On January 3, 2026, the US Joint Strategic Operation Command (JSOC) conducted a direct military operation in Venezuela, resulting in the capture and extraction of President Nicolas Maduro. This came after a month of naval blockade of Venezuela by US forces. The capture and extrajudicial removal of President Nicolas Maduro showcased the naked display of US military might and its political hegemonic intent. This intervention is marked as a reassertion of the imperial Monroe Doctrine, the early 19th-century policy asserting U.S. primacy in the Western Hemisphere. This came after the release of the US National Security Strategy, which categorically specified the return of the Monroe Doctrine as a central part of the US security policy. This piece analyzes the Monroe Doctrine while decoding the intervention and evaluates its implications for India and the world in navigating great-power competition and international law.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: THE MONROE DOCTRINE
The Monroe Doctrine is an imperialist policy of regional hegemony. It was first articulated by former US President James Monroe in 1823, declaring US primacy and domination over the Western Hemisphere. This doctrine outlined that the Western Hemisphere was off-limits to future European colonialism and that European interference in the region would be viewed as hostile. With time, the Monroe Doctrine became a central pillar of the US actions in the region, often justifying regime change operations in Latin America. Many analysts highlighted that beyond its original defensive language, the doctrine evolved into a flexible instrument of U.S. power projection in the Americas. In 2025, the US National Security Strategy outlined the revamp of the Monroe Doctrine and referred to it as the “Trump Corollary.” It signaled a renewed emphasis on U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere and a willingness to use force if deemed necessary.
MAKING SENSE OF “OPERATION ABSOLUTE RESOLVE”
The abduction of President Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, by the US DELTA Force Unit was codenamed Operation Absolute Resolve. The US forces conducted strikes and raids in the early morning hours of 3 January 2026, targeting key military and defense infrastructure before special forces executed the capture. Initially, the US rationalized the operation as a necessary step to curb illegal drug smuggling into the US mainland. However, the statistics suggest otherwise, as smugglers route more than 90% of drugs into the United States through Mexico. The real objective behind this operation was to control Venezuelan oil. Venezuela has the largest proven crude oil reserves in the world, with about 303 billion barrels. Trump’s admission of consulting US oil giants during the operations despite keeping the congress in the dark further debunks the drugs claim. In this light, drug trafficking was just a smokescreen for securing strategic energy resources.
Another key driver behind this operation is the great-power competition and securing the Western Hemisphere from inimical influences. Maduro’s government was bolstering its ties with China and Russia, providing them inroads in the region. Observers saw this as a challenge to U.S. primacy in the region. Ousting Maduro in such a blatant fashion was a warning that the US will not tolerate any challenge to its influence in the region. Although the operation was conducted in Caracas, its heat was felt in Beijing and Moscow. Conducting the operation on the same day a high-level Chinese delegation met Maduro, combined with the seizure of a Russian oil tanker carrying Venezuelan oil, shows that the US left no stones unturned in stating its intent to both China and Russia. The message was clear—reassertion of U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere.
GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS
U.S. aggression against Venezuela carried implications far beyond Caracas—it rippled through the global order. It shattered the last hope anyone has in the nominal concept of a rules-based order. It augmented the perception that international law applies selectively upon nations, further reinforcing the medieval law of “might is right.” This weakened the norm of sovereignty. A powerful state acting unilaterally against a weaker one signaled that territorial integrity remains conditional, not absolute. That message unsettled many Global South countries. It further exposed the Western hypocrisy of defending international law rhetorically, thus weakening their stance against Russian aggression in Ukraine. Furthermore, it bolsters the hemispheric hierarchy where the strong nations create their sphere of influence by subduing the interests of other weaker nations. Overall, the episode weakened global consensus, normalized power politics, and nudged the world further away from cooperative multilateralism toward competitive geopolitics.
LESSONS FOR INDIA
For India, the Venezuelan episode offers some hard, useful lessons. The primary lesson is that power still trumps rules. International law matters, but only when backed by capability. India must continue building its credible military and economic power. It needs to heavily invest in creating its capacities at scale. Deterrence works best at home. A strong economy, internal stability, and technological depth reduce external coercion more than diplomatic protest ever can. India must realize that strategic autonomy must be real, not rhetorical. Over-dependence on any one bloc creates leverage points that can be exploited under pressure. Hence, it should continue its policy of multi-alignment in a more pragmatic sense. For Indian leadership it is imperative that they prepare for a world where force, pressure, and signaling coexist with diplomacy—and ensure India is never the weaker party in that equation.
