The kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, unprecedented in the world annals for both its method and execution, constitutes not only a military intervention in a sovereign and independent country in violation of the principles of international law, but also a clear warning to the entire planet. It warns every insubordinate leader of any country.
Already on January 3, 2026, during a press conference on the military operation and the arrest of Maduro, US President Donald Trump issued threats against Colombian President Gustavo Petro, stating: “He would do well to be careful.”
At the same time, the US president hinted that Cuba could become a topic of discussion within the context of broader US policy in the region, underscoring Washington’s ability to expand its focus beyond Venezuela.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio went further, saying the Cuban government should worry after Maduro’s arrest. Specifically, he said: “If I lived in Havana and was a member of the government, at least I would be worried,” adding that “Cuba is a disaster” and that “incompetent and depraved men” run the country.
A history of interventions
The history of the United States also shows extensive imperialist interventions, both territorial and interventionist, in other countries. Specifically, the United States has carried out approximately 400 interventions since 1776, when the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, declaring the independence of the 13 American Colonies from the British Empire, an event that marked the official founding of the United States of America.
Who can forget that from April 15 to 19, 1961, 1,400 anti-Fidel Castro fighters, trained and financed by the CIA, attempted to land at the Bay of Pigs, 250 kilometers from Havana, but failed to overthrow the Cuban communist regime. These battles resulted in the deaths of about a hundred people on each side.
“With Salvador Allende winning the elections of September 4, 1970, in Chile and already Fidel Castro in Cuba, we will have a Red sandwich in Latin America that will inevitably become all Red,” Richard Nixon feared, and his fear soon found confirmation in the direction of events.
So, in the face of this unpleasant reality for the United States, Washington sought a solution. And the solution came on the morning of September 11, 1973, when a military coup took place under the head of the army, General Augusto Pinochet, with the support of the United States, but also of Brazil, whose military regime stood fully friendly and cooperative with the United States. The coup plotters first surrounded and bombed the Presidential Palace, then stormed it. Salvador Allende and his close associates were killed after fierce resistance.
The Noriega precedent
The United States also invaded Panama in mid-December 1989 during the presidency of George H. W. Bush. The military invasion aimed to oust Panama’s de facto leader, General Manuel Noriega, whom American authorities accused of extortion and drug trafficking.
So, if one looks for a historical parallel in which the US arrested a de facto leader of a country and transferred him to the US for trial, the Noriega case stands as the most characteristic. And it happened after a regular military invasion, that is, in the context of a coordinated armed intervention, and certainly not under “normal” peace.
Noriega managed to escape and took refuge in the Vatican embassy in Panama City, the country’s capital, where he remained for 11 days. There, the US subjected him to relentless psychological warfare to force his surrender. The US military set up a horrible, deafening wall of sound outside the embassy. A fleet of Humvees with loudspeakers constantly played hard rock and, occasionally, heavy metal. For example, troops played “Panama” by the heavy metal singers Van Halen.
The Holy See rightly complained to President Bush, and the US ended the musical war after three days. By January 3, 1990, the general had agreed to surrender.
Why Venezuela matters
But what are the deeper reasons for the US military invasion of Venezuela and the pursuit of overthrowing the insubordinate existing regime?
Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, amounting to approximately 303.8 billion barrels as of 2021. For comparison, leading oil-producing countries hold smaller reserves. Specifically, Saudi Arabia has approximately 267 billion barrels, and Kuwait has 101.5 billion barrels.
At the same time, the country held proven natural gas reserves of more than 5.6 trillion cubic meters in 2021. In the Western Hemisphere, only the United States held more.
Also, Venezuela holds an estimated 4.5 billion tons of total iron ore reserves. Here, it should be emphasized that the country ranks second in the region after Brazil. Venezuela finally has some of the world’s largest bauxite reserves, a mineral used to produce aluminum. The country’s total bauxite reserves amount to 950 million tons.
It is, therefore, clear to any objective observer that the US covets Venezuela’s wealth-producing resources—resources it cannot control under the existing regime. That regime acts as a political and military partner and ally of Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran, and it also supplies oil to China, whose control is drying up the flow.
The solution, therefore, for the US to secure primacy in the relentless international competition, is the overthrow of the existing Venezuelan regime and the emergence of a president and a government that are absolutely friendly and serviceable. The rest, that is, whether such a thing is legal and democratic, does not concern them at all.
Final thought
In closing, I would like to emphasize that the leaders of any country are overthrown only by their people, that is, by popular uprisings and revolutions, as has happened in various countries in the past. Foreign military intervention does not overthrow them. Therefore, the US military invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of its president, Nicolas Maduro, are absolutely condemnable for any democratic and free-thinking citizen of the world.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Somalia Today.
