Analysis of: Nicolás Maduro jailed in New York as Trump says US will ‘run’ Venezuela – live
The Guardian | January 4, 2026
The US military capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro represents a stark manifestation of imperialist intervention driven by material interests, specifically petroleum resources. Trump's explicit statements that the US will 'run the country' and be 'very strongly involved' in Venezuela's oil industry through major American oil companies reveal the economic foundation beneath rhetorical justifications about drugs and democracy. The operation demonstrates the continuation of over a century of US intervention in Latin America, where regime change has consistently served capital accumulation rather than democratic principles. The class dynamics are particularly revealing: while Venezuelan migrants and opponents of Maduro celebrate his removal, the immediate beneficiaries are US oil corporations positioned to negotiate favorable terms with the financially weakened state oil company PDVSA. Trump's dismissal of opposition leader María Corina Machado—stating she 'does not have the support'—while pursuing deals with regime figures like Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, exposes how 'democracy promotion' narratives serve as cover for establishing compliant governance that protects foreign capital interests. The intervention bypassed Congressional authorization, with officials citing operational security, further concentrating war-making power in the executive branch. International responses illuminate the contradictions within the global capitalist order: while China, Russia, Brazil, and even US allies like Germany and France condemned the action as violating international law, the practical constraints on opposing US hegemony remain limited. The threat of similar action against Greenland reveals how this intervention establishes precedent for territorial acquisition justified through strategic and economic interests, marking a potential shift toward more overt forms of imperialist expansion in the current period.
Class Dynamics
Actors: US executive branch and military apparatus, Major US oil corporations (Chevron, ExxonMobil, etc.), Venezuelan state apparatus under Maduro, Venezuelan working class and migrants, Venezuelan opposition political figures, International financial institutions, Latin American governments
Beneficiaries: US oil companies seeking access to Venezuelan petroleum reserves, US military-industrial complex, Trump administration politically, Starlink/SpaceX gaining market access, Some Venezuelan diaspora seeking regime change
Harmed Parties: Venezuelan civilian casualties of the bombing, Venezuelan working class facing continued instability, Smaller nations facing precedent of US intervention, Democratic processes and international legal frameworks, Venezuelan opposition leaders sidelined from power transition
The intervention demonstrates unilateral US military and economic dominance, with the capacity to capture a sitting head of state and declare intention to administer a sovereign nation. Congressional oversight was bypassed entirely. The Venezuelan state, despite its oil wealth, lacked the material capacity to resist US military power. Even allied nations like Brazil could only issue verbal condemnations. The power asymmetry between imperial core and peripheral nations is starkly illustrated.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Venezuela's vast petroleum reserves—among world's largest, PDVSA's 'parlous financial state' creating favorable terms for US investment, Decades of US sanctions degrading Venezuelan economy, Potential for US companies to extract profits through partnership arrangements, Strategic competition with China and Russia for resource access
The intervention aims to restructure Venezuela's oil production relations, transitioning from state-controlled extraction benefiting the Venezuelan government toward joint ventures where US corporations capture significant profit shares. The Guardian explicitly notes US companies could 'negotiate a good return on their investments' due to PDVSA's weakened position—a position largely created by US sanctions policy. This represents potential primitive accumulation through geopolitical coercion.
Resources at Stake: Venezuelan oil reserves (estimated 300+ billion barrels), PDVSA infrastructure and production capacity, Caribbean shipping lanes and regional influence, Precedent for Greenland's mineral resources, Latin American market access
Historical Context
Precedents: 2003 Iraq invasion—cited by critics as parallel, 1954 Guatemala coup for United Fruit Company, 1973 Chile coup against Allende, Panama invasion 1989 to capture Noriega, Monroe Doctrine interventions throughout 20th century, Libya intervention 2011
This intervention continues a consistent pattern of US military action in resource-rich nations, particularly those with petroleum reserves or governments pursuing independent economic policies. The explicit acknowledgment that the operation is 'about oil' by critics including Kamala Harris reflects growing transparency about material motivations that were historically obscured by Cold War anti-communist rhetoric. The shift from proxy operations to direct military capture of a head of state represents an escalation in the boldness of imperial action, potentially reflecting declining US hegemonic legitimacy requiring more overt coercion.
Contradictions
Primary: The US justifies intervention through 'democracy' and 'anti-drug' rhetoric while explicitly bypassing democratic processes (Congressional authorization), dismissing the actual opposition leader, and pardoning convicted drug traffickers—revealing that stated rationales contradict actual practice.
Secondary: Allied nations condemn the action as illegal while maintaining security relationships with the US, Venezuelan migrants celebrate Maduro's removal while US policies contributed to their displacement, Trump claims to act for Venezuelan interests while stating Venezuela 'doesn't have a choice', International law frameworks exist but lack enforcement mechanisms against hegemonic powers, UK's Starmer claims to support international law while refusing to condemn its violation
These contradictions may intensify as the US attempts to administer Venezuela without legitimate local authority. Resistance from within Venezuela, regional opposition from Brazil and Colombia, and potential proxy involvement from China and Russia could create prolonged instability. The precedent established may accelerate the erosion of post-WWII international legal frameworks, potentially leading to more overt great power competition over resources and territory, as suggested by the Greenland threats.
Global Interconnections
This intervention must be understood within the context of intensifying inter-imperialist competition for resources as global capitalism faces multiple crises. China and Russia's significant investments in Venezuela made it a site of strategic contestation beyond its petroleum value. The operation signals US willingness to use direct military force to exclude competitors from resource access—a departure from the post-Cold War preference for economic coercion and proxy conflicts. The simultaneous threats against Greenland, Mexico, and Panama suggest a broader strategic reorientation toward territorial expansion and direct resource control. The response from the Global South—with Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Malaysia, and others condemning the action—reflects growing contradictions between peripheral nations and US hegemony. However, the inability of these nations to take concrete countermeasures exposes the limits of rhetorical opposition without material capacity for resistance. The intervention also demonstrates how the concentrated power of the executive branch in imperial nations can bypass nominal democratic checks, with Congress informed only after the operation and Trump dismissing oversight concerns by citing 'leaks.'
Conclusion
The Venezuela intervention represents a potential inflection point in the character of US imperialism—from covert operations and economic pressure toward overt military seizure and declared administration of sovereign nations. For working-class movements globally, this development underscores the material basis of international law: legal frameworks constrain action only when backed by countervailing power. The explicit connection between military action and corporate oil access reveals with unusual clarity the relationship between state violence and capital accumulation. Whether this intervention succeeds or creates prolonged instability, it establishes precedents that may shape the terrain of anti-imperialist struggle for decades, while demonstrating that neither bourgeois democratic processes nor international institutions currently provide effective constraints on imperial military power when significant resources are at stake.
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: 92%