美國於2026年1月3日對委內瑞拉發動軍事行動，並宣稱成功活捉總統尼古拉斯・馬杜洛（Nicolás Maduro），此舉被美方定位為一場結合軍事與執法性質的高風險跨國行動，而非單純的傳統戰爭。整體行動背後，牽涉長期累積的政治、司法、能源與地緣戰略矛盾。

首先，在美國官方論述中，「緝毒與跨國犯罪執法」被視為行動的核心正當性來源。美方多年來指控馬杜洛政權高層深度介入毒品走私網絡，並將委內瑞拉視為連接南美毒品生產地與北美市場的重要樞紐。川普政府時期即曾對馬杜洛本人懸賞高額獎金，將其定位為「毒品恐怖主義」的象徵人物。依照該敘事，在正式軍事行動前，美軍已透過加勒比海的海上攔截、情報合作與無人機打擊，逐步削弱委內瑞拉相關運輸與後勤能力，最終將行動升級為直接拘捕國家元首的極端手段。

其次，政權合法性的爭議構成政治層面的關鍵推力。美國及部分盟國長期拒絕承認馬杜洛在2024年7月總統大選中的勝選結果，認定選舉程序存在系統性舞弊與壓制反對派的問題。在這樣的立場下，馬杜洛被視為「非法掌權者」，而非受國際法完整保障的民選元首。這使得美方在外交論述上，將此次行動包裝為「協助委內瑞拉人民恢復民主秩序」的一環，並與流亡或地下反對派勢力形成某種事實上的合作關係，目標指向政權更替而非單一軍事勝利。

能源與資源問題則是另一條貫穿全局的隱性主線。委內瑞拉擁有全球數一數二的石油儲量，而國營石油公司PDVSA長期是馬杜洛政權最重要的財政命脈。美國透過制裁、資產凍結與海上封鎖，試圖切斷政權的外匯來源，同時也主張追回過去被「不當徵收」的外國資產。相對地，委內瑞拉政府強烈指控美國的真正目的在於奪取石油與礦產控制權，將軍事行動視為新型態的資源掠奪，並以反帝國主義的語言動員國內民族情緒。

在更宏觀的層次上，這場行動也被放置於加勒比海與拉丁美洲的地緣政治框架中解讀。美軍在該區域部署航母戰鬥群、先進戰機與多艘戰艦，對外宣稱是為了維護航道安全與區域穩定，但實際上也涉及美國作為全球霸權的威信展示。與此同時，委內瑞拉因長期遭西方孤立，逐步向俄羅斯尋求軍事、情報與外交支持，使原本的國內政治危機，演變為大國博弈的前線之一，增加衝突外溢的風險。

依照你提供的「當前局勢」描述，馬杜洛與其妻子已被送往美國，此一說法若成立，將在國際政治史上極為罕見，等同於以軍事力量直接終結一個仍掌控國內政權的現任元首。委內瑞拉國內則宣布進入國家緊急狀態，並將事件定性為赤裸裸的主權侵略，這不僅可能引發國內動盪與權力真空，也勢必在聯合國與國際社會引爆激烈爭論，甚至牽動其他大國是否介入或表態。

總體而言，這一情境所呈現的，不只是一次單點軍事行動，而是長期制裁、政治承認之爭、能源利益與大國競逐交織後的極端結果，其後續影響恐將深刻改變拉丁美洲的安全結構與國際秩序。

On January 3, 2026, the United States launched a military operation against Venezuela and claimed to have successfully captured President Nicolás Maduro alive. Washington framed the action as a high-risk transnational operation combining military force and law-enforcement objectives, rather than a conventional war. Behind the operation lay long-accumulated political, judicial, energy, and geopolitical tensions.

First, in the official U.S. narrative, “counter-narcotics and transnational law enforcement” constituted the core justification for the action. For many years, U.S. authorities have accused senior figures within the Maduro government of deep involvement in international drug-trafficking networks, portraying Venezuela as a key hub linking South American drug-producing regions with the North American market. During the Trump administration, a substantial bounty was placed on Maduro himself, casting him as a symbolic figure of so-called “narco-terrorism.” According to this narrative, in the months preceding the operation the U.S. military had already weakened Venezuela’s transport and logistics capabilities through maritime interdictions in the Caribbean, intelligence cooperation, and drone strikes, ultimately escalating the effort into the extreme measure of directly capturing a sitting head of state.

Second, disputes over the regime’s legitimacy formed a crucial political driver. The United States and several allied countries have long refused to recognize Maduro’s victory in the July 2024 presidential election, arguing that the electoral process was marred by systemic fraud and the suppression of opposition forces. From this perspective, Maduro has been treated as an “illegitimate ruler” rather than a duly elected president fully protected under international law. This stance allowed Washington, in its diplomatic discourse, to portray the operation as part of an effort to “help the Venezuelan people restore democratic order,” while establishing de facto cooperation with exiled or underground opposition groups. The objective was framed not as a single military victory, but as regime change.

Energy and natural resources constituted another underlying thread running through the entire situation. Venezuela possesses some of the world’s largest oil reserves, and the state-owned oil company PDVSA has long been the financial lifeline of the Maduro government. Through sanctions, asset freezes, and maritime blockades, the United States sought to cut off the regime’s access to foreign currency, while also claiming the right to recover foreign assets allegedly “improperly expropriated” in the past. In contrast, the Venezuelan government strongly accused the United States of seeking to seize control of its oil and mineral resources, depicting the military action as a new form of resource plunder and using anti-imperialist rhetoric to mobilize domestic nationalist sentiment.

At a broader level, the operation has also been interpreted within the geopolitical framework of the Caribbean and Latin America. The deployment of U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups, advanced aircraft, and multiple warships in the region was officially justified as a means of safeguarding sea lanes and maintaining regional stability, but it also served as a display of U.S. credibility and power as a global hegemon. At the same time, Venezuela, long isolated by Western countries, increasingly turned to Russia for military, intelligence, and diplomatic support. As a result, what began as a domestic political crisis evolved into one of the front lines of great-power competition, heightening the risk of spillover and escalation.

According to the “current situation” you described, Maduro and his wife have been transferred to the United States. If confirmed, such an outcome would be extraordinarily rare in the history of international politics, effectively amounting to the use of military force to terminate the rule of a sitting leader who still exercised control over his country. Within Venezuela, the government declared a state of national emergency and denounced the action as a blatant violation of sovereignty. This development could not only trigger domestic turmoil and a power vacuum, but also ignite intense debate at the United Nations and across the international community, potentially drawing in other major powers through intervention or formal positioning.

Overall, the scenario presented here represents far more than a single, isolated military strike. It reflects an extreme outcome produced by the intersection of prolonged sanctions, disputes over political recognition, competition over energy interests, and great-power rivalry. Its longer-term consequences could profoundly reshape the security landscape of Latin America and the international order as a whole.