and regional stability remain deeply uncertain. Related Sources: • Source 1 • Source 2