From Unipolar Dominance to Multipolar Contestation: What the Venezuela Strike Reveals
by
Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.
January 4, 2025
Many of us in the United States are asking a familiar but increasingly urgent question: Where is all of this going? The reported U.S. military strike on Venezuela and the claims surrounding the detention of President Nicolás Maduro have reignited debate not only about legality and executive power, but about the deeper geopolitical moment we now inhabit. While the immediate focus has been on the shock and uncertainty of the action itself, its broader significance becomes clearer when read alongside the growing evidence that the world is moving—unevenly but unmistakably—away from a unipolar order toward a multipolar one (Valenzuela, 2026).
A recent PBS analysis posted below carefully distinguishes what is known from what remains uncertain, while underscoring the extent to which the action has unsettled international norms surrounding sovereignty, due process, and the use of force without broad multilateral consent (PBS NewsHour, 2026).
Regardless of how the administration justifies the strike, the episode revives long-standing concerns about anti-democratic unilateralism and the erosion of international legal frameworks that were designed precisely to prevent powerful states from determining the fate of others on their own terms.
An accompanying Spanish-language YouTube analysis places this moment in a wider historical frame, arguing that such actions may represent not a resurgence of U.S. dominance, but rather the beginning of the end of an epoch in which a single power could decide the destiny of entire regions without consultation or consequence.
From this perspective, the intervention appears less as an expression of strength than as a misreading of contemporary global realities—ones increasingly shaped by multiple centers of power, competing norms, and resistance to externally imposed solutions. This interpretation aligns closely with earlier analyses I have shared about the growing tension between unipolar assumptions and multipolar conditions, where legitimacy is no longer conferred by force alone but by negotiated authority and international recognition and respect (, 2026)
Public discussion following the strike reflects these anxieties. In a widely read Reddit thread asking whether insurgency or civil conflict might follow U.S. action in Venezuela, contributors repeatedly returned to historical patterns showing that externally imposed political outcomes often lack domestic legitimacy and generate prolonged instability rather than resolution (Reddit, 2026).
While commentators varied in their predictions, there seems to be broad agreement on one point: military intervention may alter leadership structures quickly, but it rarely addresses the underlying political, economic, and social fractures that produced crisis in the first place. Even in the absence of a full-scale civil war—which would be horrible for the people of Venezuela—sustained resistance, fragmented authority, and long-term insecurity remain real possibilities when governance is perceived as imposed rather than collectively determined.
Taken together, these perspectives suggest that the Venezuela strike cannot be understood in isolation. It is occurring at a moment when the United States is attempting to act through logics forged in a unipolar era, even as the global context increasingly resists such logics.
For starters, in a multipolar world, unilateral actions carry higher costs—including those shouldered by U.S. taxpayers—and often accelerate the very instability they seek to contain. What is at stake, then, is not only Venezuela’s future, but the emerging power and credibility of international norms in our hemisphere, as well as the viability of governance models rooted in consent rather than coercion.
This moment also invites reflection closer to home. The assumptions that underwrite unilateral foreign intervention—faith in top-down control, dismissal of contextual knowledge, and impatience with deliberation—are mirrored in domestic policy arenas, including education, where complex social problems are often reduced to blunt administrative fixes.
Understanding the shift from unipolar to multipolar power helps illuminate why such approaches increasingly fail, both internationally and domestically. It points instead toward the necessity of pluralism, negotiation, and accountability as conditions for durable solutions in an increasingly interconnected world.
What unfolds next in Venezuela is uncertain. What is clear is that the world in which one nation could act as sole arbiter of others’ political futures is outdated, fading. The question before us is whether U.S. policy will adapt to this reality—or continue to clash with it, at significant human, taxpayer, and geopolitical cost.
References
PBS NewsHour. (2026). What we know about Venezuela after reported U.S. military action and Maduro’s detention. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-we-know-about-a-u-s-strike-that-captured-venezuelas-maduroReddit. (2026). Do you think insurgency/civil war will occur after the U.S.’s actions in Venezuela? r/PoliticalDiscussion. https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/1q371ky/do_you_think_insurgencycivil_war_will_occur_after/
. (2026, January 3). Richard Wolff: DOCUMENTOS FILTRADOS Revelan el VERDADERO Motivo de Trump para INVADIR Venezuela [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8CUUK3NtV0
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a lightning military strike, the U.S. captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and spirited them out of the country to face justice in the United States.
Now President Donald Trump says the U.S. is "going to run" Venezuela until a transition of power can take place, but it's not clear what that will mean on the ground in the South American country.
The overnight operation left Venezuela reeling, with its leadership uncertain and details of casualties and the impact on its military still to emerge. Much is still unknown about how the U.S. ouster of Maduro will ricochet across the country and the region.
Here's what we know — and what we don't.
Rising U.S. pressure, then an overnight attack
 |
| Helicopters fly past plumes of smoke rising from explosions Jan. 3, in Caracas, Venezuela, in this screen grab obtained from video obtained by Reuters. Video obtained by Reuters/via Reuters. Note: This picture was processed by Reuters to enhance quality. |
Explosions rang out and low-flying aircraft swept through Venezuela's capital, Caracas, early Saturday. At least seven blasts were heard in an attack that lasted less than 30 minutes. The targets appeared to include military infrastructure.
Venezuelan ruling party leader Nahum Fernández said Maduro and Flores were captured at their home within the Ft. Tiuna military installation outside Caracas.
READ MORE: U.S. strikes Venezuela and says leader Maduro has been captured and flown out of the country
Venezuelan officials said people had been killed, but the scale of casualties was unclear.
The attack followed months of escalating pressure by the Trump administration, which has built up naval forces in the waters off South America and since early September has carried out deadly strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean. Late last month, the CIA carried out a drone strike at a docking area alleged to have been used by drug cartels.
Maduro facing U.S. terrorism charges
Trump said during a news conference Saturday the U.S. would run the country and gestured to officials arrayed behind him, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and said they'd be the ones doing it "for a period of time."
Trump claimed the American presence was already in place, although across Venezuela's capital there were no signs that the U.S. had taken control of the government or military forces.
WATCH: Trump holds news conference after announcing U.S. has captured Venezuelan leader Maduro
Trump claimed that Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez had been sworn in as president shortly before he spoke to reporters and added she had spoken with Rubio.
"She is essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again. Very simple," Trump said.
But during a televised address after Trump's news conference, Rodriguez made no mention of talking to Rubio, of taking over the presidency or of cooperating with the U.S. State television has not shown a swearing-in ceremony and during her address, a ticker at the bottom of the screen identified her as the vice president.
Instead, she demanded the U.S. free Maduro, called him the country's rightful leader and said what was happening to Venezuela "is an atrocity that violates international law."
Rodriguez left open the door for dialogue with the U.S., while seeking to calm ruling party supporters.
"Here, we have a government with clarity, and I repeat and repeat again … we are willing to have respectful relations," she said, referring to the Trump administration. "It is the only thing we will accept for a type of relationship after having attacked (Venezuela)."
Armed individuals and uniformed members of a civilian militia took to the streets of a Caracas neighborhood long considered a stronghold of the ruling party. But in other areas of the city, the streets remained empty hours after the attack. Parts of the city remained without power, but vehicles moved freely.
Trump offered no details on what U.S. leadership in Venezuela would mean or specify whether it would involve more military involvement.
The State Department did not immediately respond to questions about how the U.S. would run Venezuela, what authority it would use to administer it or whether it would involve any American personnel — either civilian or military — on the ground in Caracas or other areas of Venezuela.
The future of Venezuela's oil infrastructure
Trump mentioned the country's oil infrastructure repeatedly during the news conference. He suggested there would be a substantial U.S. role in Venezuela's oil industry, saying that U.S. oil companies would go in and fix the broken infrastructure.
And Trump said the U.S. would use revenues from oil sales to pay for running the country.
"We're going to get reimbursed for everything that we spend," he said.
The U.S. charges against Maduro
According to an indictment made public Saturday, Maduro is charged alongside his wife, his son and three others. Maduro is indicted on four counts: narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.
Authorities allege powerful and violent drug trafficking organizations, such as the Sinaloa Cartel and Tren de Aragua gang, worked directly with the Venezuelan government and then sent profits to high-ranking officials who helped and protected them in exchange.
Maduro and his wife were initially taken to a U.S. warship and then flown by plane to New York on Saturday afternoon.
It was not immediately clear when they would make their first court appearance or where they would be detained.
How the U.S. operation played out
Trump gave some details of the operation during a Saturday morning interview on "Fox and Friends," and he and Caine went into more depth during the news conference.
Trump said a few U.S. members of the operation were injured but he believed no one was killed.
READ MORE: How U.S. forces captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in Caracas
He said Maduro was "highly guarded" in a presidential palace akin to a "fortress" and he tried to get to a safe room but wasn't able to get there in time.
Trump said U.S. forces practiced the operation ahead of time on a replica building, and the U.S. turned off "almost all of the lights in Caracas," although he didn't detail how they accomplished that.
Caine said the mission had been "meticulously planned" for months, relying on work by the U.S. intelligence community to find Maduro and detail how he moved, lived, ate and what he wore.
The mission involved more than 150 aircraft launched across the Western Hemisphere, Caine said. Helicopters came under fire as they approached "the target area," he said, and responded with "overwhelming force."
Questions over legality
The U.S. does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and the legal implications of the strike under U.S. law were not immediately clear.
The Trump administration maintains that Maduro is not the legitimate leader of Venezuela and claims he has effectively turned Venezuela into a criminal enterprise at the service of drug traffickers and terrorist groups.
READ MORE: Maduro's capture and Trump's claim that U.S. will run Venezuela raise new legal questions
Mike Lee, a U.S. senator from Utah, said on X that the action "likely falls within the president's inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack."
But some Democrats were more critical.
Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, said in a statement, "President Trump's unauthorized military attack on Venezuela to arrest Maduro — however terrible he is — is a sickening return to a day when the United States asserted the right to dominate the internal political affairs of all nations in the Western Hemisphere."
How opposition leader Machado figures in Trump's plans
Venezuelan opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado had intended to run against Maduro in the 2024 presidential election, but the government barred her from running for office. She went into hiding and wasn't seen for nearly a year.
Trump said Saturday that he hadn't been in touch with Machado and said it would be "very tough" for her to lead Venezuela.
"She doesn't have the support within or the respect within the country. She's a very nice woman, but she doesn't have the respect," Trump said.
Lawless reported from London. Associated Press Writer Danica Kirka in London contributed to this story.
No comments:
Post a Comment