Venezuela After the Raid

Stabilisation, Legitimacy, and the Mediation Challenge

Executive Summary

In the early hours of 3 January 2026, the United States carried out a military operation inside Venezuela that, by U.S. account and widespread reporting, resulted in the detention and removal of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from Venezuelan territory. Washington framed the action in the language of law enforcement tied to longstanding criminal charges, while also describing an intention to oversee or shape Venezuela’s political transition. Venezuelan authorities, for their part, have treated the operation as a violation of sovereignty and an illegal removal of the country’s head of state, while moving to preserve administrative continuity through interim arrangements.

Whatever one’s view of Venezuela’s domestic politics, the event has shifted the problem set. It compresses the space between coercion and governance, and it blurs the boundary between sanctions-era pressure and direct intervention. In that environment, stabilisation depends less on declarations of legitimacy and more on practical mechanisms: keeping security units from fragmenting, preventing reprisals, protecting critical infrastructure, and restoring channels that can support a political process.

Qatar’s official statement calling for restraint, de-escalation, and dialogue, and expressing readiness to support peaceful international efforts, reflects a consistent principle in crisis management: when events outpace institutions, the first task is to reduce incentives for the next irreversible step. The Council on International Mediation does not take a position on Venezuelan internal politics. Our focus is the risk landscape, the escalation pathways, and the practical conditions required for a negotiated route back to stability.

1) What We Know So Far

The operation is being described in broad terms as a surprise U.S. strike and raid that achieved the removal of Venezuela’s head of state from the country. The United States has linked the action to criminal allegations and indictments and has presented the outcome as the execution of justice rather than an act of war. U.S. messaging has also signaled an ambition to oversee or guide a “transition,” with public references to governance and economic management, including Venezuela’s oil sector.

Venezuelan institutions have responded by asserting continuity of state authority through interim arrangements and by rejecting the legality of the operation. In the wider international arena, reactions have ranged from sharp condemnation on sovereignty and legal grounds to more cautious calls for restraint and a political solution.

Several operational facts remain fluid, including the full scope of targets struck, casualty estimates, the state of key military and intelligence nodes, and the degree of disruption to power, communications, and critical infrastructure. That uncertainty is not a side detail. It is a driver of risk. In the first days after a leadership removal, the most dangerous decisions are often made in the fog of incomplete information, when actors fill gaps with assumptions about intent and capability.

The first stabilisation test is therefore basic: whether parties can prevent the situation from being interpreted, on either side, as an invitation to escalate.

2) Competing Frames: Arrest, Intervention, and the Struggle Over Legitimacy

Washington’s framing matters because it points to how the United States intends to defend the operation politically and legally. By emphasizing criminal charges, the action is cast as an arrest mission executed with military capability. This is not merely a communications choice. It reshapes the debate: if it is “law enforcement,” then the narrative is order; if it is “war,” then the narrative is aggression.

Critics argue that the core issue is the prohibition on the use of force in the UN Charter, and that law enforcement rationales cannot, on their own, justify cross-border military action absent self-defence or Security Council authorisation. Supporters respond with an exceptionalist logic: if a regime is criminal or illegitimate enough, the normal constraints should not apply.

This legal dispute will not be resolved quickly. What matters in the near term is how the legitimacy contest plays out in practice. Legitimacy battles do not remain confined to courtrooms or statements. They shape the behaviour of security units, the willingness of institutions to comply with interim authorities, the posture of neighbouring states, and the choices of external powers looking for leverage. Language also signals red lines. Terms like “transition,” “occupation,” “interim,” or “foreign control” are not neutral descriptors. They are tools that mobilise supporters and harden opponents.

For mediators and crisis managers, the danger is a forced binary. If the world is pushed to choose a single story, the space for a workable political process narrows. A stabilisation strategy should instead reduce incentives for maximalism and widen the channel for practical commitments.

3) The Immediate Risk Landscape Inside Venezuela

In the first two weeks after a decapitation event, risks typically cluster around five areas.

Security fragmentation.If senior command is disrupted or distrusted, forces can splinter. Some units align with interim authorities; others remain loyal to removed leadership; others follow local power brokers, economic networks, or personal loyalties. Fragmentation increases the risk of unauthorised action, revenge attacks, and accidental escalation with foreign forces or foreign-backed actors.

Parallel claims to authority.Competing institutions may claim constitutional continuity while external actors recognise different interlocutors. Parallel authority is a recipe for paralysis in normal times and violence in crisis times. In such environments, even basic state functions become politicised: issuing orders, managing ports, paying salaries, controlling fuel distribution.

Detentions, reprisals, and “settling accounts.”Abrupt leadership removal can trigger a rapid effort by networks linked to the old order to protect themselves. It can also trigger a drive by rivals to purge, arrest, or seize assets. The result is a cycle of fear. Fear makes dialogue harder because it changes the incentives: actors prioritise survival over compromise.

Critical infrastructure and economic disruption.Electricity, telecommunications, fuel, and logistics nodes become pressure points. Even limited disruptions can have cascading effects on public order, health services, and food supply. When infrastructure becomes a bargaining chip, humanitarian conditions deteriorate quickly.

Information warfare and mobilisation.A narrative front opens immediately. Claims of atrocities, staged visuals, and contested “proof” of who controls what can move faster than diplomatic channels. Misinformation does not simply confuse audiences. It becomes a recruitment tool and a justification for retaliation.

The first duty of stabilisation is sequencing. Security and humanitarian assurances must be stabilised enough for any political dialogue to have a chance.

4) Regional Shockwaves: Latin America’s Stability Problem

Latin America carries a long historical memory of external intervention. Even governments that oppose Maduro may resist a precedent that normalises leader removal by force. That creates an inherently complex regional reaction: some actors may quietly welcome Maduro’s removal, yet publicly insist on sovereignty and the UN Charter.

The practical risks for neighbouring states are immediate and measurable. Migration pressures can intensify rapidly if violence rises or public services falter. Border tensions can grow if armed groups move across frontier zones or if neighbouring states are accused of facilitating one side. Domestic polarisation in surrounding countries may sharpen as opposition and ruling coalitions interpret the event through their own political battles.

Regional institutions may struggle to respond coherently, which can lead to improvised coalitions and competing diplomatic tracks. For stabilisation, regional diplomacy matters less for statements and more for practical contributions: border coordination, humanitarian access, and a political framework that is not perceived as imposed.

5) The Global Dimension: Precedent, Retaliation, and Strategic Competition

Beyond the Americas, this operation lands in an international environment already strained by war, sanctions, and major-power rivalry. Several dynamics follow naturally.

Precedent risk.If powerful states can remove leaders under a law enforcement rationale, others will cite the model when it suits them. Even if the facts are unique, the logic can be recycled. Global order is not only written rules; it is shared restraint.

Retaliation pathways.Retaliation does not need to be symmetrical. It can take the form of cyber operations, proxy action, maritime disruption, sanctions escalation, or political interference. A “contained” operation can still produce diffuse blowback.

Energy and market volatility.Even the perception of instability can re-price risk. Insurance, shipping, and energy markets respond quickly. Economic disruption hardens political positions and reduces the space for compromise.

Diplomatic hardening and forum shopping.When multilateral forums become a theatre for veto politics, actors often create alternative contact groups. Competing tracks can multiply processes while reducing accountability. In the worst case, this produces a diplomatic maze with no enforcement and no shared sequencing.

This is where mediation becomes more difficult, but also more necessary. When too many actors compete to shape outcomes, stabilisation requires a small number of credible channels that can bring parties into a structured sequence with incentives and constraints.

6) Qatar’s Statement and the Practical Logic of De-escalation

Qatar’s official statement, issued in the immediate aftermath, called for restraint, de-escalation, and the adoption of dialogue as the appropriate means to address outstanding issues. It also expressed readiness to support peaceful international efforts toward a solution and emphasized the importance of maintaining communication channels.

This approach is not ornamental. It is a crisis-management template. Restraint lowers the chance of retaliatory spirals. De-escalation creates time for politics to function. Dialogue is not a virtue on its own; it is a mechanism for restoring predictability and limiting miscalculation. Support for international efforts signals that solutions should be institutional, not personalised. Maintaining channels acknowledges an uncomfortable reality: even adversaries need a way to clarify red lines and prevent accidents from becoming wars.

In moments like this, mediation’s value is often measured by what does not happen.

7) What a Stabilisation Process Could Look Like

A viable process does not start with elections. It starts with preventing further fragmentation and ensuring that civilians do not pay the price of political competition. A realistic sequence could include:

Channel restoration and incident prevention.A minimal architecture of communication between key security nodes, including intermediated channels if direct contact is politically impossible. The goal is to prevent unauthorized clashes, limit raids and reprisals, and reduce the risk of a misread move triggering escalation.

Humanitarian assurances.Written commitments by relevant authorities, supported by international organisations, guaranteeing access to medical supplies, infrastructure repair, and protection of humanitarian personnel. If aid becomes leverage, humanitarian conditions will deteriorate quickly and harden the conflict.

Administrative continuity with guardrails.If interim authority is asserted, it requires guardrails that reduce fear of purges and revenge. That includes clear limits on mass reprisals, a monitored detention framework, and protection of basic civil services so the state does not collapse into factional control.

Negotiated political roadmap with guarantees.A roadmap must address governance, security sector arrangements, economic management, and a timeline for political competition. The critical point is guarantees. Parties enter talks when they believe they can survive the outcome.

International support that does not become ownership.External support should focus on facilitation, monitoring, and technical support, not on directing outcomes. A process seen as imposed will generate resistance and sabotage.

The stabilisation principle is simple: credibility comes from constraints. The more parties fear domination, the more they need enforceable guarantees.

8) Indicators to Watch in the Next 30 to 90 Days

Because details are still evolving, policymakers and analysts should track concrete indicators rather than rhetoric:

• Are Venezuela’s security forces operating under unified command or fragmenting into competing loyalties?

• Are detentions rising, and if so, are they targeted under a transparent process or indiscriminate?

• Are protests expanding, and are they met with restraint or repression?

• Are critical services stabilising or degrading?

• Are regional governments coordinating practical stabilisation measures, or only issuing statements?

• Are credible diplomatic channels forming that can host talks without demanding public surrender from either side?

• Are external actors escalating through proxies, cyber operations, or economic retaliation?

Mediation is often treated as a moral preference. In practice, it is a risk-management tool. These indicators tell us whether risk is shrinking or expanding.

Conclusion

The U.S. operation in Venezuela has changed the landscape. It is no longer a familiar crisis managed primarily through sanctions, diplomacy, and domestic mobilisation. It is now shaped by force, precedent, and a fast-moving legitimacy struggle with regional and global spillovers.

The task for the international community is not to agree on a single narrative. It is to prevent further escalation and create a pathway back to a political process that can be sustained. Qatar’s call for restraint, de-escalation, and dialogue reflects the essential logic of stabilisation: slow the momentum toward irreversible moves, keep channels open, protect civilians, and rebuild a framework in which negotiation becomes rational.

The Council on International Mediation will continue to assess developments and engage with partners on practical pathways that reduce violence, preserve human security, and restore political process.

---