The U.S. attack on Venezuela on January 3 should be understood not simply as an illegal use of force, but as part of a broader shift toward a nihilistic geopolitics in which international law is openly subordinated to imperialist control of global security. At stake is an erosion not only of Venezuela’s sovereignty but of any remaining confidence in the UN system, and particularly the permanent members of the Security Council, in their ability to restrain aggression, prevent genocide, or uphold the core legal norms they claim to uphold.
Together, the military intervention, its political fallout, and the accompanying rhetoric of U.S. leadership expose a system in which legitimacy is selectively invoked, veto power replaces responsibility, and coercion replaces consent. Venezuela is thus not a failure of international law per se, but a case study and warning of deliberate marginalization by the countries tasked with managing global security.
From the perspective of international law, this action is a crude, brazen, illegal and unprovoked resort to aggressive force, and clearly violates the core norm of Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the Charter of the United Nations: “All Member States of the United Nations shall, in their international relations, refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.” The only qualification for this prohibition is set out in Article 51. “Nothing in this Charter shall prejudice the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in the event of an armed attack against a Member State of the United Nations.” This flagrant violation of Venezuela’s territorial sovereignty and political independence included years of U.S. sanctions, weeks of outright threats, and, most recently, deadly attacks on ships suspected of transporting drugs and the seizure of tankers carrying Venezuelan oil.
This unilateral action was further exacerbated by the arrest of Venezuelan head of state Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, by US special forces reportedly directed by the CIA to face charges of “narcoterrorism” in US federal court, in apparent violation of sovereign immunity. This imperialist attitude of openly disregarding the immunity of foreign leaders was underscored by President Trump’s stated intention to direct policy decisions in Venezuela indefinitely until the country is sufficiently “stabilized” and oil production is restored, ostensibly with the support of major US corporations such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips. When asked who was in charge of governing Venezuela, President Trump answered impatiently, “We are in charge.”
There is a greater political crisis in this drastic reversal of U.S. good neighbor policy associated with Latin American diplomacy since 1933 and the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt than initially appeared to even the most discerning eyes. Of course, this tradition of cooperation was repeatedly undermined after Cuba’s Castro revolution and Salvador Allende’s electoral victory in Chile.
Most informed sources assumed that the attack on Venezuela was aimed at overthrowing Maria Colina Machado, an ardent supporter of U.S. intervention, longtime leader of the anti-Maduro opposition, and 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner who lavished Trump with praise as a more worthy candidate in her acceptance speech. The most unexpected development of the intervention was Machado’s avoidance and replacement of Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as Venezuela’s new president. The U.S. government maintained that it was confident that Rodriguez would cooperate with U.S. interests, particularly regarding Venezuelan oil and other resources, and restore stability on terms compatible with U.S. priorities. President Trump even declared that if Machado had declined the Nobel Prize because she deserved it, she would have become president of Venezuela.
A more plausible explanation is that Machado did not have enough domestic support to stabilize the country, whereas Rodríguez, while enjoying broad popular support, appeared ready to accede to U.S. economic demands, particularly those related to control of Venezuela’s resource wealth. Rather than a symbolic march to Caracas with Machado to preside over his inauguration as Venezuela’s new puppet leader, the pre-attack “pro-democracy” rhetoric promoted by US state propaganda gained limited credibility with this continuation of leadership. However, after meeting with President Trump on January 9, executives at major US oil companies, widely assumed to be the main beneficiaries of the intervention, expressed reluctance to restart operations, citing concerns about instability following the US takeover.
Clarifying the relationship between international law and global security
This military operation in Venezuela, coupled with its political fallout, clearly violates international law governing the use of force, as authoritatively codified in the United Nations Charter. However, even this seemingly simple assessment contains ambiguity. The Charter’s institutional design privileges the five victorious nations of World War II, giving them permanent seats on the Security Council and unlimited veto power. In effect, the responsibility for managing global security was intentionally placed in these countries, which were also the first to possess nuclear weapons, and any country could block Security Council action, even with a 14-1 majority.
The Security Council is the only political organ of the United Nations, other than the International Court of Justice (ICJ), empowered to make binding decisions. However, the ICJ operates under discretionary jurisdiction, as countries may not agree to so-called “compulsory jurisdiction.” As a result, the management of global security is actually at the discretion of the five permanent powers, usually dominated by the United States or paralyzed by a veto.
In this sense, the Venezuelan operation should be understood not as an indication of the breakdown of international law, but as an expression of nihilistic geopolitical management. If so, the appropriate remedy is not simply to strengthen international law, but to strip geopolitical actors of their assigned administrative role in global security. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 can be viewed similarly. A geopolitical failure shaped by NATO’s irresponsible provocations, culminating in Russia’s own provocative but egregious violation of Article 2.4.
The Venezuelan operation further undermines any remaining confidence in the Permanent Five, particularly President Trump’s ability to manage peace, security, or genocide prevention in the United States. Therefore, the need to consider alternative frameworks is reinforced, either by curbing the veto or moving security governance beyond the UN to counter-hegemonic mechanisms such as BRICS, China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and the emerging South-South Development Framework.
Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that international law remains essential and valid in most areas of cross-border interactions. In areas such as diplomatic immunity, maritime and air security, tourism and communications, negotiated legal standards are generally respected and disputes resolved peacefully. International law works when reciprocity prevails, but it has never constrained the ambitions of great powers in the field of global security, where hard power asymmetries prevail.
US National Security Strategy 2025: Nihilistic Geopolitics
To understand Venezuela’s place in President Trump’s worldview, it is essential to consider the US National Security Strategy, released in November 2025. President Trump’s cover letter is full of narcissism and disdain for international law, multilateral institutions, and internationalism, including the United Nations. “America is strong and respected again, and because of it, we are building peace around the world,” he declares. Such rhetoric is pathological to ordinary people and alarming when uttered by leaders who control the use of nuclear weapons. Trump concluded by pledging to make America “safer, richer, freer, greater, and stronger than ever before.”
The NSS repeatedly invokes “excellence” as a central goal of U.S. foreign policy, pursued by any means necessary. Venezuela’s intervention appears to be a sequel to US complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and a possible precursor to further plans, including control of Greenland and new military threats against Iran. However, the document’s main focus is on Latin America, framed by the revival of the Monroe Doctrine, colloquially referred to as the “Donroe Doctrine,” and reinforced by the now explicitly named “Trump Consequences.”
This hemispheric shift is an abandonment of the post-Cold War ambitions of global American leadership pursued by Obama and Biden, who spent vast resources on failed nation-building projects in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Instead, it prioritizes resource extraction, securing oil, rare earths, and minerals that greatly benefit U.S. companies, while alienating NATO and abandoning the multilateralism that underlies the recent U.S. withdrawal from participation in 66 separate entities, including the Climate Change Treaty. Venezuela, with its vast oil reserves, strategic location, and authoritarian populist government, provided an ideal testing ground and conveniently diverted attention from Trump and Jeffrey Epstein’s personal entanglements.
In practice, this intervention is more akin to a coup than a regime change, with an explicit demand that the new leadership take orders from Washington in exchange for political survival. President Trump and exiled Cuban Secretary of State Marco Rubio have openly linked Venezuela to future regime change efforts in Colombia and Cuba, Trump has issued crude threats against Colombian President Gustavo Petro, and the U.S. military has reportedly killed 32 Cuban members of President Maduro’s presidential guard.
what it means
It remains unclear whether President Delcy Rodriguez’s government will negotiate a deal that preserves formal sovereignty while relinquishing de facto control. Such an outcome would signal an embrace of gunboat diplomacy in the digital age, overturning the UN principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources and restoring a hierarchical hemispheric order. This vision even contemplates the subordination of Canadian sovereignty to Washington’s political and economic preferences.
The international response to the attack on Venezuela has been muted, reflecting fear, confusion, or a perceived futility. On the other hand, geopolitical conflicts, especially between Russia and China, are intensifying, and concerns about a new Cold War or nuclear conflict are increasing. By repeatedly referring to “our hemisphere,” the NSS makes clear that U.S. supremacy requires the exclusion of all extrahemispheric powers from the region.
The Venezuela episode thus illustrates a broader strategy. Namely, the rejection of international law, the alienation of the United Nations, and the assertion of unilateral U.S. primacy in the Western Hemisphere, and the potential for intervention almost anywhere on the planet, directly related to Greenland and Iran.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
