U.S. Captures Venezuelan President Maduro in Large-Scale Military Operation

What emerges from the global response is nothing less than a fundamental reconfiguration of Latin American geopolitics. For the first time in the post-Cold War era, major Latin American powers are openly opposing a U.S. military operation in the region. (AI image generated by Tell Us Worldwide Media)

HOME I I HI TECH NEWS I SPORTS I CONTACT

000


	The image comes amid claims by President Donald Trump that Maduro and his wife were captured and flown out of Venezuela. (Photo: X/cristobalsoria)
	Washington Removed Maduro, Lost Latin America: What a Latin American Analyst Sees Ahead Elías Duran Camhaji - Analyst/Latin American Affairs Tell Us Worldwide News CARACAS, VENEZUELA - A Latin American Analyst's Assessment of Trump's Military Gambit and Regional Upheaval THE OPERATION AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE On Saturday morning, the Trump administration executed what may be the most consequential military operation in the Western Hemisphere since Panama 1989. The capture of Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, through a coordinated strike involving all branches of the U.S. military marks a watershed moment—one that fundamentally challenges the regional order that has evolved over the past two decades. What we witnessed was not merely a police action or a targeted strike. This was a full-scale occupation strategy, implicitly acknowledged by Trump's declaration that Washington will "run" Venezuela indefinitely until "a proper transition can take place"—language conspicuously vague about both timeline and end conditions. The presence of at least 7,000 U.S. military personnel, anchored by the USS Iwo Jima, signals this is no brief intervention. This is military administration with an undefined duration. The tactical competence of the operation is evident. Planning required months of coordination across all service branches, meticulous intelligence work, and the kind of logistical sophistication that only the world's preeminent military power possesses. General Dan Caine's characterization of the operation as "brilliant" was not mere hyperbole—from a purely military standpoint, the execution was flawless. Yet military success and strategic wisdom are not synonymous, a distinction that becomes increasingly apparent as we examine the international response. TRUMP'S STATED RATIONALE: THE PRESS CONFERENCE ANALYSIS The President's Mar-a-Lago press conference revealed several crucial aspects of Washington's thinking and miscalculations: The Oil Dimension: Trump's repeated references to controlling and selling Venezuelan oil expose the economic motivation undergirding this operation. This is not primarily about democracy promotion or human rights—it is about energy resources and geopolitical dominance. For anyone familiar with Washington's historical interventions in Latin America (1953 Guatemala, 1973 Chile), this candor is both striking and deeply troubling. Congressional Circumvention: The administration's decision not to notify Congress beforehand, justified by Secretary Rubio as necessary to prevent leaks, represents a significant constitutional usurpation. The preference for operational security over legislative oversight establishes a dangerous precedent. Trump's blunt statement—"Congress leaks"—betrays contempt for institutional checks and balances. This is oligarchy masquerading as pragmatism. The Cuba Pivot: Trump's signaling that Cuba will be next is not rhetorical flourish but strategic warning. The administration is clearly contemplating a broader Latin American realignment, one that would reshape the region's political economy entirely. This represents a revival of early Cold War interventionism, reimagined for 21st-century conditions. The Maduro Question: Trump's assertion that he has been in communication with Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, claiming she agreed to cooperate, appears to be either disinformation or a spectacular miscalculation. Rodríguez's subsequent televised address—defiant, demanding proof of Maduro's whereabouts, reasserting his legitimacy—suggests the administration profoundly misread the situation. This is critical: even members of the Maduro regime are not capitulating as expected. THE REGIONAL RESPONSE: A HISTORIC REALIGNMENT What emerges from the global response is nothing less than a fundamental reconfiguration of Latin American geopolitics. For the first time in the post-Cold War era, major Latin American powers are openly opposing a U.S. military operation in the region. Brazil's Pivotal Stance President Lula da Silva's response deserves particular scrutiny. His assertion that the strikes "cross an unacceptable line" and his warning that attacking countries "in flagrant violation of international law is the first step toward a world of violence, chaos, and instability, where the law of the strongest prevails over multilateralism" represents a decisive break from decades of Brazilian compliance with U.S. regional hegemony. This is the leader of Latin America's largest economy and most influential nation explicitly rejecting American military unilateralism. This matters profoundly. Brazil has historically sought equilibrium between U.S. partnership and regional autonomy. Lula's choice to explicitly condemn the operation rather than maintain diplomatic ambiguity signals that Washington has crossed a threshold in Brazilian calculations about regional order. The Colombian Conundrum Colombia's response is particularly revealing because it exposes the contradictions of U.S. strategy. Despite being Washington's closest military and strategic ally in South America, President Gustavo Petro has condemned the operation as "an aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America." Petro, who sits uncomfortably between his leftist political roots and the reality of Washington's overwhelming military presence on Colombian territory, had to publicly distance himself from the very power that underpins his presidency's security architecture. This is the trap Washington has created for itself: even its nominal allies must protect their own legitimacy by opposing naked interventionism. The Ideological Collapse of "Democratic Solidarity" Washington has long justified its Latin American interventions through the rhetoric of democracy promotion and human rights. The Biden administration nominally supported Venezuelan opposition leaders like María Corina Machado and Edmundo González, framing opposition to Maduro within democratic and humanitarian frameworks. Trump has discarded this language entirely. His administration has replaced democratic solidarity with naked power assertion: we will control Venezuela because we can; we will extract its oil because we can; we will move on to Cuba next because we can. This candor, while honest about American power, destroys the ideological legitimacy that Washington has cultivated since at least the Cold War's end. For Latin American leaders, this is actually clarifying, if alarming. The pretense is gone. This is about hegemony, not principle. THE INTERNATIONAL LAW CRISIS The international response reveals a unprecedented consensus that Washington has violated fundamental principles of international law. The UN Secretary-General expressed being "deeply alarmed," Russia called it "an act of armed aggression," and China condemned it as a "serious violation" of Venezuela's sovereignty. Even U.S. allies have hedged their support with caveats about international law. This is extraordinarily significant. A permanent member of the UN Security Council (Russia) and the second-largest economy globally (China) have unambiguously accused Washington of military aggression. Whatever the operational merits of the strike, the geopolitical cost is enormous. The absence of any plausible legal framework for this operation is notable. The U.S. did not invoke self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, nor did it seek Security Council authorization. The administration has simply acted, daring the international community to respond. This is legal nihilism at the state level—a calculation that American military power can impose outcomes regardless of international law's constraints. THE OPPOSITION PROBLEM: A NEGLECTED QUESTION One aspect that deserves greater scrutiny is what this intervention means for Venezuela's opposition. María Corina Machado and Edmundo González, the faces of democratic resistance to Maduro, have notably remained silent or issued oblique responses. Neither has publicly celebrated the U.S. operation, a notable restraint given their years of opposition. Why? Likely because they understand a fundamental reality: an opposition that comes to power through foreign military occupation faces severe legitimacy deficits. The opposition can claim electoral validity (González won the disputed July 2024 election), but military occupation undermines the very democratic credentials they have been asserting. How can one claim to represent the people's will when you are installed by foreign troops? This is the paradox of U.S. intervention: it may remove the dictator, but it potentially discredits the alternative. Venezuela's opposition faces the prospect of governing under American military supervision—hardly the democratic restoration they have envisioned. HISTORICAL ECHOES AND DIVERGENT OUTCOMES The Panama 1989 comparison is instructive but potentially misleading. Yes, the operational similarities are striking: swift military action, removal of a dictator, rapid establishment of control. But the contexts differ dramatically. Panama in 1989 was a strategically critical country controlling the Canal, with a relatively small, homogeneous population of 2.5 million. The occupation could be brief because the geopolitical objectives were limited and the nation was manageable at small scale. Venezuela is an entirely different proposition: 28 million people, massive territorial expanse, deeply fragmented political society, and no easily identifiable post-occupation political settlement. The Panamanian opposition had coherent leadership and broad legitimacy. Venezuela's opposition is fractious, weakened by Maduro's repression, and now implicated in foreign occupation. The likelihood of a lengthy American military presence is extraordinarily high. Washington may have vastly underestimated the complexity of consolidating control over a hostile, fragmented nation of this scale. REGIONAL REALIGNMENT: THE STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS What is emerging is a potential reconfiguration of Latin American alignments that will have ramifications for decades: The China-Russia Card: Latin American nations dissatisfied with Washington's unilateralism now have alternatives. Chinese investment, Russian military support, and diplomatic backing from both powers provide counterbalances that did not exist during the Cold War. Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico are unlikely to formally ally with Beijing or Moscow, but they can use the threat of such realignment to constrain Washington's freedom of action. The Regional Powers' Assertion: Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia—the three major regional economies—are simultaneously asserting autonomy and asserting limits. None can effectively oppose Washington militarily, but all can undermine occupation objectives through diplomatic resistance, public opposition, and refusal of cooperation. The Ideological Shift: Cuba's Miguel Díaz-Canel calling the operation a "criminal US attack" and demanding an urgent international response signals that Washington's actions are unifying anti-American sentiment across the region's left. This is precisely the opposite of what the administration likely intended. THE CUBAN ESCALATION SCENARIO Trump's transparent signaling that Cuba will be next is not mere rhetoric. It represents a fundamental challenge: Will Washington proceed with another military intervention? And if so, what are the cascading consequences? A U.S. operation against Cuba would represent an even more dramatic assertion of hegemony than Venezuela. Cuba is more ideologically committed, more populous, more militarily prepared, and embedded in explicit alliance with Russia and China. The international blowback would be exponentially greater. Yet Trump's apparent willingness to contemplate such action suggests he may believe that demonstrating overwhelming force in Venezuela will deter alternatives and create the space for further intervention. Alternatively, he may simply be signaling resolve without intending action. Either way, the mere contemplation of Cuban intervention transforms the regional climate. ASSESSMENT AND OUTLOOK From a Latin American analyst's perspective, this moment represents both a climax and a beginning. The climax: the end of the fiction that the United States respects regional sovereignty and international law in the Americas. The beginning: a reconfiguration of how regional powers will organize themselves in response. The operation succeeded militarily and failed strategically. Washington removed Maduro but energized regional opposition, unified major Latin American powers against American unilateralism, and potentially set conditions for the kind of anti-American realignment that has not existed since the Cold War. The fundamental question now is whether Washington can consolidate political control over Venezuela while managing the regional backlash, or whether the occupation becomes a quagmire that exhausts American attention and resources. Historical precedent suggests the latter is more likely. What is certain: Latin America's post-Cold War order—predicated on nominal American hegemony within frameworks of international law and regional cooperation—has ended. What replaces it remains to be determined, but it will be measurably different from what preceded it.