On January 3, 2026, the United States launched a lightning strike against Venezuela and forcibly abducted President Maduro and his wife, shocking the international community. How the U.S. military was able to achieve its operational objectives so quickly, what lessons should be drawn from Venezuela’s defensive failure, and what international repercussions this operation may have are all questions that merit in-depth analysis. 

I. Main Characteristics of U.S. Military Tactics 

Since August 2025, the United States spent more than four months preparing for this lightning strike, and its military operation exhibited four main characteristics. 

First, an integrated “four-in-one” hybrid warfare approach created an overwhelming advantage. The first component was economic warfare. Building on years of sanctions, the United States incrementally imposed blockades on Venezuela’s coastline and airspace, restricting the movement of people and trade. It intercepted oil tankers to prevent Venezuelan oil exports, attempting to cut off the country’s primary source of revenue and worsen its economic conditions, thereby forcing Maduro from power. The second component was cognitive warfare. Under the pretext of counter-narcotics and counterterrorism, the United States pursued regime change in substance by designating Venezuela’s “Tren de Aragua” and the “Cartel de los Soles” as foreign terrorist organizations, and by portraying Maduro as the leader of a “narco-terrorist organization.” Domestically, this approach circumvented legal constraints on the president’s authority to initiate war. Externally, it stigmatized Maduro by repeatedly emphasizing that the operation was conducted at the request of the U.S. Department of Justice, thereby packaging a military operation as a “law enforcement” action. The third component was deterrence warfare. The U.S. military successively deployed 15,000 troops to the Caribbean, along with advanced weapons and equipment such as the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier and F-35 fighter jets. It conducted joint exercises with countries including Trinidad and Tobago and the Dominican Republic, reactivated multiple military bases in Latin America, attacked several so-called “drug trafficking vessels,” and extrajudicially executed more than 100 individuals. On December 4, the United States released a new National Security Strategy, elevating the Western Hemisphere to its top priority region. The following day, it announced the establishment of a U.S. Army Western Hemisphere Command to further improve its military command structure. The fourth component was a blitz-style operation. Late at night during Venezuela’s Christmas holiday, the U.S. military launched more than 150 sorties from 20 bases across the Western Hemisphere to carry out airstrikes. It simultaneously struck multiple targets, including the Fort Tiuna military base in Caracas, the Maracaibo military base, and airports in La Guaira and Miranda states, in order to confuse and disperse Venezuelan forces. It then deployed Delta Force special operations units deep into the interior, abducting Maduro and his wife in just three hours. 

Second, well-coordinated operational sequencing produced a textbook example of a “decapitation” strike. This operation represented a complete execution of the U.S. military’s operational chain of “precision intelligence + electronic suppression + precision strike + multi-axis insertion.” In terms of intelligence gathering, the United States employed a combination of satellites, cyber capabilities, UAVs, and human intelligence to conduct months-long intelligence collection against Venezuela. It penetrated Maduro’s inner circle, developed a detailed understanding of conditions at Fort Tiuna where he resided, and analyzed his daily routines. It even replicated his safe house at a 1:1 scale based on satellite imagery and intelligence data, repeatedly rehearsing forced-entry capture operations to provide precise intelligence support for the mission. In terms of electronic suppression, similar to its previous airstrikes on nuclear facilities in Iran, the U.S. military employed “penetrating air superiority operations.” However, in this case, it first used electronic warfare aircraft and cyberattacks to paralyze Caracas’s power grid and civilian communications systems. At the same time, multiple types of fighter aircrafts, including F-22s and F-35s, along with B-1 bombers, suppressed Venezuela’s air defense network from high altitude, providing cover for low-altitude helicopter penetration. In terms of precision strikes, after suppressing Venezuela’s air defense network, the U.S. military carried out precision strikes against key facilities at multiple locations, including the air force base where the minister of defense was located, the national legislature building, and radar stations—more than 10 targets in total. These strikes further degraded the air defense command system, disrupted Venezuela’s counterattack operations and military deployment, and enabled mission-critical units to approach and breach Maduro’s residence. In terms of multi-axis insertion, the U.S. military chose to act at night during the Christmas holiday, when Venezuelan forces were fewer in number and relatively less vigilant. It used technical means to disable lighting in the target area and, under cover of darkness, rapidly inserted Delta Force special operations personnel using multiple types of armed helicopters, tilt-rotor aircraft, and transport helicopters, overcoming Venezuelan resistance with overwhelming firepower. U.S. forces then withdrew rapidly, taking only about 16 hours to bring Maduro back to the United States. 

Third, the systematic employment of weapons and equipment enabled the achievement of “zero casualties.” In this operation, the U.S. military mobilized multiple types of platforms and achieved precise coordination, laying the foundation for a “zero-casualty” outcome. During the electronic suppression phase, EA-18G Growler and EC-130H Compass Call electronic warfare aircrafts, which had been pre-deployed to a naval base in Puerto Rico, were the first to act, forming the main force for suppression. They disrupted Venezuelan command, communications, and navigation systems. Together, they constituted an electronic suppression system which, in coordination with real-time guidance from E-3 airborne early warning aircraft, rendered Venezuelan radar and communications ineffective. During the precision strike phase, MQ-9A Reaper UAVs, along with missiles launched from naval vessels and F-35 fighter aircrafts, destroyed multiple Venezuelan radar stations, command centers, and military bases within just one hour. MH-47 Chinook and MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters flew at low altitude, exploiting blind spots in the S-300VM detection system to enter Venezuelan airspace and strike Maduro’s location. According to eyewitness reports reposted by White House press secretary Leavitt on the X platform, as well as accounts from wounded Venezuelan soldiers, the U.S. military may also have employed directed-energy weapons during the attack on Maduro’s safe house, rendering Venezuelan troops incapable of action.¹ During the multi-axis insertion phase, CH-47 Chinook helicopters launched from the USS Iwo Jima amphibious assault ship carried special operations forces and equipment for large-scale insertion, while AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, armed with Hellfire missiles and rockets, provided continuous fire support throughout the operation. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that only one helicopter was hit,² but it was not shot down. Only a few U.S. soldiers were wounded during the entire operation. 

Fourth, long-term infiltration efforts played a decisive role in securing victory. First, long-term planning and sustained advancement. The United States has long pursued infiltration into Venezuela through a dual-track strategy of “economic inducements + sanctions-based deterrence.” In April 2002, more than 10 senior Venezuelan military officers, who had been incited and supported by the United States, declared their opposition to the government and detained President Chávez. During the 2019 crisis triggered by opposition leader Juan Guaidó’s self-declaration as “interim president,” the United States successfully turned a number of Venezuelan military officers, including Colonel José Luis, then the defense attaché at the Venezuelan embassy in the United States.³ Second, high-value inducements and direct penetration. Since 2024, the United States has intensified “close-in infiltration” targeting Maduro’s inner circle. According to the Associated Press, in 2024, agents from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security attempted to recruit Villegas, the chief pilot of the Venezuelan presidential aircraft, but were unsuccessful.⁴ In August 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice announced an increase in the reward for capturing Maduro from $25 million to $50 million, raising the level of inducement. On January 3, 2026, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Kane revealed that a CIA infiltration team, through informants, had obtained detailed information on Maduro’s “movements, place of residence, travel routes, dietary habits, and manner of dress,” and even information about his “pets.” Third, deliberate creation of deception and careful operational cover. The United States intentionally disclosed in advance—and selectively amplified—the refusal of Villegas to betray Maduro, creating the illusion that efforts to turn individuals close to Maduro had failed. This misled Venezuelan judgment, dulled its security vigilance, and provided cover for the activities of insider assets. According to Spain’s El País, interim President Rodríguez has ordered the arrest of General Marcano Tabata, former commander of the presidential guard and head of military counterintelligence. 

II. Reflections on Venezuela’s Failed Defense Against the Intrusion 

The vast disparity in military strength between the United States and Venezuela makes Venezuela’s defeat unsurprising. However, the speed and ease with which the U.S. military achieved its objectives are nonetheless striking and warrant careful reflection. 

First, failures in intelligence and counterintelligence led to the loss of the initiative in responding to the invasion. From both internal and external perspectives, Venezuela’s intelligence and counterintelligence efforts exhibited major deficiencies. Internally, despite explicit indications that the United States had deployed CIA teams to operate within Venezuela, Venezuelan counterintelligence agencies failed to effectively screen and purge relevant personnel, allowing insider assets to continuously provide precise information to opposing forces. Externally, despite months of planning by the U.S. military and coordination across multiple locations and agencies, Venezuelan intelligence failed to detect the operation at all and was unable to issue timely warnings. 

Second, lax preparedness created an opportunity for U.S. forces to exploit vulnerabilities. In an interview, the Russian ambassador to Venezuela noted that the U.S. operation coincided with a holiday period in Venezuela, during which Venezuelan forces were on staggered rotation. Reduced personnel availability further widened the already significant gap in military strength, reflecting insufficient overall preparedness and a lack of urgency and vigilance in the face of a looming threat. After the strike began, the rapid response and adaptive capabilities of the leadership, command structure, operational units, and frontline forces were all found wanting. 

Third, the complexity and fragmentation of the weapons system structure significantly constrained the effectiveness of counter-invasion operations. According to media reports, Venezuela’s air defense system included a mix of Russian-made S-300VM missile defense systems, anti-stealth radar systems from other countries, and Iranian UAVs, among other platforms. However, compatibility issues among these systems resulted in an ineffective “target detection–target tracking–precision engagement” chain, reducing the efficiency of air defense interception. 

III. Consequences of the U.S. Military Operation 

Although the United States achieved a tactical victory, it committed a series of strategic errors. 

First, it undermined the international order and international rules. The U.S. military strike against Venezuela constitutes a blatant violation of the international rules-based system centered on the Charter of the United Nations, delivering a systemic shock to the international order. Without authorization from the United Nations Security Council, the United States invaded the territory of a sovereign state, forcibly detained Venezuelan President Maduro, and transferred him abroad for trial in U.S. courts. This seriously violates fundamental principles of international law, including the equality of sovereign states, non-interference in internal affairs, and the prohibition on the use of force. It also represents a grave infringement of the immunity of a sitting head of state. Particularly alarming is that, following the operation, Trump openly stated that “I do not need international law,” asserting that the only constraints on his power are his “personal moral standards and will.” This hegemonic logic—placing national power above legal norms—fully exposes the dangerous tendency toward “might makes right.” It not only undermines the foundations of the postwar international order, subjecting all states to dual uncertainties in law and security, but also opens a Pandora’s box for the return of the “law of the jungle,” sowing the seeds of global instability. It drew widespread condemnation and strong opposition from the international community. 

Second, it will affect the trajectory of the geopolitical landscape in the Western Hemisphere. The United States’ approach of attacking the left while courting the right will have a profound impact on the region’s geopolitical configuration. Venezuela is the strongest member of the “anti-U.S. iron triangle” in Latin America. Once it is struck, a “domino effect” is likely to extend to Cuba and Nicaragua. The incident also places unprecedented pressure on left-leaning governments in countries such as Brazil and Colombia, which are scheduled to hold elections in 2026. Its “chilling effect” will spread to other countries, forcing some to choose sides and prioritize “security” over “development” and align more closely with the United States. Of course, history has repeatedly shown that in the face of U.S.-style hegemony, anti-U.S. sentiment in the region will inevitably accumulate and, once reaching a certain threshold, will erupt forcefully. 

Third, this action will undermine global and regional peace and stability. Within one year of Trump’s second term, the United States has already launched military strikes against seven countries, including Venezuela, and ordered more than 626 airstrikes against other countries,⁵ while also issuing threats of military action against Greenland and Iran. While requiring NATO allies to raise defense spending as a share of GDP from 2 percent to 5 percent, Trump has also proposed increasing the United States’ 2027 defense budget to $1.5 trillion. These developments indicate a resurgence of traditional security concerns, and that the use of force, the threat of force, and interference in other countries’ affairs may become a preferred option for the current U.S. administration. This new trend will seriously threaten world peace and regional security and deserves close attention from the international community.