US President Donald Trump announced during a White House press conference on January 3, 2026, the United States’ intention to temporarily manage Venezuela’s affairs “until a safe political transition is guaranteed,” following a military operation described as “surgical” that—according to the American narrative—led to the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who were transferred to New York for trial.
Unprecedented Statements and Open Escalation
Trump stated that “US forces are already on the ground” and will remain until the completion of an “appropriate and safe transition,” warning of an additional wave of strikes if necessary, and affirming that Washington “will not allow the return of terrorists or dictators.” He described the operation as “magnificent and precise,” noting minor injuries among the troops with no fatalities.
These statements, with their language of direct administration of a sovereign state, reflect a radical shift in Washington’s approach toward Caracas, opening the door to a scenario of temporary occupation under the guise of a “safe transition,” with an explicit threat of further military escalation.
Details of the Military Operation: “Absolute Resolve”
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Caine confirmed clashes during the operation and gunfire against US helicopters. He explained that the mission, codenamed “Absolute Resolve,” was launched at the request of the US Department of Justice and involved approximately 150 aircraft from various global sites.
Caine clarified that US fighter jets neutralized Venezuelan air defenses to enable helicopters to enter Caracas, with one aircraft hit but continuing to fly. He mentioned the deployment of additional teams to arrest Maduro and his wife, with the entire operation lasting about two hours and twenty minutes, drawing—according to him—on “decades of counterterrorism expertise.”
Regional Reactions: Israel Hints at Iran
Reactions were not limited to Western and UN circles but extended to the Middle East. Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid commented on the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, in an allusion extending beyond the Venezuelan arena itself.
Lapid wrote in English on his official X account:
“The regime in Iran should pay close attention to what’s happening in Venezuela.”
This statement is interpreted as an indirect deterrence message directed at regimes classified among Washington’s adversaries or strategic allies, with Iran foremost. It reflects an Israeli reading that considers the use of force to arrest or overthrow hostile leaders as a precedent applicable in other geopolitical contexts, adding a more sensitive international dimension to the Venezuelan crisis.
These reactions confirm that what happened in Venezuela is no longer a local or regional isolated event, but is being read on a broader scale as a shift in international rules of engagement—a political and security message extending beyond Latin America’s borders.
Internal US Division
Domestically, the operation triggered a sharp division in Congress. While most Republicans expressed strong support for Trump’s action, Democrats deemed the operation “constitutionally unjustified” and a “violation of international law,” particularly since Congress leaders known as the “Gang of Eight” were not informed beforehand but only after the strikes began—what Trump justified by “fear of leaks.”
Republicans view the operation as falling within the “president’s powers” to protect US forces and execute arrest warrants against Maduro, charged in drug trafficking and terrorism cases, while Democrats insist that military action of this magnitude requires explicit congressional authorization, reviving resolutions to block US forces’ use against Venezuela without legislative mandate.
International Condemnations and Warnings
Internationally, UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that what occurred constitutes a “dangerous precedent” that could threaten stability in Latin America, stressing the need to respect the UN Charter, state sovereignty, and the prohibition of force outside the framework of international legality, calling for inclusive political dialogue within Venezuela.
France went further: Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot described the operation as a “flagrant violation of international law,” warning of “grave consequences for global security.” He emphasized that imposing external political solutions contradicts the principle of non-use of force, and that “sovereign peoples alone decide their destiny,” reminding of the “special responsibility” borne by the United States as a permanent Security Council member.
Questions of Legitimacy and Consequences
This development raises fundamental questions about the legitimacy of military intervention absent Security Council authorization, and the limits of force under the pretext of a “safe transition.” It places the region before risks of instability and internationalization, threatening to redraw international interaction rules by force.
Between the American narrative of “rescue and transition,” and international condemnations warning of undermining the rules-based international order, Venezuela remains suspended between an obscure ground reality and a political future open to all possibilities. The world awaits Venezuela’s official response and upcoming developments to determine whether this “temporary occupation” will lead to genuine resolution or a new cycle of escalation and chaos
📌 Read more on this link: https://www.elhodh.info/en/al-hawd-news-2/
