US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz asserted at the UN Security Council that Nicolas Maduro was an “illegitimate so-called president” rather than a head of state. The Trump administration has asserted on numerous occasions that the leader’s abduction was a law enforcement operation as opposed to a military operation.
Published On 5 Jan 2026
Venezuela could experience more instability as a result of US President Nicolas Maduro’s abduction, according to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who questioned whether international law had been broken. He urged dialogue and the preservation of sovereignty in a statement read at the UN Security Council.
Published On 5 Jan 2026
Published On 5 Jan 2026
Following the release of “evacuation orders” for four villages in the east and south of Israel, the military of Israel launched attacks on what it called “targets” of Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon.
In the villages of Hammara and Ain el-Tineh in eastern Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley and Kfar Hatta and Aanan in the south, according to a spokesman for the Israeli army, it was planning airstrikes against Hezbollah and Hamas’ “military infrastructure.”
list of 4 itemsend of list
Different families were seen fleeing the village by an AFP news agency photographer in Kfar Hatta following an Israeli drone warning. Fire trucks and ambulances are on call.
In 2024, Israel and Lebanon reached a US-brokered ceasefire, which put an end to more than a year of intense fighting between Israeli forces and Hezbollah. Israel has occupied five of the country’s five locations on several occasions while repeatedly violating the truce by using bombs.
Lebanon’s leaders fear that Israel could launch additional strikes because the country is under growing pressure from the US and Israel to disarm Hezbollah.
Petro, a former leftist fighter, claimed that any violent US intervention in Colombia, like the one carried out over the weekend in Venezuela, would elicit a response.
list of 3 itemsend of list
Petro vowed to avoid touching a weapon once more. But I’ll resurrect my weapons in defense of my country.
Petro has come under direct criticism of US President Donald Trump, who has threatened Colombia with armed strikes if the country doesn’t stop drug trafficking.
Trump and the leaders have frequently exchanged insults, but in recent days, their threats have gotten more hostile.
After the abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, an act that is widely disregarded by international law scholars, Petro should “watch his a**,” the US president said over the weekend. Trump said a similar operation against Petro’s government “sounds good to me” during a press conference on Sunday.
“Colombia is very sick, and it’s also run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States,” Trump said.
Trump’s comments were described as “an undue interference in the country’s internal affairs, against the standards of international law,” according to Colombia’s ministry of foreign affairs.
Trump has accused Petro of facilitating the flow of drugs to the US, a charge that Petro denies. Petro claims that Petro has worked to combat drug production while rejecting the militarized policy of the drug war.
Hoxha is in critical condition and requires hospitalization, according to the organization Prisoners For Palestine’s Instagram post on Monday. According to the allegations, prison guards have denied the 29-year-old a proper treatment.
list of 4 itemsend of list
In order to avoid refeeding syndrome, Hoxha requires urgent medical care in the hospital. The prison is refusing [her] medical care, which is necessary to avoid dying in extreme cases of starvation.
When a person is starving too quickly, nutrition is restarted, leading to refeeding syndrome, which is potentially fatal. Prisoners or government officials did not respond right away.
After being imprisoned for allegedly engaging in break-ins at the UK subsidiary of Elbit Systems in Filton, near Bristol in 2024, Palestine Action members have been conducting hunger strikes throughout prisons all over the UK for the past 63 days.
Israeli defense company Elbit Systems has locations all over the world.
Two members of Palestine Action are also being detained for allegedly spraying red paint on two military aircraft at a Royal Air Force base in Oxfordshire, according to an alleged break-in. The prisoners, among other things, refute the charges brought against them, including violent disorder and burglary.
Only three of eight Palestine Action hunger strikers continue to refuse food after Hoxha has stopped her protest and demanded their release.
Palestine Action was declared a “terrorist” organization by the British government in July, putting it under the same umbrella as armed organizations like al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS).
Following nearly weekly protests calling for the ban to be lifted, more than 1,600 people have been detained in connection with the support for Palestine Action. The court is hearing arguments against the prescription.
The protest group, which was founded in 2020, claims to be a movement that is “committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime.”
Heba Muraisi, 31, and Kamran Ahmed, 28, are still on the hunger strike. Due to his diabetes, Lewie Chiaramello, 22, also refuses to eat every other day.
The strikers have demanded five things: immediate bail, a fair trial, a stop to the censorship of their communications, “de-proscribing” Palestine Action, and shutting down the UK’s Elbit Systems factories.
Donald Trump publicly criticised the George W. Bush administration for starting the Iraq war for many years before becoming president. And yet, in his second term as president, he finds himself presiding on a military blunder that resembles Bush’s somewhat.
Trump’s military intervention was based on a flawed defense of national security and the desire to get rid of a hostile foreign leader with the intention of obtaining their oil. In both cases, we observe a naive belief that regime change will enable the United States to accomplish its objectives. Venezuela’s US intervention recalls the same hubris that dominated the Iraq invasion ten years ago.
However, there should be other significant factors in mind. Lack of a comprehensive vision is the most distinguishing quality of the operation in Venezuela. It was unclear what the plan was for Venezuela going forward or if there was even one after Trump wrapped up an hour-long press conference with his defense and state secretaries. No clarity was provided by his threats to launch additional attacks in the coming days.
The current US commander-in-chief’s ideological visions are reflected in examples of US-led regime change. The Western Hemisphere was declared a colonial hotspot by President James Monroe in 1823. The Monroe Doctrine would support a variety of interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean as the United States consolidated its sphere of influence throughout the Americas during the 20th century. The United States’ ability to overthrow leftist governments and establish friendly governments was strengthened by the Cold War.
As the Cold War came to an end, President George H. W. Bush vowed to take over the “new world order” under the auspices of the US. In accordance with the definition of “humanitarian intervention,” Bush sent troops to Somalia in 1992 and his successor Bill Clinton retaliated in Haiti in 1994. The post-9/11 “war on terror” was the framework for George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. In 2011, President Barack Obama was guided by the “responsibility to protect” doctrine regarding civilians in danger when he stepped up his assault on Libya’s forces.
There is no ideological justification for the US attack on Venezuela, though. Trump and his team have intentionally used anti-terror, humanitarianism, and other jargon to support the attack. The Monroe Doctrine was even brought up by the president. He made fun of the idea just as it appeared as though he was assimilating a larger ideology, even one borrowed from two centuries ago.
Trump remarked on Saturday, “The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal.” However, we have significantly outperformed it. It is now known as the “Donroe Doctrine.” Trump’s threat to annex Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal was used by the New York Post a year ago to describe his aggressive foreign policy, but Trump did not make up this pun.
The president’s choice to embrace the tongue-in-cheek term highlights a perplexing aspect of his foreign policy: to think that he is advocating an ideological vision is absurd.
In his second term, Trump has discovered he can get away with it by pursuing an increasingly militaristic and aggressive foreign policy, not because he wants to impose a grand vision.
ISIL (ISIS) affiliates in Nigeria, who are “persecuting” Christians and “narcoterrorists” in Latin America, make appeals to Trump’s base, striking a number of foreign “bad guys” who have little capacity to stand up.
He went on a minute-long tangent to boast about his military interventions in US cities after making reference to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua at the news conference on Saturday. While the president’s inability to stay on topic may cause some concern for those who are concerned about his mental and physical health, at least in his case: His increasingly militarized war on drugs and crime abroad justifies an increasingly militarized war on drugs and crime at home.
Former US presidents have pursued a variety of ideologies and principles using their positions. Trump’s rhetoric seems to be merely a rehash of old ideologies that support the use of US power. The “good” intentions of previous presidents frequently opened the door to hellish outcomes for those who found themselves facing US intervention. However, those intentions at least provided some predictability and consistency for the various US administrations’ foreign policies.
Trump, in contrast, appears to be driven solely by political concerns and potential success in the near future. The ephemeral nature of interventions carried out without an overarching vision may be the only thing that can prevent such an unprincipled foreign policy from having a saving grace. The ideological commitment that has influenced other presidents to carry out long-term interventions like the Iraq occupation is not a result of an unprincipled approach to military intervention.
That means that Trump might be able to use military force to resolve any international dispute or pursue an ostensibly lucrative goal, such as assuming Danish control of Greenland.
He started imposing tariffs almost indiscriminately on allies and adversaries as a means of securing his interests last year. Trump may now start to use force more haphazardly now that he has grown comfortable with using the US military to achieve a range of objectives, including profit, gunboat diplomacy, domestic scandal dissention, etc.
Both the US and the rest of the world are in for a bad omen from that perspective. The world’s needs are last, a trigger-happy superpower without a clear strategy or day-after plan, at a time when climate, conflict, and impoverishment are all intertwined.