On January 3, 2026, the United States carried out a military operation in Venezuela named “Operation Absolute Resolve.” The U.S. administration stated that the aim of the operation was the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, who were allegedly linked to narco-terrorist organizations.
The operation began in the early morning hours with the bombing of military targets in Caracas and northern Venezuela. Following the bombardment, Delta Force units were deployed to Maduro’s heavily guarded residence, leading to armed clashes. As a result of these clashes, Maduro and his wife were captured and transferred to the United States to be tried in American courts.
Following these developments, the justifications for the operation and the legitimacy of the intervention in terms of international law and the existing international system became subjects of intense debate in global public opinion. This article aims to analyze the U.S. intervention in Venezuela under the Trump administration from a realist perspective, while also using this case to discuss the future of international law and the international system.
Reasons Behind the Operation
Reducing the U.S. intervention in Venezuela and the transfer of Maduro and his wife to the United States to a single cause would not align with the nature of international relations. In order to understand the dynamics behind such actions, power relations, interest calculations, and systemic balances must be evaluated together.
International relations operate within an anarchic structure lacking a central authority. Although a system based on the United Nations was established after World War II, there is no authority above states with absolute binding power and the capacity to enforce sanctions continuously. For this reason, international law—especially from the perspective of great powers—often functions not as a rigid constraint but as a flexible instrument. The intervention in Venezuela should therefore be regarded not as a legally driven action, but as an interest-centered one.
One of the primary motivations behind the operation is energy supply and energy security. With Trump’s return to power for a second term, a resurgence of mercantilist economic thinking has become evident in the United States. This approach, which aims to increase exports and limit imports, renders access to energy critical for the sustainability of production.
Venezuela possesses one of the largest proven oil reserves in the world. However, its current production capacity is insufficient to meet U.S. energy needs at the required scale. This situation presents not only a production issue for Washington, but also raises the question of which actors control these energy resources. As U.S. pressure on Venezuela increases, the growing influence of China and Russia in the country constitutes a strategic risk for Washington. In particular, China’s heavy dependence on external energy sources and its need for Venezuelan oil make this situation even more sensitive from the U.S. perspective. Therefore, the objective of the operation is not merely economic gain, but also the restriction of rival powers’ room for maneuver.
The justifications for the intervention are not limited to energy security; geopolitical calculations also play a decisive role. Due to its geographic location, Venezuela represents a potential forward position for China within the context of U.S.–China rivalry. In a hypothetical global conflict scenario, China’s ability to shift the battlefield beyond its own geography depends on establishing strategic footholds in different regions. The fact that Chinese military doctrine is largely built around a Pacific-centered defensive approach makes this need even more pronounced.
Venezuela’s close geographic proximity to the United States positions it as a potential forward-base threat from Washington’s perspective. The U.S. intervention can therefore be interpreted as a preventive move aimed at neutralizing this possibility before it materializes.
Another key factor is the desire to send a systemic message. In Trump’s second term, there has been a clear emphasis on the Monroe Doctrine in American foreign policy. Proclaimed in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine declared the American continent closed to external intervention and formed the foundation of the United States’ hegemonic claim in the Western Hemisphere. Over time, this doctrine evolved from a defensive principle into an offensive practice, laying the groundwork for the hegemonic order the United States would later establish.
The primary objective of reviving the Monroe Doctrine under the Trump administration is to reassert the United States as the undisputed power in the Western Hemisphere and to deny space to any structure that could pose a threat within this region. The capture and transfer of a Latin American head of state to the United States represents not only a message to Venezuela, but also a clear signal to all countries within the region and the broader U.S. sphere of influence. Through this operation, the United States has unequivocally demonstrated that it will not tolerate the presence of any other power operating within its sphere.
At this point, any analysis would be incomplete without addressing the functionality of the United Nations–based international system and international law. International relations, by their very nature, lack a central authority. Although the United Nations was established to mitigate the problems arising from this absence, it has failed to fully adapt to the practical functioning of international relations. The limited response of the United Nations to the intervention in Venezuela clearly illustrates that the United States was able to carry out this operation due to its superior power and the pronounced asymmetry between states.
The effective functioning of law depends on enforcement mechanisms, and enforcement mechanisms depend on the existence of a central authority. In the absence of these conditions, international law remains largely confined to a normative framework. Consequently, as demonstrated by the Venezuelan case, analyzing such events solely through the lens of international law leads to incomplete conclusions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the U.S. intervention in Venezuela and the detention of Nicolás Maduro and his wife can be explained through a combination of factors, including energy security, geopolitical rivalry, and systemic power balances. In order to properly understand this intervention, a realist perspective centered on power dynamics and interest-based calculations—rather than idealist assumptions—offers a far more accurate analytical framework.
