According to the latest developments as of January 3, 2026, U.S. forces captured Nicolás Maduro in an operation code-named Operation Absolute Resolve. This event has triggered major international reaction and controversy. It also marks a significant strategic shift by the United States in the Western Hemisphere.
This article summarizes the motivations, operational model, and likely future trajectory of the action from the perspective of U.S. government strategy.
More importantly, this event provides an opportunity to examine, from a broader macro perspective, the historic logic behind the transformation of America’s political, economic, and security strategy through an analysis of the U.S. National Security Strategy. Understanding this shift is critical for assessing the future direction of U.S. political and economic policy.
This article is intended to share information and help investors understand geopolitical realities from the perspective of the U.S. government. It objectively summarizes the report’s content and does not express subjective political views or moral judgments.
1. The Capture of Maduro
I. Comprehensive Strategic Drivers Behind the Capture of Maduro
This operation was driven by multiple considerations, including homeland security, legal authority, and geopolitical competition. Its purpose was to reshape the regional order by removing a key point of external disruption.
Law enforcement and transnational security governance:
The U.S. Department of Justice acted on its long-running investigation into the Cartel of the Suns, carrying out a narco-terrorism indictment against Maduro. Under the current strategic framework, transnational criminal networks are defined as a direct threat to U.S. public health and homeland security. The capture was therefore described within the legal framework as a major transnational law-enforcement operation.
Eliminating a strategic outpost for external powers:
Over the past several years, Venezuela had become an important strategic foothold in the Americas for Russia, Iran, and another major power. Russia used deployments of advanced air-defense systems and military patrols in Venezuela to create a geographic hedge against the United States. Iran used the country as a hub for sanctions evasion and technology transfer. Washington viewed the continued existence of the Maduro regime as weakening U.S. strategic exclusivity in the Western Hemisphere. Removing this “outpost” was therefore seen as a key step in restoring regional dominance.
Rebuilding energy supply chains and resilience:
Venezuela holds some of the world’s largest crude-oil reserves, but years of mismanagement and sanctions had left its production capacity largely dormant in the global supply system. One U.S. strategic objective was to remove sanctions through administrative transition and reintegrate Venezuelan oil production into the global supply system. This was viewed as a structural measure to strengthen energy autonomy in the Western Hemisphere and reduce dependence on unstable energy-producing regions.
Addressing the source of the border crisis:
The U.S. government viewed Venezuela’s economic and governance crisis as a core driver of migration flows from Latin America. By using coercive intervention to stabilize local social order, the objective was to reduce governance pressure at the U.S. southern border at the source, converting an unstable external factor into a more predictable regional asset.
II. Comparison With the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars
Comparing the current Venezuela operation with the intervention model of twenty years ago shows a clear evolution in the logic of U.S. overseas military operations.
1. Similarities: Asymmetric Advantage and Power Vacuums
In all three operations, the United States demonstrated overwhelming military-technological superiority and quickly disabled the target regime’s command system.
At the same time, all three cases faced the same fundamental challenge: after the collapse of a regime, how should the resulting power vacuum be filled, and how can social order be prevented from falling into prolonged chaos?
2. Differences: From “Systemic Transformation” to “Functional Stability”
Nature of strategic objectives:
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars clearly contained elements of “social engineering,” attempting long-term ideological and institutional transplantation. Some media argued that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was purely about energy interests, but actual evidence suggests that the largest energy beneficiaries after the invasion were not the United States. We will not expand on this point here; readers may conduct their own research.
By contrast, the Venezuela operation shows a strong functional orientation. Its focus is resource access, security defense, and the removal of external interference, rather than a bottom-up reshaping of local society.
Geography and logistics:
Venezuela is located near the United States, with shorter supply lines and stronger U.S. intelligence coverage. Compared with Middle Eastern battlefields, the U.S. can maintain deterrence at lower administrative and logistical cost, while also leveraging its influence among Latin American allies for multilateral coordination.
Evolution of the management model:
Compared with the previous model of full occupation and large-scale troop deployment, the current model is closer to “strategic trusteeship.” The strategy is to prioritize control over strategic resource nodes, such as oil fields and ports, while returning broad administrative authority to local technocratic officials and using energy revenues to offset the fiscal cost of the operation and subsequent management.
To some extent, this model draws from the logic of the 1989 capture of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega — a law-enforcement-style intervention rather than a full-war model.
III. Expected Path Forward and Probability of Success
1. Expected Operational Path
Legal conviction:
Through transparent judicial proceedings inside the United States, Washington will seek to establish the formal end of Maduro’s legal status, thereby eliminating expectations of his political legitimacy both domestically and internationally.
Resource-driven reconstruction:
A trusteeship structure based on energy output may be established, with international management forces brought in to repair infrastructure and ensure that reconstruction funding can become self-sustaining.
Defense burden-sharing:
The U.S. will likely seek cooperation with neighboring countries such as Colombia and Brazil to establish a multilateral security mechanism, shifting risk from unilateral U.S. responsibility to regional joint governance.
2. Core Challenges
Balancing the pace of transition:
The key challenge is whether oil production can be restored faster than pressure on public livelihoods accumulates. If the humanitarian crisis cannot be quickly alleviated, social unrest could still force the U.S. into a passive stabilization burden.
Reconstructing political legitimacy:
Removing Maduro is only the first step. The ultimate red line for avoiding the “long-term attrition” trap is whether the U.S. can help establish a local government accepted by various stakeholders without triggering strong nationalist resistance.
Summary:
This operation reflects a U.S. attempt to revise past strategy through precision management and resource self-sustainability. If Washington can effectively balance resource development with the return of sovereignty, the U.S. may complete a low-cost geopolitical transformation.
2. America’s New Security Strategy
To understand more systematically and logically how these events may evolve and the probability of different scenarios, it is necessary to examine, from a macro perspective, the recently released 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy. Reading the following section carefully will make the logic much clearer.
This report may be one of the most important strategic documents since World War II, because it reflects the U.S. government’s reassessment and transformation of its approach to managing the global order over the past several decades. Evidence suggests that this is not merely President Trump’s personal view. Rather, it reflects a broader shift in consensus among America’s political and business elites amid changing domestic interests and public opinion.
We summarize the report along two dimensions. First, how the U.S. government reflects on the mistakes it made in managing the global order in the past. Second, how its strategic philosophy has shifted as a result.
Summary of Past U.S. Strategic Mistakes and Their Negative Consequences
Mistake One: Excessive Faith in the Self-Continuation of the Post-Cold War Order
Erroneous assumptions:
Market globalization would automatically lead to political convergence.
Economic integration would reduce geopolitical conflict.
Rules would constrain all countries equally.
Negative consequences:
The U.S. underestimated the willingness of major powers to reshape the order.
Dependence on external sources deepened in critical industries and supply chains.
America’s technological advantages were systematically eroded.
Mistake Two: Unlimited Expansion of Strategic Objectives and Lack of Prioritization
Erroneous practices:
Simultaneously pursuing global stability, democracy promotion, humanitarian intervention, counterterrorism, and great-power deterrence.
Defining “all problems” as national security issues.
Negative consequences:
Military and diplomatic resources were consumed over long periods.
Strategic attention was dispersed.
The U.S. was unable to concentrate power against the most critical forms of competition.
Mistake Three: Long-Term, Low-Return Military Intervention
Erroneous model:
Wars without clear political endpoints.
Using military means to solve political and social problems.
Negative consequences:
Military capacity was overextended.
Domestic support eroded.
The U.S. became underprepared for high-end warfare.
Mistake Four: Ignoring the Strategic Importance of Domestic Foundations
Erroneous tendency:
Understanding national security primarily as an external issue.
Underestimating the security implications of social division and declining institutional trust.
Negative consequences:
External adversaries found it easier to conduct information manipulation.
Consistency in national decision-making declined.
Long-term competitive endurance weakened.
Mistake Five: Tolerating Imbalanced Allied Responsibilities
Erroneous assumptions:
It was sustainable for the U.S. to bear the primary security cost over the long term.
Allies would naturally build up their own capabilities.
Negative consequences:
The U.S. carried an excessive burden.
Allied security capabilities remained underdeveloped.
U.S. strategic flexibility declined.
Overall Conclusion
The implicit judgment of the 2025 strategy is that the greatest failure of the past was not a single policy mistake, but a long-term strategic assumption that became detached from reality.
Therefore, the core of this strategy is not to become simply “tougher” or “more idealistic.” Rather, it is to become:
More realistic.
More restrained.
More focused on long-term sustainability.
Chapter-by-Chapter Summary of the 2025 National Security Strategy
The following summary follows the original chapter structure of the National Security Strategy 2025. Each chapter includes three components: core judgment, main policy orientation, and implicit correction relative to previous strategy.
Chapter One: America’s Core National Interests
Core Judgment
U.S. national security must return to a small number of clear, defensible core interests, rather than an infinitely expanding list of objectives.
Main Policy Orientation
The strategy compresses national interests into three areas:
Homeland and public security.
Economic and technological competitiveness.
Balance of power in critical regions.
It explicitly rejects the view that “global stability” or “value promotion” should be treated as core interests in themselves.
It emphasizes that trade-offs and prioritization are signs of strategic maturity.
Implicit Correction
This corrects the post-Cold War mindset that America must lead on every issue.
It rejects the strategic overextension caused by the excessive broadening of objectives.
Chapter Two: The Strategic Environment
Core Judgment
The world has entered an era of long-term competition. Rules no longer automatically constrain the behavior of powerful states.
Main Policy Orientation
Great-power competition is treated as a structural and long-term reality.
The U.S. must address threats across multiple dimensions: military, economic, technological, and informational.
The strategy no longer assumes that peace is the default state.
Implicit Correction
This abandons the assumption that globalization would naturally reduce conflict.
It acknowledges that adversaries will systematically exploit loopholes in rules and open systems.
Chapter Three: America’s Strategic Approach
Core Judgment
Strategic success does not depend on how many actions are taken, but on whether the right choices are made.
Main Policy Orientation
Realism and strategic discipline.
Integrated use of national power, including diplomacy, military strength, economic tools, and technology.
Explicit opposition to strategic overexpansion.
Implicit Correction
This corrects the policy inertia that equated action itself with strategy.
It rejects the substitution of frequent intervention for long-term strategy.
Chapter Four: Regional Strategic Priorities
Core Judgment
The U.S. cannot sustain equal investment in all regions. It must establish clear priorities.
Main Policy Orientation
Western Hemisphere: the primary security frontier.
Indo-Pacific: the key region for long-term competition.
Europe: support remains, but responsibility must return to allies.
Middle East: downgraded priority, with focus on limited objectives.
Africa and other regions: selective engagement.
Implicit Correction
This corrects the strategic illusion of balanced global intervention.
It acknowledges that the Middle East has consumed resources for long periods while generating limited returns.
Chapter Five: Economic and Technological Security
Core Judgment
Economic security and technological security have become core dimensions of national security.
Main Policy Orientation
Nationalization of supply-chain security.
Reduction of dependence in critical technologies.
Strategic use of the financial system and industrial policy.
Implicit Correction
This corrects the efficiency-first logic of economic globalization.
It acknowledges the past strategic mistake of outsourcing critical industries.
Chapter Six: Military Power and Deterrence
Core Judgment
The primary mission of military power is to deter war, not to manage the world.
Main Policy Orientation
Deterrence takes priority over war.
High-end conflict takes priority over low-intensity missions.
Clear rejection of indefinite military interventions.
Cyber, space, and information domains are treated as operational domains alongside traditional military domains.
Implicit Correction
This systematically reflects on the military exhaustion of the counterterrorism-war era.
It corrects the path dependence of using the military to solve political problems.
Chapter Seven: Diplomacy, Alliances, and Partnerships
Core Judgment
The goal of diplomacy is to manage competition, not to pursue comprehensive consensus.
Main Policy Orientation
Diplomacy serves core interests.
Alliances must emphasize reciprocal responsibility.
Cooperation should be based on interests rather than value alignment alone.
Communication with competitors should be maintained to prevent miscalculation.
Implicit Correction
This corrects the assumption that value-based alliances are naturally stable.
It rejects the rationale for the U.S. to continue bearing asymmetric alliance burdens indefinitely.
Chapter Eight: Domestic Foundations and National Resilience
Core Judgment
Domestic structure itself is a frontline of national security.
Main Policy Orientation
Social cohesion and information security are incorporated into the national security framework.
Border and immigration order are securitized.
Critical infrastructure and public health are treated strategically.
Institutional stability and legitimacy are protected.
Implicit Correction
This corrects the traditional view that national security is primarily an external issue.
It acknowledges that domestic division weakens international competitiveness.
Conclusion: The Overall Strategic Logic
The overall logic of the 2025 National Security Strategy is a systematic correction of America’s post-Cold War strategic path.
The strategy explicitly recognizes the realities of limited resources, relative erosion of advantages, and long-term competition. It abandons strategic assumptions centered on global dominance and value expansion, and instead prioritizes core interests, clear regional trade-offs, and strong domestic foundations.
Its objective is not to reshape the world order, but to prevent the emergence of unfavorable power structures. Through disciplined use of economic, technological, military, and diplomatic tools, the goal is to ensure that the United States maintains security, resilience, and a sustainable relative advantage in long-term great-power competition.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is original content and may not be reproduced without permission. The views expressed herein are solely those of the authors. This article is provided for informational purposes only. Even if the views expressed change in the future, the authors have no obligation to update this article.
This article does not constitute an offer to sell, a solicitation to buy, or a recommendation to trade any securities. Its sole purpose is to provide information and perspectives. Nothing contained herein should be construed as financial or investment advice on any subject.
The authors assume no responsibility for any actions taken by readers based on any information contained in this article.