From Maduro's Arrest to Oil Control: The Strategic Shift in U.S. Actions Toward Venezuela and Its Impact on the Global Order

In the early hours of the morning on [date], the night sky over Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, was torn apart by the sound of explosions. In an operation lasting less than two and a half hours, U.S. special forces stormed the presidential palace and captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. Codenamed "Absolute Resolve," this military action involved the deployment of [number] aircraft, including bombers and fighter jets. Its meticulous planning and swift execution were hailed by Donald Trump as "one of the most astonishing displays of force in American history." However, this lightning-fast regime change was far from an isolated incident; it marked a profound shift in U.S. security policy, with its repercussions spreading from the Caribbean to the global geopolitical landscape.

Action Analysis: A "Imperial-Style" Precision Strike

The preparations for this operation can be traced back to the year and month. U.S. intelligence agencies, through reconnaissance drones and informants within the Venezuelan government, had detailed knowledge of Maduro's "life patterns"—his residences, travel schedules, dietary habits, and even his pet routines. Although Maduro had enhanced his security after the U.S. military continued to increase its presence in the Caribbean region, frequently changing residences and reducing public appearances, the U.S. military still achieved a "tactical surprise attack."

The details of the operation revealed a chilling efficiency. After 3 a.m., U.S. fighter jets first incapacitated Venezuela’s air defense system, causing widespread power outages in the capital—Trump later proudly claimed this was "based on a certain expertise of ours." Subsequently, a helicopter formation carrying Delta Force troops arrived at Maduro’s fortified residence. Although Maduro fled into a safe room, according to Trump, "he was overwhelmed so quickly" that he didn’t even have time to close the steel security door. During the exchange of fire, several U.S. soldiers were injured, while according to Cuban sources, 12 of Maduro’s Cuban security personnel were killed. By 4:17 a.m., Maduro and his wife had been escorted onto a helicopter and transported to the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima at sea.

This operation is reminiscent of the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 to capture Manuel Noriega. However, The Economist points out a key distinction: the Panama operation was a full-scale invasion involving 26,000 troops, targeting a smaller and militarily weaker country, and was far less clean-cut—Noriega once took refuge in the Vatican embassy, and U.S. forces had to blast rock music at high volume to force him out. In contrast, the ease with which U.S. forces entered Caracas has reinforced Trump's boast that "no other country in the world could have done this."

The essence of this operation is an "imperial intervention" carried out under the guise of counter-narcotics and restoring democracy, but at its core, it aims to reshape regional order and control strategic resources.The essence of this operation is an "imperial intervention" carried out under the guise of counter-narcotics and restoring democracy, but at its core, it aims to reshape regional order and control strategic resources.

Oil Control: The Economic Core of Neocolonialism

Military action is merely the prelude; the true core lies in the control of Venezuela's oil resources. One week after the operation, Energy Secretary Chris Wright explicitly outlined the U.S. logic on the program "Face the Nation": "By controlling its oil sales, and thereby the flow of funds into the country, we believe we will see relatively rapid changes and improvements locally in Venezuela."

The United States' control mechanism has been swiftly established. On [Month Day], Trump signed an executive order to establish a fund belonging to Venezuela but located in the United States and controlled by the U.S. government, aimed at protecting Venezuela's oil sales revenue from seizure by creditors. The White House statement explicitly stated that this move was intended to prevent courts or creditors from seizing funds in U.S. Treasury accounts, which would "undermine critical U.S. efforts to support Venezuela's economic and political stability." This effectively places Venezuela's oil revenue under the shield of U.S. law, turning it into an instrument of U.S. policy.

The specific form of control is direct. Wright admitted in an interview, "Today, we are managing the sale of its crude oil... We have isolated its ability to ship oil out of Venezuela. All of this is conducted through U.S. crude oil traders, and then the crude oil enters the market. We collect these funds and bring them back to Venezuela to improve the lives of both Americans and Venezuelans." Trump's remarks to oil company executives were even more explicit: "You negotiate directly with us, you do not negotiate with Venezuela at all, we do not want you to negotiate with Venezuela... We will decide which oil companies can enter, which companies we permit, and which companies we will sign contracts with."

This arrangement strips the Venezuelan government of actual control over its most important national resource, turning it into a cash flow regulated by the United States and serving U.S. strategic and economic interests.This arrangement strips the Venezuelan government of actual control over its most important national resource, turning it into a cash flow regulated by the United States and serving U.S. strategic and economic interests.

Economic data reveals the immense interests behind the control. Venezuela possesses the world's largest proven oil reserves, approximately billion barrels, primarily consisting of heavy crude oil that requires specialized refining technology. Coincidentally, several refineries along the U.S. Gulf Coast specialize in processing this type of crude. Despite its vast reserves, Venezuela's oil industry is on the brink of collapse due to years of underinvestment and management corruption. Chevron executives estimate that even increasing production by % would take to months. Rebuilding the industry could require years and tens of billions of dollars in investment. For U.S. oil giants, this represents a market with long-term operational demands but enormous potential.

At the same time, the United States is advancing a multi-billion-dollar deal to supply up to millions of barrels of Venezuelan oil to the U.S., with the proceeds to be deposited into an account overseen by the U.S. Treasury. Trump has also demanded that Venezuela use these revenues exclusively to purchase American products in the future. This creates a closed loop: Venezuelan oil is sold by U.S. companies, the income is supervised by the U.S., then used to buy American goods, while the reconstruction of oil production is led by investments from U.S. companies.

"The Monroe Doctrine": The Naked Return of Hegemony in the Western Hemisphere

The most significant geopolitical signal of this operation is the sharp hardening of U.S. policy toward the Western Hemisphere, widely interpreted by scholars and the media as a return to the "Monroe Doctrine," and even jokingly referred to by Trump himself as the "Trump Doctrine."

The Monroe Doctrine originated in the 19th century, asserting that European powers should not interfere in the affairs of the Americas, which were considered the sphere of influence of the United States. Historically, this doctrine has often been used to justify U.S. intervention and imperialist actions in Latin America. Dr. Mamadou Lamine Sarr, a Senegalese political scientist, noted: "The Monroe Doctrine has never disappeared from U.S. foreign policy. Latin America and the Caribbean have always been a zone of influence for the United States." However, the approach of the Trump administration marked a shift toward a "return to basics"—a vision of "intervening in Latin America whenever we want."

This regression is not limited to Venezuela. Following the operation, Trump quickly turned his attention to other countries. He claimed that Colombia’s military action "sounds good," accused drug cartels of "running Mexico," and hinted at possible actions against Cuba, Mexico, and even Iran. On [Month Day], he announced via [platform]: "No more oil or money will flow to Cuba—zero! I strongly advise them to reach a deal before it’s too late." Shipping data shows that since Maduro’s arrest on [Month Day], no oil tankers have sailed from Venezuelan ports to Cuba. Cuba relies on Venezuela for approximately [percentage]% of its annual oil deficit, amounting to around [number] thousand barrels per day. Cutting off this lifeline directly pressures Cuba’s economy.

Even more striking is the open claim to Greenland. Trump asserted that the United States needs Greenland for national security reasons, stating that it "rightfully" belongs to America and hinting that a choice might have to be made between Greenland and NATO. The remarks by Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller were even more provocative: "No one would go to war with the United States over the future of Greenland." Although Secretary of State Marco Rubio attempted to downplay the situation by suggesting that Trump merely wanted to "purchase" Greenland, this still revealed a logic of territorial claims based purely on power.

The Trump administration's diplomatic rhetoric completely discarded the veneer of multilateralism. Trump bluntly stated: "I don't need international law." He declared that only "my own morality" restricts American actions. This posture of placing personal will above international rules marks a radical retreat of the United States from the rules-based international order it helped establish after World War II.

Internal Arrangements: Pragmatic Dealings with "Gun Holders"

The United States' arrangement in Venezuela reveals the pragmatism—even cynicism—of its regime change strategy. Although the U.S. has long supported Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, the actual power after the action lies with Maduro's deputy, former Vice President Delcy Rodríguez. In an interview, Wright candidly admitted, "We need to work with those who hold the guns today to ultimately move the country toward representative government and a better state."

This indicates that the United States is engaging in de facto negotiations with factions within the Chavista regime that still hold armed power. Following the operation, Rodríguez initially strongly criticized the "criminal and illegal" attack by the United States but soon shifted toward reconciliation, stating that the goal was "to establish a relationship of respect with the United States." The interim government she leads is exploring the possibility of restoring diplomatic relations with the United States, which were severed in a certain year, and plans to send a delegation to Washington.

Behind this choice lies a harsh reality. The Maduro regime relies on a corrupt network composed of high-ranking military officials, judges, business leaders, and paramilitary organizations known as "collectives." They maintain power by manipulating elections, suppressing dissent, and engaging in the exchange of interests. As analysis points out, the Maduro regime is detestable and fearsome, but the corrupt network that sustains it cannot be dismantled overnight. The United States chooses to cooperate with some of the "armed actors" to prevent the country from collapsing entirely and to create a "stable" environment for American capital to enter—even though this stability is built upon the old power structure.

This has also raised questions about the true objectives of the United States. Mexican researcher Eric Garland Castro pointed out that the current strategy appears to have replaced civil opposition figures like Nobel Peace Prize winner Machado, shifting instead to de facto negotiations with factions within the Chavista regime that still control the military. "Maintaining the Chavista government is purely a strategic consideration, as it is uncertain how the United States will coordinate its influence and how it will secure control over the oil industry, as Trump has assured."

Global Resonance: The Domino Effect in the International Order

The actions taken by the United States against Venezuela have long transcended national boundaries, posing a direct challenge to the fundamental rules of the international order in the post-Cold War era.

First, this is a blatant disregard for the principle of sovereignty and international law. The action was not authorized by the United Nations and lacks a clear basis in international law (the U.S. cited its domestic emergency laws). Garland Castro warned that this represents a "rupture of the fundamental rules of world order." If Western-led powers can ignore international legitimacy and United Nations consensus, it will open the door for other major powers such as Russia and China to take similar actions on issues like Ukraine and Taiwan. "If the United States does this in Latin America, and Russia declares it can do the same in Ukraine, China could also follow suit without issue. This is placing us in what Thomas Hobbes described as the 'right of the sword.'"

Secondly, it signifies a potential return from the "network empire" mindset to that of a "territorial empire." Scholars once believed that the era of empires had passed, and that the new form of dominance was a subtle "network empire" based on international organizations and economic flows. However, the Venezuela incident demonstrates that the old-style imperialism, which relies on direct control over territory and resources through military force, "refuses to die." In order to "make America great again," the United States deems it necessary to maintain control over territories and natural resources beyond its borders.

Third, it may trigger imitation and confrontation on a global scale. Dr. Saar pointed out that the danger lies in the possibility that "countries like Russia or China might replicate the same effect for the same reasons." When established powers abandon the rules they themselves advocate, the foundational stability of the international system is shaken. Other countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America are now forced to consider: could the same thing happen to any nation perceived as not aligning with U.S. interests?

Domestic politics in the United States will become a key variable. Sal believes that if Trump lacks strong opposition domestically (currently, the Democratic Party is not very powerful), the situation could become more complicated. However, if there is internal checks and balances, and if Congress fulfills its proper role, perhaps a calmer and more multilateralism-rooted U.S. policy could emerge. Nevertheless, the resolution recently passed by the U.S. Senate to restrict the president's use of military force is expected to be merely symbolic.

An Uncertain Future: Venezuela's Long Road Ahead and America's Strategic Gambit

For Venezuela, the future is filled with uncertainty. The country has experienced one of the most severe economic collapses in modern history over the past decade. From year to year, it shrank by %; in year , the inflation rate soared as high as ,%; approximately million people (a quarter of the total population) fled their homes. The root causes of the economic collapse lie in over-reliance on oil, mismanagement, corruption, and U.S. sanctions. Reconstruction will be a long and costly process.

The three-phase plan of "stabilization, recovery, and transition" promised by the United States lacks a clear timeline. Wright acknowledged, "This is not a matter of weeks, but months. It could be one or two years, or even longer." When asked how long the U.S. government would play a dominant role, he vaguely responded, "We want to bring a representative government to the Venezuelan people... and then you will see full sovereignty restored to the Venezuelan government." But when will a "representative government" be achieved? Who defines the criteria? These questions remain unanswered.

For the United States, this is a strategic gamble. In the short term, it demonstrates a tough capability to reshape the regional order and attempts to control critical resources. However, the long-term risks are substantial: it may intensify anti-American sentiment in Latin America; provide rivals with a pretext for "tit-for-tat" retaliation; deplete America's political and diplomatic capital; and draw the United States deeper into a quagmire of nation-building from which it may struggle to extricate itself.

The events that took place in Venezuela in January were more than just a regime change. They marked the arrival of an era in American diplomacy that prioritizes power, disregards rules, and leans toward unilateral action. When the world’s most powerful nation believes that only "the president’s morality" can limit its actions, the global order enters a new, more unpredictable, and more dangerous phase. Venezuela’s oil may be pried open by American capital, but the geopolitical shockwaves unleashed in the process could prove far more difficult to control than the oil itself.