What will be the consequences of the US attack on Venezuela?

Just days into 2026, the world has already been shaken by an unexpected turn of events. In the early hours of January 3, the United States carried out a military intervention in Venezuela, bombing strategic locations across the country and successfully capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Far from triggering an immediate regime change, the government’s former vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, has assumed the presidency with the approval of Donald Trump.

What does this mean for an international order already in decline? And what scenarios now lie ahead for Venezuela? We analyze recent developments with Angel Saz-Carranza, professor at Esade and director of EsadeGeo.

A world divided into spheres of influence

The intervention, which followed a campaign of illegal bombings against Venezuelan vessels under the pretext of a counter-narcotics operation, is fully aligned with the new US security strategy. The doctrine reasserts an active role for the US in Latin America and the Caribbean, applying what some analysts describe as a “Trump corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. The goal is to reinforce Washington’s influence in the Western Hemisphere and reserve the right to intervene by force.

“In an ideal world, the US should have gone to the UN Security Council to seek approval for the intervention under the principle of the responsibility to protect (R2P, a tenet of humanitarian law that allows intervention to defend local populations),” explains the professor. “But that world seems to have disappeared.”

This signals a clear message to Russia and China: within their own ‘backyards’, they are free to act as they see fit

Instead, Trump made the decision unilaterally, disregarding multilateral institutions and international law. Domestically, serious questions have also been raised about the legality of the intervention, which was carried out without the knowledge or approval of Congress.

According to Saz-Carranza, the action in Venezuela sends a clear message to other powers such as Russia and China: within their own “backyards,” they are free to act as they see fit. “If I were in Taiwan, I would be worried about this division of the world into hemispheres,” he says, referring to the possibility of a Chinese invasion of the island. “In the European Union, we should also be concerned, as this legitimizes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

Will the US attack other countries in its vicinity?

The operation in Venezuela has heightened concerns about other countries and territories now in the sights of the US president. One of the most frequently mentioned since Trump’s return to power is Greenland, a Danish territory that he repeatedly describes as “essential to US national security.”

“From a military standpoint, Greenland is already theirs. It is the army with the greatest presence there,” notes Saz-Carranza. The threat of Trump seizing the island is very real. The question is whether he would opt for a dramatic move and de facto annex Greenland, or whether he would instead gradually coerce the local administration into aligning more closely with US interests. While Greenland’s population has already expressed its rejection of US ambitions, it remains unclear how Denmark and the EU would respond to either scenario.

There are also questions about further US interventions in the Caribbean. “Cuba is the country most clearly marked, but its regime is far more solid,” Saz explains. Notably, a large proportion of those killed while defending against the US operation were Cuban soldiers serving as Maduro’s personal guard. A military intervention in Cuba would face far greater resistance than in Venezuela.

According to Saz, while a potential attack on Cuba appears plausible—though not in the short term—intervention in Colombia is unlikely. Nor is it expected in Panama, which was already invaded by the US in 1989 to carry out a regime change. Over the past year, Trump has exerted pressure on the country through various channels, ultimately prompting it to reconsider its port agreements with China.

Maduro’s fall and the future of Venezuela

The US military was able to capture Maduro within a matter of hours and with virtually no resistance. “It appears that the regime has sacrificed its leader in order to survive by shifting its alignment—from Russia and China toward the US—and allowing US companies to operate in the oil industry,” the professor explains. This fits neatly with Trump’s transactional logic, which shows little concern for who holds power in Venezuela as long as it serves his interests.

A significant portion of the regime’s support base is unlikely to welcome the ideological shift of the government

For now, the Chavista regime, now led by Delcy Rodríguez, has signaled its willingness to cooperate with Trump. The strategy is pragmatic but risky. “We will have to see how sustainable this new internal coalition of power is within the regime and how society responds,” Saz-Carranza says.

A significant portion of the regime’s support base is unlikely to welcome the ideological shift implied by aligning with the US. Meanwhile, the opposition—led by María Corina Machado, a recent Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and Edmundo González, whom many regard as the legitimate president—appears to have been excluded from any transition process. Initially, they celebrated Maduro’s downfall, but it remains to be seen how they will respond if the regime stays in power.

The US strategy of allowing the Chavista regime to remain in charge is intended to avoid the mistakes made in Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan: while toppling a dictator is relatively easy, ensuring stability from the following day onward is not. For now, the decision has been to keep the current government in place and work with it. In this context, Professor Saz-Carranza outlines four possible internal scenarios for Venezuela in the short to medium term:

• The regime, led by Delcy Rodríguez, continues under a transitional mandate with the goal of holding democratic elections. Venezuela normalizes.
• There is no transition, and the regime remains in power, replacing ideology with pragmatism and the personal benefit of its members. The government stabilizes, but Venezuela sees no social or democratic change.
• The hardline faction of the regime rebels against Rodríguez’s collaborative government and seizes power. They manage to stabilize the country and confront the US.
• The hardline faction rebels but fails to take control. The country becomes destabilized and descends into chaos among rival factions.

Trump’s motives for intervening in Venezuela

On the domestic front, Saz highlights that Trump has succeeded in satisfying three of his main allied groups in US domestic politics. First, he rewards the US oil business sector, which will now be able to exploit the Caribbean country’s resources. Venezuela holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves, although access is more complex and requires greater investment than in regions such as the Persian Gulf.

Second, Trump caters to the “Latin hawks”: a group of White House officials and advisers of Latin American origin who advocate a hardline approach in the Caribbean and Latin America. Their most prominent figure is Marco Rubio, Secretary of State (the equivalent of a foreign minister in Europe) in Trump’s administration. Of Cuban descent, Rubio is the principal architect of the Venezuela operation.

Finally, the way the operation was conducted also reassures the core supporters of the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement, which has harshly criticized previous US military invasions for being excessively costly domestically. They would be unlikely to accept the deployment of ground troops but, by keeping the Chavista regime in power and refraining from taking over the government, Trump avoids the costs of a large-scale invasion and the ensuing domestic backlash.