The U.S. military intervention closed a chapter in the Venezuelan conflict, but opened an uncertain scenario, with power intact, oil as a priority, and a political future still without a clear direction.
After months of conflict between the governments of Venezuela and the United States, the situation was resolved in the most drastic way. In the early hours of January 3, U.S. military forces bombed Caracas’ military bases. This ended with the capture of Nicolas Maduro, who is to be prosecuted in U.S. courts for drug trafficking. The action abruptly closes a stage of the country’s prolonged political conflict but also marks an even more uncertain one.
In a briefing organized by American Community Media (ACoM), titled “Venezuela After U.S. Military Action: What Comes Next for the Country and the World”, experts in law and international politics discussed the new landscape facing Venezuela and the potential consequences for U.S. society of using military force in an international intervention.
Anxiety, Confusion, and Hope-Free Expectations
From a social perspective, Alejandro Velasco, historian and professor at New York University, described a climate marked by contradictory emotions among Venezuelans. “There is anxiety, confusion, and shock,” he said, emphasizing that despite Maduro’s removal, “functionally, nothing has changed in terms of the state’s power apparatus.”
According to Velasco, the U.S. intervention radically altered the political chessboard but did not produce a real institutional rupture. “We are entering a completely different stage, where the United States intervenes directly, which changes the risks, opportunities, and limitations for all actors,” he noted.
Velasco was emphatic in distinguishing expectation from optimism: “It is not hope that people feel, but a kind of contained expectation.” Even gestures unthinkable weeks ago, such as partial releases of political prisoners or signs of reconciliation with Washington, spark more uncertainty than confidence among Venezuelans.
Democracy Is Off the Agenda
One of the conference’s most critical points was the debate over an as-yet unplanned democratic transition. Velasco argued that for the Trump administration, this “does not seem to be a real priority.”
“The message is very clear: it is not about freedom or democracy, but about material interests,” he stated. In this vein, he recalled a phrase circulating among political analysts: “Trump does not want a democratic Venezuela, he wants a useful Venezuela.”
The weakness of the opposition, particularly that led by María Corina Machado, and the control the state apparatus still holds explain, according to Velasco, why Washington has opted to support the de facto authorities without Maduro, rather than force a total collapse of the regime. “Completely dismantling the state would have meant chaos, paramilitarism, and open violence in the streets,” he warned.
An Illegal Operation Under International Law
From a legal standpoint, Mariano de Alba was categorical: “There is no legal way to justify this operation under international law.”
He reminded attendees that the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force except in very specific cases, such as self defense or Security Council authorization, scenarios that did not occur in this case. “The fact that Maduro was not a legitimate president is irrelevant under international law because he exercised de facto control over the state,” he explained.
De Alba also warned of the precedent this action sets. “It is concerning because it reinforces a logic of spheres of influence, where the United States seeks to impose its dominance in the Western Hemisphere through coercion and threats,” he said, adding that the military success of the operation could encourage similar actions in other contexts.
Although Maduro faces charges in U.S. courts for drug trafficking, the lawyer considered it “very unlikely” that he would be tried for crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Court, given the tense relations between that institution and the Trump administration.
Oil: The Central Objective and an Unrealistic Plan
Roxanna Vigil focused her remarks on Washington’s real objectives. For her, the focus is clearly on oil, not on democratic reconstruction. “Until President Trump publicly articulates a transition plan, there is no reason to think it is on the agenda,” she stated.
Vigil also put the strategic weight of Venezuelan crude into perspective: “Venezuela produces around 900,000 barrels per day, less than 1% of global supply.” Added to this is that the oil is heavy and difficult to refine, and its recovery would require long-term investments, legal stability, and independent courts. “We are talking about commitments spanning decades that do not fit with the current reality of the energy market,” she said.
She also expressed concern over the management of oil revenues. According to available information, the income would not go to the U.S. Treasury or Venezuelan institutions, but rather to opaque external accounts. “Where is the money going? Who controls it? Who represents the Venezuelan people in these decisions?” she questioned.
The panelists agreed that the main deficit in the current scenario is the exclusion of Venezuelans from decisions about their own country. “You cannot talk about a democratic transition while the United States acts as if it owns Venezuela,” Velasco stated.
De Alba added that a sustainable solution requires prioritizing the population’s interests, not just geopolitical ones. Vigil, for her part, warned that without independent oversight mechanisms, any economic scheme risks reproducing corruption and exclusion.
Meanwhile, Venezuela enters a new phase of its crisis: without Maduro, but without democracy; with foreign intervention, but without a clear political horizon. A scenario that, as the experts agreed, will have consequences far beyond its borders.