US Military Intervention in Venezuela: Maduro Captured Amidst Global Controversy
Published 3 January 2026
Highlights
- The US military intervention in Venezuela led to the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, sparking global debate over international law and US foreign policy.
- President Trump announced that the US will temporarily "run" Venezuela, aiming for a transition to democracy, though specifics remain unclear.
- The operation has polarized political opinions, with Republicans supporting the move and Democrats criticizing it as imperialistic.
- International reactions vary, with some countries condemning the intervention and others supporting a democratic transition in Venezuela.
- Venezuelans express mixed emotions, with some hopeful for change and others concerned about the future under US control.
-
Rewritten Article
Headline: US Military Intervention in Venezuela: Maduro Captured Amidst Global Controversy
In a dramatic escalation of US involvement in Latin America, President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela was captured by US forces in a surprise military operation on Saturday. The intervention, which included airstrikes on Caracas, has sparked a global debate over the legality and implications of such actions.
US Intervention and Capture of Maduro
The operation began in the early hours of Saturday, with explosions heard across Venezuela's capital, Caracas. US President Donald Trump confirmed that Maduro, accused by the US of leading a "narco-terrorist" regime, was captured and transported to a detention center in New York. Trump declared that the US would "run" Venezuela until a safe transition to democracy could be achieved, though details on this transition remain vague.
Political Reactions and International Response
The capture of Maduro has sharply divided political opinion in the US. Republicans have hailed the operation as a necessary enforcement of a 2020 narco-trafficking indictment against Maduro, while Democrats have criticized it as a violation of Venezuela's sovereignty. Internationally, reactions have been mixed. Countries like Japan have expressed support for restoring democracy in Venezuela, while others, including Malaysia, have condemned the intervention as a breach of international law.
Venezuelan Public's Mixed Emotions
On the ground in Venezuela, the public's response is varied. Some citizens, like Dina, express gratitude towards the US for removing Maduro, hoping for a brighter future. However, others, like Jorge, remain anxious about the uncertainty that lies ahead. Supporters of Maduro have taken to the streets, protesting what they call his "kidnapping" by the US.
Legal and Historical Context
The intervention has drawn comparisons to past US military actions in Latin America, such as the 1989 invasion of Panama. Critics argue that this move sets a dangerous precedent in international relations, with potential implications for global norms and US foreign policy. The operation has also revived discussions around the "Monroe Doctrine," which historically justified US intervention in the Western Hemisphere.
-
Scenario Analysis
The future of Venezuela remains uncertain as the US assumes temporary control. Experts suggest that the success of this intervention will depend on the US's ability to facilitate a peaceful transition to democracy. However, the operation's legality continues to be questioned, potentially straining US relations with other countries. As the situation unfolds, the international community will be watching closely to see if this marks a new era of US foreign policy or a return to past interventionist practices.
In a dramatic escalation of US involvement in Latin America, President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela was captured by US forces in a surprise military operation on Saturday. The intervention, which included airstrikes on Caracas, has sparked a global debate over the legality and implications of such actions.
US Intervention and Capture of Maduro
The operation began in the early hours of Saturday, with explosions heard across Venezuela's capital, Caracas. US President Donald Trump confirmed that Maduro, accused by the US of leading a "narco-terrorist" regime, was captured and transported to a detention center in New York. Trump declared that the US would "run" Venezuela until a safe transition to democracy could be achieved, though details on this transition remain vague.
Political Reactions and International Response
The capture of Maduro has sharply divided political opinion in the US. Republicans have hailed the operation as a necessary enforcement of a 2020 narco-trafficking indictment against Maduro, while Democrats have criticized it as a violation of Venezuela's sovereignty. Internationally, reactions have been mixed. Countries like Japan have expressed support for restoring democracy in Venezuela, while others, including Malaysia, have condemned the intervention as a breach of international law.
Venezuelan Public's Mixed Emotions
On the ground in Venezuela, the public's response is varied. Some citizens, like Dina, express gratitude towards the US for removing Maduro, hoping for a brighter future. However, others, like Jorge, remain anxious about the uncertainty that lies ahead. Supporters of Maduro have taken to the streets, protesting what they call his "kidnapping" by the US.
Legal and Historical Context
The intervention has drawn comparisons to past US military actions in Latin America, such as the 1989 invasion of Panama. Critics argue that this move sets a dangerous precedent in international relations, with potential implications for global norms and US foreign policy. The operation has also revived discussions around the "Monroe Doctrine," which historically justified US intervention in the Western Hemisphere.
What this might mean
The future of Venezuela remains uncertain as the US assumes temporary control. Experts suggest that the success of this intervention will depend on the US's ability to facilitate a peaceful transition to democracy. However, the operation's legality continues to be questioned, potentially straining US relations with other countries. As the situation unfolds, the international community will be watching closely to see if this marks a new era of US foreign policy or a return to past interventionist practices.
