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

On the early morning of January 3, 2026, the night sky over Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, was torn apart by 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. This military operation, codenamed "Absolute Resolve," involved 150 aircraft, including bombers and fighter jets. Its meticulous planning and swift execution were hailed by Trump as one of the most astonishing displays of force in U.S. 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 impact spreading from the Caribbean to the global geopolitical landscape.

Action Analysis: A "Imperial-Style" Precision Strike

The preparation for this operation can be traced back to August 2025. U.S. intelligence agencies, through reconnaissance drones and informants within the Venezuelan government, obtained detailed knowledge of Maduro's lifestyle—his residences, travel schedules, diet, and even his pet habits. Despite Maduro's enhanced security measures following the continuous buildup of U.S. military forces in the Caribbean region, including frequent changes of residence and reduced public appearances, the U.S. military still achieved a tactical surprise attack.

The details of the operation revealed a chilling efficiency. After 2 a.m., U.S. fighter jets first paralyzed Venezuela's air defense system, causing widespread power outages in the capital—Trump later boasted that this was based on some of our specialized capabilities. Subsequently, a helicopter formation carrying Delta Force troops arrived at Maduro's fortified residence. Although Maduro fled into a safe room, according to Trump's description, 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, 32 of Maduro's Cuban security personnel were killed. By 4:20 a.m., Maduro and his wife had already been escorted onto a helicopter and transported to the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima at sea.

This operation brings to mind the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama to capture Manuel Noriega. However, The Economist points out a key distinction: the Panama operation was a full-scale invasion involving 27,000 troops, targeting a smaller and militarily weaker country, and was far less clean—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. troops entered Caracas reinforces Trump's boast that no other country in the world could have achieved this.

The essence of this operation is an imperial intervention under the guise of counter-narcotics and restoring democracy, but its core lies in reshaping regional order and controlling strategic resources.

Oil Control: The Economic Core of Neocolonialism

Military operations are merely the prelude; the true core lies in gaining control over 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 within Venezuela.

The control mechanism of the United States has been rapidly established. On January 9, 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, protecting Venezuela's oil sales revenue from seizure by creditors. The White House statement explicitly stated that this move is to prevent courts or creditors from seizing funds in the U.S. Treasury Department's accounts, thereby undermining the critical efforts of the United States for Venezuela's economic and political stability. This effectively places Venezuela's oil revenue under the shield of U.S. law, turning it into a tool of U.S. policy.

The form of control is direct. Wright admitted in an interview: Today, we are managing the sales of its crude oil... We have isolated its ability to export oil from Venezuela. All of this is handled 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 contract 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 the United States' policy toward the Western Hemisphere, widely interpreted by scholars and media as a return to the Monroe Doctrine, and even jokingly referred to by Trump himself as Trumpism.

The Monroe Doctrine originated in the 19th century, asserting that European powers should not interfere in the affairs of the Americas, as the Americas are within 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, points out: The Monroe Doctrine has never disappeared from U.S. foreign policy. Latin America and the Caribbean have always been within the United States' sphere of influence. However, the approach of the Trump administration marked a shift back to fundamentals—a vision of intervening in Latin America whenever we choose.

This regression is not limited to Venezuela. After the operation concluded, Trump quickly shifted his focus to other nations. He claimed that Colombia's military actions sounded promising, accused drug cartels of running Mexico, and hinted at potential actions against Cuba, Mexico, and even Iran. On January 11, he announced via Truth Social: No more oil or money will flow to Cuba—zero! I strongly advise them to reach an agreement before it's too late. Shipping data indicates that since Maduro's arrest on January 3, no oil tankers have departed from Venezuelan ports bound for Cuba. Cuba relies on Venezuela for approximately 50% of its annual oil deficit, amounting to about 26,500 barrels per day. Cutting off this lifeline directly pressures Cuba's economy.

What is even more striking is the public claim on Greenland. Trump asserted that the United States needs Greenland for national security reasons, stating that it rightfully belongs to the U.S. and hinting at a possible choice 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 saying that Trump 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 his 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' arrangements in Venezuela reveal 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 operation fell to 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 steer 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 control armed forces. Following the operation, Rodríguez initially strongly criticized the criminal and illegal attack by the United States but quickly shifted toward reconciliation, stating that the goal is to establish a respectful relationship with the U.S. The interim government she leads is exploring the restoration of diplomatic relations with the United States, which were severed in 2019, 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 senior military officials, judges, business leaders, and paramilitary organizations known as collectives. They maintain power by manipulating elections, suppressing dissent, and engaging in interest transfers. As analysis points out, the Maduro regime is detestable and frightening, but the corrupt network that sustains it cannot be dismantled overnight. The United States chooses to cooperate with some armed groups to prevent the country from completely collapsing and to create a stable environment for American capital to enter—even though this stability is built upon the old power structure.

This has raised questions about the true objectives of the United States. Mexican researcher Eric Garland Castro points out that the current strategy appears to have replaced civilian opposition figures like Nobel Peace Prize laureate Machado with de facto negotiations with the sectors within the Chavista regime that still control the weapons. Maintaining the Chavista government is purely a strategic consideration, as it is uncertain how the United States will coordinate its influence and ensure control over the oil industry, as guaranteed by Trump.

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

Secondly, it signifies a potential return from the mindset of a network empire to that of a territorial empire. Scholars once believed that the era of empires had passed, and that new forms of dominance were based on the subtle networks of international organizations and economic flows. However, the Venezuela incident demonstrates that the old-style imperialism, which directly controls territory and resources through military power, refuses to die. In order to become 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. Sal pointed out that the danger lies in the possibility that countries like Russia or China might replicate the same effects for the same reasons. When established powers abandon the rules they advocate, the stable foundation 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 deemed not to align 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 for stability, recovery, and transition promised by the United States has no clear timeline. Wright admitted: "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 return to the Venezuelan government." But when will a representative government be achieved? Who defines the standards? There are no answers to these questions.

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

The events that unfolded in Venezuela in January 2026 were more than just a regime change. They marked the beginning of an era in American diplomacy—one that prioritizes power, disregards rules, and leans toward unilateral action. When the world's most powerful nation believes that the only constraint on its actions is the president's morality, the global order enters a new, more unpredictable, and more dangerous phase. While Venezuela's oil may be unlocked by American capital, the geopolitical shockwaves unleashed in the process could prove far more difficult to control than the oil itself.