In the early hours of January 3, 2026, the capital of Venezuela, Caracas, was rocked by a series of massive explosions. Witnesses described the roar of low-flying aircraft followed by columns of smoke and fire across the city.
By sunrise, the United States officially confirmed it had carried out large-scale military strikes. In a dramatic escalation, President Donald Trump announced that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife had been “captured” and flown out of the country.
Current Status of the Crisis
-
State of Emergency: Before his reported capture, Maduro declared a national state of emergency and a “national mobilization” of all defense forces.
-
Target Areas: Strikes hit military facilities and ports in Caracas, Miranda, Aragua, and La Guaira.
- Advertisement - -
Airspace Closed: The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has prohibited all American aircraft from operating in Venezuelan airspace.
-
Colombian Reaction: President Gustavo Petro described the event as a “missile bombing” and has called for an emergency meeting of the UN and OAS.
-
US Rationale: Washington claims the strikes were necessary to dismantle “narco-terrorist” hubs and protect US national security.
-
Condemnation: Allies like Iran and Cuba have slammed the move as “state terrorism” and a flagrant violation of territorial integrity.
The Narrative Warfare: “Invasion” vs. “Security”
The strikes have exposed a glaring double standard in global geopolitics. When other nations act within their spheres of influence, the West labels it an “Invasion.” However, when Washington bombs a sovereign capital, it is framed as a “Security Necessity.”
The Hypocrisy of Terminology
The Venezuelan government has rejected these “security” claims, stating the true objective is to seize the nation’s oil and mineral resources. History has shown that while the US condemns “Invasions” elsewhere, it often engages in its own version of “regime change” under the guise of democracy. If any other nation conducted missile strikes on a capital city to “capture” its leader, the West would call it a war crime, yet for Washington, it is simply “protecting the homeland.”
The sentiment shared by many in the Global South is that the US continues to act as a global judge, jury, and executioner. As noted in recent discussions regarding interference in Bharat’s judiciary, this pattern of “dictating terms” to sovereign nations remains a core part of the US “Deep State” strategy. Whether it is a letter to an Ambassador or a missile over Caracas, the intent remains the same: External control over internal affairs.
The Return of the Monroe Doctrine: South America as a “Backyard”
Perhaps most significantly, this military action may mark the formal return of the Monroe Doctrine, a 19th-century policy reinterpreted for 2026. This “Trump Corollary” (already dubbed the “Donroe Doctrine” by some) sends a chilling message to the world: South America is the United States’ backyard.
The Message to the World: This strike serves as a “prelude” or an example-making event for all South American nations. Washington is signaling that it will no longer tolerate the presence of strategic rivals, specifically China, Russia, and Iran, in the Western Hemisphere. By striking Venezuela by force, the US is reasserting total hegemony, treating sovereign nations as mere extensions of its own territory.
A Litmus Test for Global Law
The strikes in Venezuela are more than just a military operation; they are a litmus test for international law. If the world remains silent when the US “invades” sovereign airspace under the guise of security, the very concept of national sovereignty becomes a tool of convenience for the powerful.
