Analysis of: Why has the US captured Venezuela’s president and what happens next?
The Guardian | January 4, 2026
The US military capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro represents a stark reassertion of American imperial power in Latin America, driven fundamentally by control over oil resources and regional economic dominance. While framed through the language of counter-narcotics and democracy promotion, Trump's explicit statements—that US oil companies would enter Venezuela and that the 'Trump corollary' grants the US military access to regional energy resources—reveal the material interests at the core of this intervention. This action follows a historical pattern stretching back to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, through the 1989 Panama invasion, and countless Cold War interventions. The targeting of Venezuela specifically connects to the Chávez-era nationalization of oil assets and the country's alignment with US adversaries like Cuba and Iran. The capture exposes the fundamental contradiction between proclaimed democratic values and the violent overthrow of governments that pursue independent economic policies or socialist orientations. The immediate beneficiaries are US energy corporations poised to access Venezuela's vast oil reserves—the largest proven reserves in the world. The working classes of both Venezuela and the United States bear the costs: Venezuelan civilians killed in airstrikes, potential refugees fleeing instability, and American workers whose interests are not served by military adventurism abroad. The situation reveals how state power operates in service of capital accumulation, while nationalist rhetoric obscures the class character of imperialist intervention.
Class Dynamics
Actors: US capitalist class (particularly energy sector), US state apparatus (military, executive branch, justice department), Venezuelan state and political elite, Venezuelan working class and civilians, Venezuelan military apparatus, International capital (foreign investors), Democratic opposition figures (Machado, González)
Beneficiaries: US oil corporations seeking access to Venezuelan reserves, US military-industrial complex, Venezuelan economic elites aligned with foreign capital, Delcy Rodríguez and technocrats willing to collaborate with US interests
Harmed Parties: Venezuelan civilians (at least 40 killed in the operation, 110+ in prior strikes), Venezuelan working class facing potential economic restructuring, Potential refugees from resulting instability, Latin American sovereignty broadly
The intervention demonstrates the stark power asymmetry between imperial core and peripheral nations. Despite Venezuela's oil wealth, its military and economic position cannot withstand US pressure. The article reveals how even the 'democratic opposition' is sidelined—Trump dismissed Machado as lacking 'respect'—indicating that the US seeks compliant administrators rather than genuine popular representation. Rodríguez's selection, despite her leftist background, reflects her ties to 'economic elites, foreign investors and diplomats'—the class fraction capable of facilitating US capital penetration.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Venezuela possesses the world's largest proven oil reserves, US energy companies seeking direct access to Venezuelan petroleum, Prior nationalizations under Chávez that expelled foreign capital, Venezuela's economic collapse creating conditions for intervention, Sanctions regime weakening Venezuelan economy over years
The conflict centers on control over oil extraction and export. Chávez's nationalization of the oil sector and redistribution of revenues represented a challenge to international capital's access to Venezuelan resources. The intervention aims to reverse this, opening the sector to US corporations. Trump's explicit statement that 'US oil companies would go into Venezuela' reveals the production relations sought: foreign capital ownership of extraction, with Venezuelan labor providing value while profits flow outward.
Resources at Stake: Venezuelan oil reserves (largest in the world), Strategic Caribbean maritime routes, Regional mineral resources mentioned in Trump corollary, Control over Venezuelan state assets and infrastructure
Historical Context
Precedents: 1823 Monroe Doctrine establishing US hemispheric dominance, 1954 Guatemala coup against Árbenz, 1973 Chile coup against Allende, 1989 Panama invasion and capture of Noriega, 2002 attempted coup against Chávez (allegedly US-backed), 2019 recognition of Guaidó as 'legitimate' president
This intervention fits the longstanding pattern of US suppression of independent development paths in Latin America, particularly those with socialist orientations or that challenge US capital's access to resources. The explicit invocation of the Monroe Doctrine and its rebranding as the 'Don-Roe doctrine' represents not innovation but continuity—the assertion that Latin America remains within the US sphere of influence. Each generation of US leadership finds new justifications (anti-communism, war on drugs, counter-terrorism) for the same fundamental project: maintaining economic and political hegemony over the hemisphere.
Contradictions
Primary: The US claims to act for democracy and human rights while violently overthrowing a government, killing civilians, dismissing the actual democratic opposition, and installing a compliant technocrat—revealing that 'democracy' serves as ideological cover for resource extraction and geopolitical control.
Secondary: Trump dismissed the democratic opposition (Machado) while claiming to oppose dictatorship, The new acting president Rodríguez has Marxist-guerrilla family origins but serves US capital interests, US claims to fight drug trafficking while the capture intensifies regional instability that historically enables trafficking, War games predicted 'prolonged chaos' yet the operation proceeded, Venezuelan military remains intact and defiant while US claims control
These contradictions may intensify rather than resolve. The Venezuelan military's continued coherence and defiance suggests potential prolonged resistance or civil conflict. The gap between Trump's claims of control and actual conditions on the ground could force escalation (boots on the ground) or face humiliating limitations. The installation of Rodríguez satisfies neither socialist nor liberal-democratic constituencies, creating a fragile governing arrangement. Regional refugee flows and instability may generate new crises that expose the intervention's failure to achieve stability.
Global Interconnections
This intervention connects to broader patterns of resource competition in a period of energy transition uncertainty and great power rivalry. Venezuela's alignment with China and Russia—providing alternative markets and diplomatic support—threatened US hegemonic control. The action signals to other nations in the Global South the costs of pursuing independent foreign policies or restricting Western capital access. It also reflects domestic US political economy: the military-industrial complex, fossil fuel interests, and nationalist political coalitions finding common cause in aggressive foreign policy. The 'Trump corollary' explicitly stating US military rights to regional energy and mineral resources represents the dropping of liberal-internationalist pretense in favor of naked imperial assertion. This shift affects not only Venezuela but recalibrates power relations throughout Latin America, signaling that leftist or resource-nationalist governments face potential military consequences. The capture also demonstrates how 'narco-terrorism' and 'human rights' framing provides legal and moral cover for actions fundamentally driven by capital accumulation.
Conclusion
The capture of Maduro represents a decisive moment in the reassertion of naked imperial power in the Western hemisphere, stripping away decades of liberal-internationalist rhetoric to reveal the material interests beneath. For working people in both Venezuela and the United States, this action serves the interests of capital—particularly energy corporations—rather than genuine security or democratic governance. The path forward likely holds instability, refugee crises, and potential armed resistance, with Venezuelan workers bearing the greatest costs. The contradictions embedded in this intervention—between democratic rhetoric and authoritarian action, between claims of control and actual military limitations, between stability goals and chaos-producing methods—suggest that rather than resolving tensions, this action has opened a new phase of conflict whose ultimate trajectory remains dangerously uncertain.
Editorial Note: This analysis applies a dialectical materialist framework to news events. It represents one interpretive perspective and should not be considered objective reporting.
AI-Assisted Analysis | Confidence: 91%