Operation Absolute Resolve: A Watershed Moment in U.S. Foreign Policy and Its Profound Implications

On January 3, 2026, the United States launched Operation Absolute Resolve, a military intervention in Venezuela that included bombing the capital city of Caracas and capturing the sitting president, Nicolás Maduro. This unprecedented action marks a dramatic escalation in U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America, with Maduro accused of narco-terrorism and now jailed in New York. Meanwhile, former U.S. President Donald Trump has stated that he would effectively run Venezuela for the benefit of both the United States and Venezuela, including opening the country to American oil companies. These recent developments in Venezuela carry significant political ramifications not only for Latin America but also across the global stage.

The U.S. intervention in Venezuela is the culmination of a decade-long campaign of economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and covert pressure aimed at ousting Maduro’s authoritarian regime. Since 2017, the U.S. has imposed over 500 sanctions targeting Maduro and his inner circle, crippling Venezuela’s economy and exacerbating a humanitarian crisis that has left nearly 8 million people in need of urgent assistance. The justification for Operation Absolute Resolve hinges on accusations that Maduro engaged in narco-terrorism, conspiring with Colombian guerrilla groups and transnational criminal organizations to traffic cocaine into the United States. A superseding indictment unsealed in 2020 charges Maduro with narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation, and weapons violations, alleging that he used his presidential power to protect and facilitate drug trafficking networks.

However, the legal basis for Maduro’s arrest and detention in New York is highly contested. International law generally grants sitting heads of state immunity from prosecution in foreign courts, a principle that the Venezuelan government and several international bodies have invoked to denounce the U.S. actions. The United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization—neither of which applies in this case. Legal experts argue that the U.S. operation constitutes a violation of international law and sets a dangerous precedent that could undermine global norms of sovereignty and diplomatic immunity.

Moreover, the evidence supporting the narco-terrorism charges, while detailed in U.S. court documents, has been challenged by some intelligence assessments and international observers. For instance, the U.S. intelligence community has not found evidence of widespread coordination between Maduro and groups like Tren de Aragua, contradicting some of the administration’s public claims. The timing of the indictment and the military operation also raise questions about political motivations, particularly given the U.S.’s long-standing desire to remove Maduro from power.

Internationally, reactions have been polarized. The Organization of American States (OAS) and some Latin American governments have supported the U.S. position, while China, Russia, Cuba, and several other nations have condemned the intervention as illegal and an act of aggression. The UN Secretary-General expressed deep concern about the escalation and the potential destabilizing effects on the region.

Economically, the intervention aims to secure Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, the largest globally, with Trump pledging U.S. oil companies will rebuild the country’s crippled oil infrastructure. Venezuela’s oil production has collapsed from a peak of 3.5 million barrels per day to around 1 million barrels per day due to mismanagement, corruption, sanctions, and infrastructure decay. This decline devastated Venezuela’s economy, which relies on oil for over 90% of its export revenues and a significant portion of fiscal income.

President Trump has explicitly stated that the U.S. intervention aims to “recover stolen oil” and open Venezuela’s oil industry to American companies. He announced plans for U.S. oil firms to invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure, with the promise of reimbursement through revenue or direct U.S. funding. This economic dimension of the intervention suggests a strategic effort to regain control over a critical energy resource, reduce global dependence on Russian and OPEC oil, and potentially lower oil prices by increasing supply.

However, the feasibility of this economic vision is uncertain. Oil companies remain cautious due to Venezuela’s history of expropriating foreign assets, ongoing sanctions, and political instability. The intervention itself risks further destabilizing Venezuela’s oil sector in the short term, potentially leading to production disruptions and market volatility. Moreover, the U.S. plan to control oil revenues and direct them toward rebuilding efforts raises questions about Venezuela’s economic sovereignty and the long-term sustainability of such an arrangement.

The humanitarian consequences of the economic upheaval are also severe. Venezuela’s population has already endured years of hyperinflation, food and medicine shortages, and mass migration. Further economic disruption could exacerbate these conditions, increasing the need for international humanitarian assistance.

Politically, the intervention has immediate and far-reaching implications. Within Latin America, the operation risks reinforcing perceptions of U.S. hegemony and interventionism, potentially alienating countries that have historically been wary of U.S. influence. While some governments may support the U.S. action as a means to remove an authoritarian regime, others may see it as a violation of sovereignty that could destabilize the region.

The intervention also risks provoking a backlash that strengthens anti-U.S. sentiment and bolsters leftist or nationalist movements across Latin America. The political vacuum created by Maduro’s removal could lead to internal power struggles, with Vice President Delcy Rodríguez recognized by the military as acting leader but lacking broad support. The potential for elite defection, negotiated transitions, or violent conflict remains high.

Globally, the intervention signals a renewed U.S. willingness to use military force to achieve foreign policy objectives, which could reshape international norms and alliances. China and Russia, both of which have significant economic and political ties to Venezuela, have condemned the U.S. actions and may seek to counter U.S. influence in the region. This dynamic could reignite Cold War-style proxy conflicts, particularly as the U.S. seeks to reassert its dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

The intervention also raises questions about the future of U.S. soft power and diplomatic credibility. While the operation may be seen as a tactical victory, the long-term strategic gains depend on the U.S.’s ability to manage the transition in Venezuela, rebuild trust with Latin American nations, and navigate complex global reactions.

The humanitarian crisis in Venezuela is already one of the world’s most severe, with 7.9 million people in need of urgent assistance and nearly 8 million refugees and migrants displaced globally. The U.S. military intervention and the political instability it engenders risk worsening this crisis. The bombing of Caracas and the removal of Maduro could lead to further displacement, violence, and a power vacuum that armed groups and criminal networks may exploit.

The Venezuelan opposition, while hopeful for democratic transition, faces significant challenges in governing a country ravaged by years of economic collapse and repression. The release of political prisoners and the establishment of a credible democratic process are urgent priorities, but the path forward is fraught with uncertainty.

The international community, including humanitarian organizations and the UN, has expressed alarm about the potential for escalating conflict and the need for coordinated responses to address protection gaps and socio-economic challenges. The U.S. intervention, while potentially opening the door for political change, also risks deepening the humanitarian crisis if not managed carefully.

In conclusion, Operation Absolute Resolve represents a critical juncture in U.S. foreign policy with far-reaching consequences. The operation’s justification as a counter-narco-terrorism strike is legally and morally contested, with significant implications for international law, sovereignty, and global politics. Economically, the intervention aims to secure Venezuela’s vast oil resources, but the feasibility and consequences of this strategy remain uncertain. Politically, the intervention risks destabilizing Latin America, provoking global condemnation, and potentially sparking new geopolitical conflicts. Humanitarianly, the operation could exacerbate Venezuela’s already dire crisis, increasing the suffering of its people.

This moment demands urgent reflection on the limits of military intervention, the importance of respecting international law, and the need for a coordinated, multilateral approach to address Venezuela’s political and humanitarian challenges. The future of Venezuela and the stability of the region depend on a careful balance between accountability, justice, and the well-being of the Venezuelan people.