Category World News

For almost 27 years, the Venezuelan military – formally known as the National Bolivarian Armed Forces (FANB) – was a firm ally to presidents Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro, as they systematically drifted from seeking an alternative to Western liberal democracy, and towards authoritarianism.

The FANB helped the Venezuelan government dismantle the institutions of the previous political establishment and persecute its most fervent opponents. In exchange, the governments of Chavez and Maduro, respectively, gave more and more power to the military within Venezuelan politics, offering them ministerial positions, governorships, embassies and other leadership roles such as mayoralties or the administration of state-run enterprises.

Now, with the abduction of Maduro by United States special forces last Saturday, the military’s image as a protector of the Venezuelan state has taken a hit: The deposed president was kidnapped from the largest Venezuelan military complex, Fuerte Tiuna, in an operation that exposed the deficiencies in the FANB’s military technology and defence protocols.

The military faces a crucial dilemma – make changes and serve as the guarantor of the deals fronted by the Donald Trump administration in the US and interim president Delcy Rodriguez in Caracas, or risk further US attacks and erosion of its power and status.

The rise before the fall

Over the years, the FANB’s influence has grown significantly, including in law enforcement – supplanting, in many cases, the roles of the state and local police.

This phenomenon accelerated after the presidential elections of July 28, 2024, when the then-government of Maduro faced an unprecedented legitimacy crisis amid strong accusations of widespread vote-counting fraud.

A police state was established in Venezuela, in which mass surveillance of opponents moved to a new level.

The government, back then and until now, came to depend on the FANB to remain standing. In part, this was done by incorporating into the military elements of the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), paramilitary groups (also called “colectivos”), and the political, judicial and military police. This entire security framework has been described by the Venezuelan government as a “civic-military-police union.”

The post-Maduro era

That power means that the military retains a critical role in any political transition in Venezuela. Many analysts believe that any government established in Venezuela, whether via democratic means or through force, needs the support of the military to be able to govern.

The case of Delcy Rodriguez’s administration is no exception to this rule. Despite counting on Trump’s acquiescence to take the reins of a post-Maduro political transition, the president in charge of Venezuela needs the support of the Venezuelan military to avoid a possible aggravation of political and social tensions in Venezuela. Rodriguez’s acceptance among military ranks is the weightiest reason why the US president has trusted her – rather than opposition leader Maria Corina Machado – to lead the political transition in the country.

But the abduction of Maduro has, at the same time, shown up the weaknesses of the FANB. Its insurmountable asymmetry of power in relation to the US military’s might leaves Venezuela vulnerable to possible new attacks coming from the US, even though Trump has, for the moment, said he has no such plans.

That threat is the biggest incentive for the FANB to itself make compromises, and is the reason why the military leadership might be open to being a part of the political transition led by Rodriguez.

What’s next for the military?

The Venezuelan military will want, as much as possible, to maintain its status within Venezuelan politics.

To achieve this objective, the FANB leadership will likely need to comply with a series of steps, some of which were – until recently – unthinkable in Venezuelan politics.

First, military leaders must dissociate themselves from all accusations linking them to drug trafficking activities, the official argument used by the US for its military campaign against Venezuela.

Second, the military leadership must accept the new oil agreement between Venezuela and the US, which will very likely grant US companies significant control over Venezuelan crude reserves and production.

Third, it is possible that, at some point in the Venezuelan political transition, the FANB will need to reduce its repressive activities against the Venezuelan civilian population. This means, in practice, the reduction of its role in the current police state, or the so-called “Civic-Military-Police Union”.

Finally, the Venezuelan military leadership must close ranks with the interim president, Rodriguez, because she represents the only – and perhaps the last – direct channel of communication with the Trump administration. The military could argue domestically that it needs to do this in order to shore up the country’s stability amid the chaos generated by Maduro’s exit.

Fundamentally, adopting these changes would mean that the military underwrites the agreements reached between Rodriguez and Trump, and plays the role of a stabilising agent in the country’s post-Maduro era. It’s a format the US is used to, as well, with Washington relying on military-led establishments in multiple countries over the decades, from Egypt to Pakistan to Thailand to many more.

United States President Donald Trump has called on oil executives to rush back into Venezuela as the White House looks to quickly secure $100bn in investments to revive the country’s ability to fully tap into its expansive reserves of petroleum.

Trump, as he opened the meeting with oil industry executives on Friday, sought to assure them that they need not be sceptical of quickly investing in and, in some cases, returning to the South American country with a history of state asset seizures as well as ongoing US sanctions and the current political uncertainty.

“You have total safety,” Trump told the executives. “You’re dealing with us directly and not dealing with Venezuela at all. We don’t want you to deal with Venezuela.”

Trump added: “Our giant oil companies will be spending at least $100bn of their money, not the government’s money. They don’t need government money. But they need government protection.”

Trump welcomed the oil executives to the White House after US forces earlier on Friday seized their fifth tanker over the past month that has been linked to Venezuelan oil. The action reflected the determination of the US to fully control the exporting, refining and production of Venezuelan petroleum, a sign of the Trump administration’s plans for ongoing involvement in the sector as it seeks commitments from private companies.

“At least 100 Billion Dollars will be invested by BIG OIL, all of whom I will be meeting with today at The White House,” Trump said on Friday in a predawn social media post.

The White House said it invited oil executives from 17 companies, including Chevron, which still operates in Venezuela, as well as ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, which both had oil projects in the country that were lost as part of a 2007 nationalisation of private businesses under former President Nicolas Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez.

“If we look at the commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela, today it’s un-investable,” said Darren Woods, ExxonMobil CEO. “And so significant changes have to be made to those commercial frameworks, the legal system, there has to be durable investment protections and there has to be change to the hydrocarbon laws in the country.”

Benjamin Radd, a senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, told Al Jazeera that he had “noted the hesitation and less-than-full-throated enthusiasm for re-entering the Venezuelan market”, citing Woods, who told the gathering that the company had its assets there seized twice already.

“The bottom line is that until Trump can outline and provide assurances of a plan towards political stability, it will continue to be a risky endeavour for these oil companies to re-engage Venezuela. And what is there is a regime change in Iran in the days or weeks or months to come, and all of a sudden that re-emerges as a place where Western oil companies can do business? Even though the reserves don’t equal what Venezuela has, the risk is far less, and the infrastructure is more sound,” Radd said.

Other companies invited included Halliburton, Valero, Marathon, Shell, Singapore-based Trafigura, Italy-based Eni and Spain-based Repsol, as well as a vast swath of domestic and international companies with interests ranging from construction to the commodity markets.

Wait and see

Large US oil companies have so far largely refrained from affirming investments in Venezuela, as contracts and guarantees need to be in place. Trump has suggested that the US would help to backstop any investments.

Venezuela’s oil production has slumped below one million barrels per day (bpd). Part of Trump’s challenge to turn that around will be to convince oil companies that his administration has a stable relationship with Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez, as well as protections for companies entering the market.

While Rodriguez has publicly denounced Trump and the abduction and ouster of Maduro, the US president has said that to date, Venezuela’s interim leader has been cooperating behind the scenes with his administration.

Most companies are in a wait-and-see mode as they await terms from the Venezuelans, stability and wait to find out how much the US government will actually help, said Rachel Ziemba, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

Those like Chevron that are already in there are in a better position to increase investments as they “already have sunk costs”, Ziemba pointed out.

Ziemba said she expects a partial ramp-up in the first half of this year as the volumes that were going to China – Venezuelan oil’s largest buyer – are redirected and sold via the US. “But long-term investments will be slow,” she said as companies wait to find out about US commitments and Venezuelan terms.

Tyson Slocum, director of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen’s energy programme, criticised the gathering and called the US military’s removal of Maduro “violent imperialism”. Slocum added that Trump’s goal appears to be to “hand billionaires control over Venezuela’s oil”.

So far, the US government has not said how the revenue from the sale of Venezuelan oil will be shared and what percentage of the sales would be given to Caracas.

Ziemba said she was worried that “if funds do not go to Venezuela for basic goods, among other local needs, there will be instability that will deepen the country’s economic crisis“.

In the news conference on Friday, Trump said the US had a formula for distributing payments. UCLA’s Radd said that “if the US can or will guarantee security and stability, it makes sense for it to expect a return on investment in that sense. But then this makes it sound more like a mafia-style ‘racket’ than a government-led operation”, he told Al Jazeera.

The Syrian army has launched new strikes on Kurdish-held areas in Aleppo after Kurdish fighters refused to withdraw under a ceasefire, as more civilians fled their homes to escape the violence in the northern Syrian city.

The Operations Command of the Syrian Arab Army announced the start of a military operation in the Sheikh Maqsoud neighbourhood of Aleppo on Friday evening after a deadline for Kurdish fighters to evacuate the area, imposed as part of its temporary ceasefire, expired.

Syria’s Ministry of Defence had declared the ceasefire earlier on Friday, following three days of clashes that erupted after the central government and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) failed to implement a deal to fold the latter into the state apparatus.

After some of the fiercest fighting seen since last year’s toppling of Bashar al-Assad, Damascus presented Kurdish fighters a six-hour window to withdraw to their semi-autonomous region in the northeast of the country in a bid to end their longstanding control over parts of Aleppo.

But Kurdish councils that run the city’s Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafieh districts rejected any “surrender” and pledged to defend areas that they have run since the early days of the Syria’s war, which erupted in 2011.

Syria’s army then warned it would renew strikes on Sheikh Maqsoud and urged residents to evacuate through a humanitarian corridor, publishing five maps highlighting targets, with strikes beginning roughly two hours later.

As violence flared, the SDF posted footage on X showing what it said was the aftermath of artillery and drone attacks on Khaled Fajr Hospital in Sheikh Maqsoud, accusing “factions and militias affiliated with the Damascus government” of “a clear war crime”.

A Defence Ministry statement cited by the state-run news agency SANA said the hospital was a weapons depot.

In another post on X, the SDF said that government militias were attempting to advance on the neighbourhood with tanks, encountering “fierce and ongoing resistance by our forces”.

Later, the Syrian army said three of its soldiers had been killed and 12 injured in SDF attacks on its positions in Aleppo.

It also claimed that Kurdish fighters in the neighbourhood had killed more than 10 Kurdish youths who refused to take up arms with them, then burned their bodies to intimidate other residents.

The SDF said on X that the claims were part of the Syrian government’s “policy of lies and disinformation”.

At least 22 people have been killed and 173 others wounded in Aleppo since the fighting broke out on Tuesday, the worst violence in the city since Syria’s new authorities took power after toppling Bashar al-Assad a year ago.

The director of Syria’s civil defence told state media that 159,000 people had been displaced by fighting in Aleppo.

Mutual distrust

The violence in Aleppo has brought into focus one of the main faultlines in Syria, with powerful Kurdish forces that control swaths of Syria’s oil-rich northeast resisting integration efforts by Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s government.

The agreement between the SDF and Damascus was struck in March last year, with the former supposed to integrate with the Syrian Defence Ministry by the end of 2025, ​but Syrian authorities say there has been little progress since.

Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafieh have remained under the control of Kurdish units linked to the SDF, despite the group’s assertion that it withdrew its fighters from Aleppo last year, leaving Kurdish neighbourhoods in the hands of the Kurdish Asayish police.

Marwan Bishara, senior political analyst with Al Jazeera, said there were significant gaps between the two sides, particularly when it came to integrating the Kurdish fighters into the army as individuals or groups.

“What would you do with the thousands of female fighters that are now part and parcel, of the Kurdish forces? Would they join the Syrian army? How would that work out?” said Bishara.

“The Kurdish are sceptical of the army and how it is formed in Damascus, and of the central government and its intentions. While … the central government is, of course, wary of and sceptical that the Kurds want to join as Syrians in a strong united country,” he added.

Turkiye refrains from military action

In the midst of the clashes, Syria’s President al-Sharaa spoke by phone with Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, saying he was determined to “end the illegal armed presence” in Aleppo, according to a Syrian presidency statement.

Turkiye, which shares a 900-kilometre (550-mile) border with Syria, views the SDF as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which waged a four-decade armed struggle against the Turkish state, and has warned of military action if the integration agreement is not honoured.

Turkiye’s Defence Minister Yasar Guler welcomed the Syrian government operation, saying that “we view Syria’s security as our own security and … we support Syria’s fight against terrorist organisations”.

Omer Ozkizilcik, nonresident senior fellow for the Syria Project in the Atlantic Council, told Al Jazeera that Turkiye had been intending to launch an operation against SDF forces in Syria months ago, but had refrained at the request of the Syrian government.

Elham Ahmad, a senior official in the Kurdish administration in Syria’s northeast, accused Syria’s authorities of “choosing the path of war” by attacking Kurdish districts in Aleppo and of trying to end deals between the two sides.

Alarm spreads

Al-Sharaa spoke with Iraqi Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani on Friday, affirming that the Kurds were “a fundamental part of the Syrian national fabric”, the Syrian presidency said.

The former al-Qaeda commander has repeatedly pledged to protect minorities, but government-aligned fighters have killed hundreds of Alawites and Druze over the last year, spreading alarm in minority communities.

A spokesperson for the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed “grave concern” over the ongoing violence in Aleppo, despite efforts to de-escalate the situation.

“We call on all parties in Syria to show flexibility and return to negotiations to ensure the full implementation of the March 10 agreement,” said Stephane Dujarric.

France’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it was working with the United States, which has long been a key backer of the SDF, particularly during its fight to oust ISIL (ISIS) from Syria, to de-escalate.