Assessing the Structural Shift: The U.S. Operation in Venezuela and Its Global Implications

The United States executed a large-scale, nighttime strike on Caracas early Saturday, culminating a months-long campaign of escalating pressure. President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that U.S. forces had captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and flown them out of the country. The operation, which lasted less than 30 minutes and involved multiple explosions and low-flying aircraft, marks a dramatic shift from a "war on narco-terrorism" to an overt regime-change effort. The immediate consequence is a constitutional power vacuum, as Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who has issued a defiant statement demanding proof of life for Maduro, should assume power under Venezuelan law.

This was not an impulsive act. The operation was the logical culmination of a deliberate escalation ladder that began in late summer 2025. The campaign started with kinetic strikes on suspected drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, killing over 100 alleged traffickers. It then progressed to a naval buildup and a de facto quarantine of Venezuelan oil exports, followed by CIA covert operations on Venezuelan territory, including a drone strike last week. The final phase was a large-scale strike on key military facilities around Caracas, executed by elite special operations teams. The pattern of pressure included the seizure of Venezuelan oil tankers and the announcement of a $50 million bounty on Maduro's head, accusing him of being one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world.

The contested legality of the operation is central to its immediate aftermath. Under customary international law, the capture of a sitting head of state is a grave violation. Yet the U.S. legal framework for proceeding is built on a prior indictment. Maduro was indicted in March 2020 on "narco-terrorism" conspiracy charges in the Southern District of New York, with prosecutors alleging he conspired with Colombian rebels to flood the U.S. with cocaine. The U.S. strategy hinges on the Ker-Frisbie doctrine, a legal principle that holds a court's power to try a defendant is not negated by how they were brought to U.S. soil. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has stated that Maduro "has been arrested by U.S. personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States." This doctrine, if upheld, provides a pathway for prosecution but does not resolve the fundamental breach of sovereignty.

The immediate consequences are a diplomatic rupture and a political vacuum. Russia, Iran, and Cuba have condemned the action as an "act of armed aggression" and "state terrorism", calling for a UN Security Council meeting. The U.S. State Department has issued a travel alert urging Americans in Venezuela to shelter in place. The bottom line is that the operation has succeeded in removing its target, but it has done so in a manner that violates established norms. The legality of the capture is now a legal and diplomatic question, while the political future of Venezuela remains a race between constitutional succession and violent power struggles.

The Venezuelan Vacuum: Succession Dynamics and Economic Shock

The immediate power vacuum in Caracas is a high-stakes geopolitical flashpoint. Under Venezuelan law, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez is the constitutional successor. Yet her authority is now in question, as the U.S. operation that captured President Nicolás Maduro has shattered the regime's command structure. Rodríguez's initial statement, demanding proof of life for Maduro and his wife, was a reactive call for order, not a declaration of control. The military's loyalty is the critical unknown. With the president gone and key installations targeted, the armed forces face a choice between upholding the constitution or aligning with the most powerful faction in the ensuing chaos.

The primary successor candidates fall into two starkly different camps. On one side are opposition figures like María Corina Machado and Edmundo González, who have international recognition and are seen by experts as the likely architects of a transitional government. They command significant domestic support and represent a path toward democratic transition. On the other side are hardliners like Diosdado Cabello, a feared figure within the Chavismo regime. Cabello, with his control over party machinery and internal enforcement, poses a direct risk of a violent, negotiated succession that could entrench authoritarian power rather than dismantle it. The world is watching to see which faction can mobilize first and most effectively.

The direct threat to global energy markets is immediate and severe. Venezuela holds the world's largest proven oil reserves, with around 303 billion barrels. This endowment, though largely untapped due to years of decline, is the nation's economic lifeblood. The operation has already targeted key infrastructure, and the resulting instability creates a clear risk of immediate production disruption. Any significant halt to output from this reserve giant would send shockwaves through global markets, adding volatility to an already sensitive energy landscape. The bottom line is that the power vacuum in Venezuela is not just a regional crisis; it is a potential catalyst for a global energy shock, with the world's largest oil reserves now at the center of a dangerous succession struggle.

Geopolitical Fallout: Alliance Strains and the Rules-Based Order

The international response to the U.S. strikes on Venezuela has laid bare a deepening rift in the global order. Major powers like Russia and Iran have condemned the operation as a clear act of aggression, framing it as a direct challenge to national sovereignty. Russia's foreign ministry called the strikes an act of armed aggression and accused the U.S. of letting ideological animosity prevail over business pragmatism. Iran's Supreme Leader echoed this, vowing resistance against what he called an arrogant attempt to impose something on Venezuela. Both nations have backed calls for an emergency UN Security Council meeting, seeking to rally a coalition against what they see as a dangerous precedent.

This condemnation stands in contrast to the more measured, yet still critical, stance of many Western allies. While European Union leaders like High Representative Kaja Kallas have reiterated that the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected, their focus has been on de-escalation and protecting citizens. Countries like Spain, Belgium, and Italy have called for restraint and offered mediation, while Germany's CDU member Roderich Kiesewetter went further, labeling the U.S. action a coup that marks a return to the old U.S. doctrine from before 1940: a mindset of thinking in terms of spheres of influence. This divergence signals a potential strain on transatlantic unity, as some allies prioritize legalistic concerns and diplomatic channels, while others appear to accept a more interventionist posture.

The broader implications for the rules-based international order are severe. The operation signals a retreat from the post-1945 consensus that sought to constrain the use of military force. By using overwhelming power to achieve a political objective-capturing a foreign leader-the U.S. appears to be endorsing a doctrine where the law of force, not international law, determines outcomes. As former Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte warned, this sets a precedent where rules only apply to enemies and not to friends, undermining the very foundation of a predictable global system. The result is a world where the strongest can act with impunity, destabilizing the order that has governed great-power relations for decades.

Structural Implications: A New U.S. Doctrine for the Western Hemisphere

The U.S. operation in Venezuela fulfills a stark new doctrine. The administration's "Trump corollary", published in early December, explicitly asserts that the Western Hemisphere must be controlled by the U.S. politically, economically, and militarily, with the use of force to gain access to energy and mineral resources. The capture of President Maduro is the first major test of this doctrine, a dramatic escalation that uses military force to remove a sitting head of state. This sets a dangerous precedent, directly undermining the long-standing norm of sovereignty and the principle that serving leaders are untouchable under international law.

The operation's objective is clear: Venezuela holds the world's largest proven crude oil reserves, a strategic prize that has defined its geopolitical importance. The U.S. campaign, which included a $50 million bounty on Maduro's head and the seizure of Venezuelan tankers, was a maximum pressure effort to gain leverage over these resources. The legal basis for the capture, the Ker-Frisbie doctrine, allows U.S. courts to try a foreign leader regardless of how they were brought to American soil, effectively creating a loophole for extraterritorial enforcement. This combination of doctrine, force, and legal justification establishes a new template for intervention.

The long-term stability of the region and the global energy market now hinges on the U.S. ability to manage the transition. The immediate aftermath is fraught with risk. The power vacuum left by Maduro's removal could be filled by a range of dangerous actors, from hardliners within the former regime to rival factions within the opposition. Experts warn that if opposition leaders fail to fill the vacuum, a crowded field of human rights violators and corrupt enforcers could seize power. This instability would not be contained; it would likely trigger retaliatory actions and regional conflict, as other nations perceive the U.S. doctrine as a direct threat to their own sovereignty.

The bottom line is a fundamental shift in the rules of engagement. The U.S. has moved from a policy of pressure to one of direct regime change, justified by a new doctrine that prioritizes resource access over international norms. The success of this operation is not measured by the capture alone, but by the U.S.'s capacity to install a stable, compliant government and prevent a wider conflagration. The world is now watching to see if this is the beginning of a new era of American dominance in the hemisphere-or the spark that ignites a broader conflict.