Venezuela and the Return of Coercive Order

By Center for geostrategic studies / 09/01/2026

By Muhammad Asif Noor

The first days of 2026 delivered one of the most consequential shocks to the international system in decades. In the pre-dawn hours of January 3, United States forces carried out a cross-border military operation deep inside Caracas, capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and transferring them to U.S. custody within hours. By midday, the operation was declared a success from Washington, framed as a decisive strike against narco terrorism and criminal governance.

For much of the world, the meaning of the event extended far beyond its stated objectives. The military seizure of a sitting head of state without United Nations authorization and in the absence of any armed attack on the United States represents a serious rupture in the post-1945 international order. It challenges the idea that sovereignty, however contested, remains protected by law rather than subject to force.

This episode did not emerge suddenly. It was preceded by months of visible escalation. From mid 2025 onward, Washington oversaw its largest military buildup in the Caribbean in decades. Carrier strike groups, advanced fighter aircraft, submarines, drones, and special operations units were gradually positioned around Venezuela. What was publicly described as deterrence increasingly resembled preparation. By the time the operation was launched, air and maritime dominance had already been established.

When the raid unfolded, it did so with overwhelming speed. Airstrikes struck military facilities, ports, and airports across Caracas and surrounding areas. Special operations forces were inserted under the cover of darkness, neutralizing presidential security and extracting their targets within hours. From a tactical perspective, the operation demonstrated planning and coordination. From a political and legal perspective, it exposed a sharp erosion of restraint.

International law sits at the center of the controversy.

This concern was articulated clearly by the United Nations Secretary General, who warned that the operation constituted a dangerous precedent. His statement reflected a wider anxiety among many states that international law is being weakened through practice rather than formal challenge. When powerful countries act outside agreed frameworks and justify force through unilateral interpretation, the credibility of collective rules erodes.

The strategic logic behind the operation also deserves close scrutiny. Venezuela holds the largest proven oil reserves in the world, exceeding 300 billion barrels. In the aftermath of the raid, senior U.S. officials openly spoke of American energy companies entering Venezuela and reshaping its oil sector. Control over energy resources has long been intertwined with global power. In this case, energy considerations intersect with broader strategic competition, particularly efforts to reduce the influence of external partners such as China and Russia in Latin America.

Domestic political factors cannot be ignored. With midterm elections approaching in 2026 and economic pressures mounting at home, decisive external action offered a narrative of strength and control. History shows that foreign operations have often been used to mobilize domestic support during periods of political strain. Yet when such calculations are tied to the use of force, they risk entangling international stability with internal political cycles.

Across Latin America, reactions were shaped by historical memory. External intervention has repeatedly left deep scars across the region. Governments in Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and beyond warned that the Venezuela operation resembled a revival of coercive hemispheric practices rather than cooperative engagement. Fears quickly emerged about refugee flows, prolonged instability, and the risk of guerrilla resistance should domestic divisions harden.

Venezuela itself now faces a precarious future. Political authority is contested. Social tensions are intensifying. External influence weighs heavily on domestic outcomes. The possibility of prolonged instability, humanitarian strain, and economic disruption remains real. Yet the broader significance of January 3 extends well beyond Venezuela.

This episode marks a stress test for the international order. It raises fundamental questions about whether global governance remains anchored in law or is drifting toward a system where power increasingly defines legality. The debate that unfolded at the United Nations, despite its divisions and limitations, underscored the gravity of the moment.

History suggests that orders sustained by force alone are unstable. When rules are bent for expediency, they eventually lose their binding force. What happened in Venezuela is therefore not only a regional crisis or a bilateral confrontation. It is a warning signal in global politics.

The writer is founder Friends of BRI Forum.

Photo courtesy of Reuters