There are two mainstream versions of the U.S. abduction of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro. The first: it was a brilliantly executed operation by the U.S. military to remove a dictator. The second: the legitimate president of a country was illegally abducted by the U.S. military for imperial designs. There is an unpopular third scenario, however, which is neither one nor the other, but has elements of both.
The First Scenario: The Official Version
On the night of January 3rd, and after months of military buildup in the Caribbean, the U.S. conducted an operation and abducted Venezuela’s President, Nicolás Maduro.
The operation deployed around 150 aircraft and an unknown number of personnel. In around 30 minutes, U.S. Delta Force units — with aerial support to disable enemy defenses — stormed Maduro’s residence in the capital and took him away together with his wife, Cilia Flores, who was also a key Chavista leader. There were no U.S. casualties, and only one helicopter was reportedly damaged but not lost.
If we follow this version of the story, widely promoted by the U.S. administration and the mainstream media, we are to believe that this was a brilliantly planned operation between intelligence and the military — perhaps with some informants — but mostly based on U.S. capabilities. Indeed, this would demonstrate that the U.S. still has, perhaps, the best army in the world, as Trump claims.
In this version, the U.S. legally and justly apprehended Maduro because he was a narco-trafficker and a dictator. According to Trump, who said he watched it live, it was like “watching a television show.” It might have been just that.
The Second Scenario: The Idealist Version
The second version maintains similar facts but offers a different interpretation. The U.S. used its military strength in an operation that “no country on the planet” could have opposed to remove the legitimate president of Venezuela. The reasons, according to this view, are resources and fear of the revolutionary socialist ethos the country represents.
It also argues that this operation does not actually pose a threat to the socialist project, but on the contrary, serves as a tacit recognition that it is here to stay. Despite evidence that might point to the contrary, there has been no treason or selling out of Maduro, and the current government can keep its revolutionary pride.
In this version, the U.S. has entered a terminal phase of imperialism where it no longer bothers to dress its colonial hunger for resources and control in the language of democracy and freedom.
The Third Scenario: The Realist Version
In this scenario, the facts and the narrative put forward by the U.S. are questioned — but not in line with some incorruptible revolutionary fervor. The U.S. did illegally abduct the president of a country; whether he was legitimate or illegitimate is another discussion. But it did so in coordination with factions from his own government, in the execution of a planned coup. This possibility emerges from the loopholes in the military narrative as well as the subsequent political discourse.
For contrast, when the U.S. captured Panamanian President Noriega in 1989, it deployed around 27,000 Marines, many already stationed in bases inside Panama. It took them almost three weeks to get to him. Noriega eventually turned himself in after taking refuge in the Apostolic Nunciature. Twenty-three U.S. personnel were killed and 325 were wounded; 314 Panamanian military personnel were killed, as well as 202 civilians.
The effectiveness of the U.S. military is questioned by the fact that no Venezuelan defenses were activated. U.S. planes and helicopters were able to cruise through the Caracas sky without challenge. It could be argued that the U.S. disabled all anti-air defenses, which is debatable, but what about the MANPADS Venezuela possesses and similar firepower?
In a supposedly highly alert military environment and in the face of such a threat, it seems more probable that there were orders not to engage — orders that did not reach a few people, or that they decided to ignore.
This order might have come from someone high up in the ranks, or perhaps from a group of lower-rank officials acting in coordination with the U.S. Who exactly? It seems like we won’t be able to tell because whoever it was is receiving political coverage. But let’s not jump ahead.
The Delta Force unit knew the exact location of Maduro and the correct timing so that he could not reach a safe area. They penetrated his residence and abducted him with, it seems, only the protection of his 32 Cuban personal guards — all of whom were killed. Notwithstanding that Delta Force is an elite corps, they must have had an informant close enough to the president to know the exact place and timing — something news reports confirmed.
It would seem, then, that U.S. intelligence had been at work, as Trump had announced months earlier when he said he authorized CIA covert actions in Venezuela. But was that all? Informants and lower-rank officials enlisted by the CIA? It could be, but the ensuing political narrative suggests otherwise.
Following the end of the operation, Trump, Rubio, and Hegseth held a press conference announcing the “spectacular” success of the attack. In a remarkable statement, Trump openly admitted — as he had done before — that the aim of this operation was to control Venezuela’s oil by removing Maduro from power. He said María Corina Machado would not govern and that the U.S. was not interested in regime change if Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s vice president, would submit to U.S. demands. Otherwise, he threatened a second strike.
This can be interpreted as stark realism from the U.S. administration, openly stating its objective and not justifying it with pretty words. It’s a game-changer worthy of analysis — but not the focus of this text. What matters here is the invitation — or rather the order — to Delcy Rodríguez. But was it?
After the U.S. operation, Rodríguez gave a fiery speech denouncing the kidnapping of Maduro, asking the U.S. to return him, and declaring that Venezuela would not surrender to imperialism. However, following a meeting of the Chavista leadership, two remarkable things happened. Or rather, one happened — and one didn’t.
What did not happen was any visible change or friction within the government’s leadership. After perhaps the most serious security and intelligence failure a state can have, no one was held responsible and there was no division. There was no dissenting voice. This could be attributed to party loyalty, but it is at the very least suspicious. Only days later and after being sworn in as acting president, Delcy sesibly dismissed General Javier Marcano Tábata, who was the commander of the presidential guard.
Though the country’s attorney general said that a commission would investigate the deaths caused by the U.S. attack — estimated at around 100 — there has been no announcement of an investigation into the abduction of the president.
What did happen is that Delcy Rodríguez published a statement inviting the U.S. to cooperate — in which Maduro was not mentioned. This can be understood as a pragmatic response to avoid further strikes and destabilization. She had no choice and did what was best for the country. It’s possible — but also questionable in light of the arguments above and the reports that have emerged.
An alleged CIA report concluded that the opposition led by María Corina Machado had no chance of leading the country in the event of regime change, and that a transition to them was likely to result in chaos — something the U.S. wanted to avoid. It also posited that the most pragmatic option for a transition was Delcy Rodríguez and her brother, the head of the National Assembly. In fact, now that Rodríguez is the acting president, the two siblings hold two of the most important posts in the Chavista government.
Trump confirmed that Rubio was in touch with Rodríguez, and previous reports spoke of meetings brokered by a Gulf state between her and the U.S. to present herself as an alternative to Maduro. She denied it — but in light of current events, could it hold any truth?
There is not — and probably will never be — conclusive evidence. But the U.S. has warned Diosdado Cabello, a key party figure and named in the indictment against Maduro, that he must support Rodríguez or he might be next to fall. Rodríguez, on the other hand, has not been indicted.
If we accept this thesis as a possibility, the question is whether the decision to hand over Maduro was taken by the majority of the party’s leadership, or by a small group. In either case, Rodríguez seems to have been involved.
Does this mean a betrayal of the party’s socialist project? Perhaps yes — but it might also have been a cold assessment for its continuation. Maduro had allegedly offered everything to Trump except stepping down. At that point, some might have argued that he was already betraying the Chavista project for his own personal power. Why then should he continue?
They might have correctly understood that Trump would not back down without a spectacular win, and that Venezuela would be forced to cooperate or descend into chaos. Handing over Maduro, then, might have seemed the best decision for the country and perhaps even for the continuation of the Chavista project — albeit with crucial updates.
The Psyop Thesis
It is possible that the allegations about turning in Maduro are part of a psy-op by the U.S. — but if that’s the case, why?
By spreading this argument, the U.S. would undermine the perception of its own military’s capabilities. If they wanted to make Maduro’s capture a show of force — as their statements suggest — then promoting the idea that it only happened because of an inside job goes against that goal.
It could be argued that the aim is to delegitimize the remaining government and erode popular support. It is possible — but unlikely, or too early. If the U.S. goal is stability for a transition of power, undermining popular support could produce the opposite effect. If these claims were made during an electoral process to favor the opposition, they would make more sense.
There is also the possibility that these claims were a psy-op pushed by Venezuelans themselves. It would allow the government to preserve — at least internally — the perception of military strength. They were betrayed, not defeated. And, if needed, it would justify an inner purge to remove actual U.S. collaborators or silence those opposed to collaborating with the U.S. But at present, there is no evidence to support this.
A Few Things That Don’t Add Up
However, a few elements do not fully align with the coup thesis: Rodríguez’s background, the 100 people killed, and the presence of Russian and Chinese delegations at her swearing-in ceremony. But they might have explanations.
I’m going to quote directly from an article arguing against the betrayal, because both the content and the medium matter:
The Rodríguez family’s revolutionary credentials are etched in struggle. Their father, Jorge Antonio Rodríguez, a leader of the Socialist League, a Marxist-Leninist organization, was tortured and murdered by the Punto Fijo regime in 1976. Both Delcy and her brother Jorge (the President of the National Assembly) emerged from this tradition of clandestine and mass struggle for socialism. President Maduro himself was a cadre of the same organization. To suggest betrayal among them or capitulation born of cowardice or opportunism ignores four decades of shared political formation, persecution, and leadership under relentless imperialist aggression and the class character of their revolutionary leadership.
As you might infer from the language, the paragraph comes from a website with clear Marxist leanings. It might project an idealized view onto Rodríguez, but as argued above, what if she and her brother are less idealistic and more pragmatic? What if, presented with the alternative of chaos or preserving Venezuela’s social fabric — and perhaps later, parts of the socialist project — they opted for the latter?
Rodríguez recently said that “regarding the threats, only God decides my destiny,” in what can be understood as a reference to Trump’s threats — but also internal ones, as she was speaking in Spanish to a Venezuelan audience. If she believes God might question her, she might have judged that it is better to face Him having handed over one man than an entire country.
The only confirmed deaths are those of the 32 Cubans and 24 Venezuelan security personnel. That already adds up to 56 and might be part of the 100 mentioned by the Interior Minister, who also said many of the deaths were collateral. I’m not implying that they were justified, but he did say they were a consequence of shrapnel and explosions — not targeted. The U.S. bombed several sites, and unfortunately, their deaths are a consequence. But one might argue that the bombing had to be part of the show to lend credibility.
Regarding the Russian and Chinese delegations, there are a few possibilities. First: whether it was a coup or not, they decided it was better to maintain friendly relations and observe developments. Second: they believed it was not a coup and wanted to support the government.
The third is more hypothetical but possible: the coup was arranged between the U.S. and Venezuelan factions with Russian and Chinese approval. We saw something similar last year in Syria, where before Assad’s escape, Turkish and Russian delegations were sitting together in Doha. They might have seen it as an acceptable exit from U.S. escalation with the least damage. Some Russian sources had proposed a tit-for-tat: Venezuela for Ukraine. For the Chinese, it might set a useful precedent for Taiwan.
Lastly, Maduro’s attitude while in custody seems oddly calm and friendly. Three explanations are possible.
First: he was part of the plan — making this not a coup but a managed exit — and will be allowed to go into exile after serving some time. I’m not particularly convinced; the U.S. rhetoric has been fierce, and he could have taken that route earlier. Second: he is in denial as a psychological defense. Third: he is taking the fall with grace.
As with the truth about his capture, only time will tell.
