Analysis of: Why has US attacked Caracas and captured Venezuela’s president?
The Guardian | January 3, 2026
The US military capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro represents a stark escalation in the long-running conflict between American capital interests and Latin American resource sovereignty. This operation, preceded by months of naval blockade, airstrikes killing over 110 people, and the seizure of oil tankers, strips away any pretense of humanitarian intervention to reveal the naked pursuit of Venezuela's oil reserves—the largest in the world. The 'Trump corollary' doctrine, explicitly stating US military force can be used to secure energy and mineral resources in the Western Hemisphere, provides the ideological framework for what amounts to resource colonialism in modern dress. This marks a return to the most aggressive forms of Monroe Doctrine interventionism, where Latin American nations are treated as resource peripheries for US capital rather than sovereign states. The pattern echoes countless Cold War-era coups and invasions, but with unprecedented brazenness—the capture of a sitting head of state without even the fig leaf of supporting domestic forces first. The contradictions at play are significant: the US claims to act in defense of democracy while violently overthrowing an elected government (however flawed); it accuses Venezuela of destabilization while its own actions promise to create regional chaos and refugee crises; and it pursues short-term resource access while potentially igniting prolonged resistance. The Venezuelan military's call for citizens to resist 'foreign invasion' may prove prophetic, as US war games predicted 'prolonged chaos with no clear way out.' Working people on both sides stand to lose—Venezuelans facing violence and instability, Americans bearing the costs of imperial adventure while domestic needs go unmet.
Class Dynamics
Actors: US state apparatus (executive branch, military), US oil and energy capital, Venezuelan state and governing party (PSUV), Venezuelan military, Venezuelan working class and poor, Venezuelan opposition (representing displaced bourgeoisie), International oil corporations, US working class (as taxpayers funding military operations)
Beneficiaries: US and international oil corporations seeking access to Venezuelan reserves, US military-industrial complex, Venezuelan opposition aligned with foreign capital, Financial interests holding Venezuelan debt
Harmed Parties: Venezuelan civilians (110+ killed in strikes, facing instability), Venezuelan working class facing economic disruption, US working class funding imperial operations, Regional populations facing refugee crisis and instability
The operation demonstrates the overwhelming military power disparity between imperial centers and peripheral nations. Despite Venezuela's oil wealth, it cannot defend against US military force. The Venezuelan bourgeoisie, displaced under Chávez's nationalizations, allies with foreign capital against the state that expropriated them. The US state acts as the armed wing of capital, with the 'Trump corollary' explicitly codifying military force as a tool for resource extraction. Venezuelan workers, despite rhetoric about defending the revolution, have limited agency in a conflict determined by great power dynamics.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Venezuela holds the world's largest proven oil reserves, US energy interests seek direct access rather than market-mediated relationships, Venezuelan economic collapse created domestic instability exploited for intervention, Sanctions and blockades degraded Venezuelan economic capacity, Competition with China and Russia for Venezuelan oil partnerships
At core, this conflict concerns control over the means of production in Venezuela's oil sector. Chávez's nationalizations transferred oil profits from international capital to the Venezuelan state, funding social programs but also creating antagonism with dispossessed investors. The intervention aims to reverse this, returning production relations to foreign capital control. The 'Trump corollary' makes explicit that US military power serves to secure favorable production arrangements for American capital throughout the hemisphere.
Resources at Stake: World's largest oil reserves (approximately 300 billion barrels), Control over Caribbean shipping lanes, Venezuelan gold and mineral deposits, Regional political influence, Precedent for future resource-based interventions
Historical Context
Precedents: 1954 CIA coup in Guatemala (United Fruit Company interests), 1973 Chilean coup against Allende (copper nationalization), 2003 Iraq invasion (oil reserves), 1989 Panama invasion and capture of Noriega, 2011 Libya intervention (oil and African influence), 2002 failed coup attempt against Chávez, 1898 Spanish-American War (original Monroe Doctrine expansion)
This intervention follows the well-established pattern of US military action against governments that assert control over strategic resources, particularly when those governments adopt socialist or nationalist orientations that threaten capital's free access. The 'Trump corollary' explicitly updates the Monroe Doctrine for the 21st century, reasserting hemispheric domination that was partially relaxed during the 'Pink Tide' era. The capture of Maduro echoes the Noriega operation but represents an escalation—targeting a larger country with more significant resources and stronger institutional structures. It signals to any nation in the hemisphere that resource sovereignty will be challenged by military force.
Contradictions
Primary: The fundamental contradiction between capitalist imperialism's need for unrestricted resource access and peripheral nations' assertion of sovereignty over their natural wealth. The US cannot tolerate an alternative economic model controlling strategic resources, yet violent intervention generates resistance and instability that may ultimately frustrate extraction goals.
Secondary: Democracy rhetoric vs. anti-democratic military intervention, Claims of fighting drug trafficking vs. lack of evidence for claims, Short-term military success vs. predicted prolonged chaos, Opposition calls for US help vs. nationalist resistance to foreign invasion, Maduro's authoritarian drift vs. legitimate grievances against imperialism, US working class interests vs. costs of imperial maintenance
The contradiction between military seizure and sustainable extraction may prove irreconcilable. US war games predicted 'prolonged chaos with no clear way out,' suggesting military victory cannot translate into stable resource access. Venezuelan institutions remain intact, and calls for resistance may generate prolonged insurgency. The contradiction could resolve through: (1) successful installation of a compliant regime that privatizes oil—unlikely given predicted chaos; (2) prolonged occupation and counterinsurgency—costly and historically unsuccessful; (3) regional resistance forcing US withdrawal—possible if intervention sparks broader anti-imperialist mobilization. The outcome will shape Latin American politics for decades.
Global Interconnections
This intervention must be understood within the context of declining US hegemony and intensifying great power competition. China and Russia had developed significant economic ties with Venezuela, accessing oil outside dollar-denominated markets. The operation serves not only to secure resources but to demonstrate continued US dominance in its 'backyard' as multipolar alternatives emerge. The 'Trump corollary' represents an attempt to reassert unipolar control precisely because that control is increasingly contested. The action also connects to domestic US political economy. With renewable energy transition threatening oil's centrality, securing reserves represents a rearguard action by fossil fuel capital. Military expenditure benefits the defense industry while social needs remain unmet. The framing of Venezuelan migrants and gangs as threats serves to manufacture consent for intervention, connecting to broader anti-immigrant politics that divide the working class. For the global South, Venezuela's fate demonstrates the limits of resource nationalism without military capacity to defend it, potentially deterring similar movements elsewhere—which may be precisely the point.
Conclusion
The capture of Maduro reveals the violent foundations upon which global capitalist relations rest. When peripheral nations assert sovereignty over resources, military force remains capital's ultimate instrument. For working people, the lesson is clear: neither authoritarian state control nor imperial 'liberation' serves their interests. Venezuelan workers face chaos regardless of which faction controls the oil. American workers fund operations that enrich energy corporations while their own conditions deteriorate. Genuine solidarity requires opposing both Maduro's repression and imperial intervention, while building international working-class connections that transcend nationalist frameworks. The coming months will test whether Venezuelans can resist foreign occupation, and whether workers elsewhere can organize against their own ruling classes' imperial adventures. The contradictions unleashed by this brazen act may yet produce resistance that challenges the entire system of resource imperialism.
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%