File
|
Assessment of the U.S. “Operation Absolute Resolve” and Its Implications |
| January 8, 2026 |
-
Beomchul ShinPrincipal Research Fellow, Sejong Institute | bcshin@sejong.org
- President Trump approved “Operation Absolute Resolve,” an operation to detain Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and transfer him to the United States, at 10:46 p.m. Eastern Time on January 2. U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) executed the operation and secured custody of President Maduro through a five-hour military operation. The swift and precise execution demonstrated the United States’ unmatched joint force operational capabilities and underscored its overwhelming dominance in the Western Hemisphere, while also illustrating that President Trump’s concept of “peace through strength” is being implemented through action rather than rhetoric. Although the domestic situation in Venezuela remains fluid, U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere is likely to expand further, while Russia and China are also expected to intensify efforts to preserve and extend their own spheres of influence. As a result, a strategic environment in which coercive power takes precedence over dialogue and compromise may increasingly shape developments in East Asia and on the Korean Peninsula.
-
Since former President Hugo Chávez took office in 1999, Venezuela has emerged as one of the most prominent anti-U.S. states in South America. President Maduro, Chávez’s successor, has continued this anti-American orientation while strengthening ties with Russia, Cuba, Iran, and China. This trajectory has steadily strained relations with Washington, particularly as successive U.S. administrations sought to preserve strategic primacy in the Western Hemisphere. Domestically, Maduro has also faced sustained international criticism over repression of opposition forces and allegations of electoral fraud. These concerns gained heightened visibility when María Corina Machado, a leading opposition figure, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025. Against this backdrop, U.S. pressure on Venezuela intensified, culminating in the launch of Operation Absolute Resolve following the inauguration of the second Trump administration.
Beginning in late 2024, President Trump initiated a series of military measures targeting Venezuela. The deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group to nearby waters signaled the possibility of military action, while direct strikes against narcotics trafficking vessels further escalated pressure on Caracas. U.S. officials accused the Maduro government of threatening U.S. security through drug trafficking and argued that Venezuela’s nationalization of its oil industry had caused unfair losses to American firms. These dynamics combined geopolitical calculations regarding hemispheric dominance, domestic legal drivers related to counter-narcotics enforcement, energy security considerations tied to Venezuelan crude oil, and the Maduro regime’s weak democratic legitimacy. Together, these factors converged in the decision to execute Operation Absolute Resolve.
Although the operation itself concluded rapidly and efficiently, its preparation involved an extensive and meticulous process. Entering a national capital and penetrating a heavily guarded presidential palace to detain and extract a sitting head of state is an undertaking that typically entails significant risk and potential casualties. Given the domestic political environment in the United States, any loss of life during the operation would likely have generated substantial criticism of President Trump. With midterm elections approaching in November, the political costs of such risks were considerable, making thorough advance preparation essential.
According to statements by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine, planning for the operation unfolded over several months and proceeded in three phases: intelligence collection, tactical planning, and force positioning.1) First, intelligence collection focused on acquiring detailed information necessary for the apprehension of President Maduro. This effort reportedly involved close coordination among the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). Through these channels, U.S. authorities are said to have obtained comprehensive assessments of Maduro’s residences, movement patterns, behavioral routines, and even personal details such as his pets.
Second, tactical planning addressed the operational design of the mission, including force deployment, movement routes, air and ground operations, and extraction procedures. Repeated rehearsals were conducted to refine execution. Particular emphasis was placed on maximizing surprise while minimizing civilian casualties. Chairman Caine stated with confidence that the plan reflected lessons learned from decades of prior missions.2)
Third, the force positioning phase reportedly took place in early December, when personnel required for the operation were deployed to locations suitable for rapid execution and placed on standby pending presidential authorization. Assets were positioned at U.S. Air Force bases on the continental United States, facilities in Puerto Rico, and aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group, all awaiting the final order to commence operations. -
Presidential Authorization
President Trump authorized Operation Absolute Resolve at 10:46 p.m. Eastern Time on January 2. In approving the operation, he reportedly conveyed a message of “good luck, and God bless.” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine stated that, “pursuant to the President’s order … and in support of a request from the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. forces conducted an arrest operation to bring the defendants, including Nicolás Maduro, before the rule of law.” In other words, the United States framed the use of military force as necessary to enforce domestic law, including counter-narcotics measures.3)
As Commander in Chief, President Trump exercised authority under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Under this framework, the President may deploy U.S. armed forces for up to 60 days without prior congressional authorization, provided that Congress is notified within 48 hours. If congressional approval for an extension is not granted, the President may continue to use force for an additional 30 days to facilitate the withdrawal of forces. In effect, this allows for up to 90 days of military operations without explicit congressional consent. Operation Absolute Resolve was conducted within this legal window.4)
Initiation and Conduct of the Operation
Although the U.S. armed forces are organized by service, operational control in wartime is exercised through unified geographic combatant commands. In this case, U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM), which is responsible for Latin America and the Caribbean, integrated Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, cyber, and space assets under a single command structure. Operational control flowed from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to USSOUTHCOM and onward to subordinate units, including the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group. The entire operation was reported to President Trump in real time.
Following the President’s authorization at 10:46 p.m., orders were rapidly transmitted through the command-and-control network. Aircraft launched from approximately 20 land and sea bases, with a total of roughly 150 aircraft deployed. These assets included strategic bombers, fighter aircraft, reconnaissance platforms, and helicopters designated for ground operations. In space, multiple military satellites monitored Caracas, nearby military installations, and the presidential palace.
The initial phase focused on shaping operations to enable the insertion of ground forces. U.S. Space Command provided intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and communications support through satellite assets, while U.S. Cyber Command reportedly conducted cyber operations to degrade Venezuelan air defense systems. At the same time, stealth aircraft such as the F-22 and F-35, alongside F/A-18 fighters and B-1 bombers, struck designated targets. Unmanned aerial vehicles supported surveillance, reconnaissance, and aerial security. These actions secured air corridors and protected helicopters and ground forces en route to the objective. During this phase, one aircraft sustained damage but remained airworthy and returned safely after completing its mission.
At approximately 11:30 p.m., less than an hour after the support phase began, helicopters carrying the assault force departed from waters near Venezuela. To avoid detection by Venezuelan radar, they flew at an altitude of roughly 100 feet above sea level. At 12:45 a.m., they passed through what was assessed as the most dangerous segment of the route, traversing Venezuela’s highland terrain.
U.S. forces reached the presidential palace at 1:01 a.m. on January 3 (2:01 a.m. local time in Venezuela), at which point the arrest operation by Delta Force commenced. With continuous aerial and ground intelligence support ensuring force protection, the unit advanced to the objective in accordance with principles of speed, precision, and discipline, securing President Maduro without U.S. casualties. According to President Trump, the operation narrowly preempted Maduro’s relocation to a hardened safe room; had he reached that facility, the operation would likely have required additional time and entailed greater risk to U.S. personnel.
The ground phase reportedly concluded within approximately 30 minutes. By around 1:30 a.m., U.S. forces had secured President Maduro and initiated exfiltration from Venezuelan territory. During the withdrawal, several instances of defensive engagements reportedly occurred. Chairman Caine noted that fighter aircraft and unmanned systems provided aerial cover and suppressive fire as needed. President Maduro was subsequently transferred to an amphibious assault ship. All U.S. units completed their return by 3:29 a.m., marking the successful conclusion of a roughly five-hour military operation to detain and extract the Venezuelan president. -
Assessment of Operation Absolute Resolve
In explaining Operation Absolute Resolve, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine emphasized two central factors: jointness across the services and sustained training. First, the effective integration of the services under a unified command structure was identified as the decisive factor behind the success of this highly complex mission. Chairman Caine noted that the term “integration” alone was insufficient to capture the sheer complexity of the operation, stressing that air, ground, space, and maritime domains were orchestrated in a tightly coordinated manner. He underscored that the mission required decades of accumulated operational experience and was executed with what he described as flawless synchronization among all components.
Second, he highlighted the extent of advance preparation. Chairman Caine stated that, in preparation for the operation, U.S. forces “thought, developed, trained, rehearsed, reviewed, and then rehearsed again.” He emphasized that this process was not aimed merely at performing the mission well, but at ensuring that failure was not an option. This level of preparation appears to have been a critical factor in enabling a casualty-free operation.
The success of the operation also reflected the qualitative advantages of U.S. military capabilities, particularly in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. In addition to satellite assets, the U.S. Air Force’s stealth unmanned aerial vehicle, the RQ-170 Sentinel, reportedly played a key role. The platform, previously associated with the operation against Osama bin Laden and surveillance of Iranian nuclear facilities, is said to have conducted persistent monitoring deep inside Venezuelan territory, providing the precision and situational awareness necessary for error-free execution.
Taken together, Operation Absolute Resolve can be assessed as a showcase of advanced, technology-intensive warfare and a renewed demonstration of U.S. operational superiority. Alongside last year’s Operation Midnight Hammer in Iran, the operation underscored the qualitative gap between U.S. military capabilities and those of other major powers, including Russia. This performance reflected the combination of advanced platforms, efficient operational planning, repetitive training cycles, and decades of accumulated operational know-how.
Policy Implications
Operation Absolute Resolve carries implications that extend beyond the military domain. While defense establishments worldwide will seek to draw lessons from U.S. operational performance, President Trump’s decision to authorize the apprehension and transfer of President Maduro also conveys broader strategic messages.
First, at the diplomatic level, the operation points to an increasingly complex international order. The U.S. National Security Strategy released late last year explicitly stated Washington’s intent to secure overwhelming primacy in the Western Hemisphere.5) The operation demonstrated that this message is not merely rhetorical but backed by a willingness and capacity to act. As a result, U.S. political and strategic influence in the Americas—sometimes described as a revival of a “Donroe Doctrine”—is likely to strengthen further, while Russian and Chinese influence in the region may diminish in the near term. More broadly, major powers may become increasingly assertive in consolidating their respective spheres of influence. Russia’s aggressive posture in the post-Soviet space and China’s assertive behavior regarding Taiwan may be reinforced by this precedent. These dynamics are likely to accelerate regional fragmentation, encourage flexible alignments among neighboring middle powers, and deepen the complexity of the international order in ways that defy simple unipolar or multipolar classifications.
Second, from the perspective of international law, the operation underscores the erosion of the rule-based stability emphasized under the liberal international order. The international community and the United Nations failed to mount an effective normative response to Russia’s territorial aggression against Ukraine. Similarly, the U.S. operation to detain President Maduro raises significant questions regarding international legal justification. Nevertheless, the UN Security Council is unlikely to exercise meaningful oversight or constraint. This reinforces the reality that the use of force by permanent members of the Security Council is rarely subject to effective legal accountability, further weakening confidence in international law. In practice, Article 51 of the UN Charter, which limits the lawful use of force to cases of armed attack, appears increasingly disconnected from state practice and difficult to enforce.
Third, the operation highlights the growing centrality of economic and energy security. Beyond counter-narcotics justifications, Venezuela’s oil resources constituted a critical backdrop to U.S. action. Energy resources have become a core component of economic security, while efforts by China and Russia to challenge the petrodollar system point to attempts to financialize natural resources. As a result, competition over reserve currencies is likely to intensify. Under these conditions, economic security is increasingly converging with national security, and competition over finance, currency, natural resources, and industrial supply chains is expected to become even more acute. -
The United States’ apprehension and transfer of President Maduro is likely to have significant ripple effects in East Asia and on the Korean Peninsula, particularly by reinforcing China’s efforts to expand its regional influence and deepening North Korea’s distrust of the United States. First, China may view the U.S. application of what is often described as a “Donroe Doctrine” as a precedent and seek to secure a position of regional predominance in East Asia. Just as Washington has demonstrated its willingness to exercise overwhelming influence in the Western Hemisphere, Beijing may increasingly pursue de facto primacy within what it perceives as its own sphere of influence. This sphere is likely to extend from the Yellow Sea to the East China Sea and the South China Sea, a process that would further elevate the strategic salience of the Taiwan Strait. From South Korea’s perspective, it is also necessary to remain attentive to existing sources of friction with China, including Chinese installations in the provisional maritime zone of the Yellow Sea. In this context, China may adopt a more assertive posture and, over time, exert greater pressure on neighboring states to refrain from voicing positions that run counter to Chinese preferences.
North Korea’s reaction is likely to follow a similar trajectory. The U.S. operation to detain President Maduro will almost certainly be perceived by Kim Jong Un as both an external security threat and a potential challenge to regime survival. At the same time, it provides Pyongyang with additional justification for accelerating the strengthening of its nuclear deterrent. In the short term, North Korea can be expected to intensify its criticism of the United States, a development that will complicate the Trump administration’s efforts to pursue negotiations with Pyongyang. While Kim Jong Un is likely to assess longer-term shifts in U.S.–China and U.S.–Russia relations before making strategic decisions, the absence of clear indicators of near-term change suggests that, for the time being, Pyongyang will prioritize reinforcing internal cohesion by emphasizing distrust toward Washington rather than pursuing meaningful policy shifts.
As a result, Operation Absolute Resolve poses a near-term challenge to the pragmatic diplomacy pursued by the South Korean government. In the current international environment, factors driving conflict are outweighing incentives for cooperation. Middle powers such as South Korea have historically been among the principal beneficiaries of the liberal international order, enjoying expanded markets and protection under international norms. However, prevailing global trends suggest that a return to such conditions will be difficult. Intensifying competition over energy security, in particular, casts a growing shadow over South Korea’s energy-dependent economy. At the regional level, the need to stabilize relations with both China and North Korea is increasingly apparent, yet the external environment renders such efforts more difficult.
There is no simple or immediate solution to these challenges. In the absence of sufficient influence to reshape the broader trajectory of the international order, the priority for the South Korean government must be to sustain a pragmatic diplomatic posture while strengthening resilience against future crises. First, economic security must be reinforced, as the capacity to withstand shocks ultimately derives from economic strength. Greater emphasis is required on energy security and supply chain resilience, alongside efforts to broaden the network of allies and partners capable of providing support under adverse conditions. At the same time, South Korea should deepen its understanding of international finance and prepare for potential shifts in reserve currency dynamics, including emerging debates over resource-backed monetary arrangements.
Second, the transition toward a force structure centered on advanced science and technology should be accelerated. As regional disputes increasingly escalate into armed conflict, the importance of battlefield effectiveness has become more evident. Despite possessing a substantial inventory of military equipment, Venezuela proved incapable of resisting U.S. advanced military capabilities. South Korea should therefore draw lessons from Operation Absolute Resolve and apply them to its own force development. This includes expediting ongoing defense innovation initiatives, strengthening joint operational capabilities, and developing the capacity to conduct cyber, space, and electronic warfare in an integrated and simultaneous manner.
Third, while maintaining a policy orientation favoring dialogue with North Korea, it is necessary to recognize that evolving regional and global dynamics are making such engagement more difficult. There is no compelling reason to abandon the current diplomatic approach; however, rather than concentrating resources on short-term outcomes, greater emphasis should be placed on building a consistent and sustainable foundation for long-term North Korea policy. This includes efforts to improve relations with neighboring states to support stability on the Korean Peninsula and the resumption of denuclearization dialogue, upgrading the ROK–U.S. alliance while advancing advanced military capabilities to deter North Korean provocations, and preparing multilateral initiatives to shape regional dynamics in the aftermath of the Russia–Ukraine war.
Finally, from a normative perspective, South Korea should articulate two carefully balanced messages regarding Operation Absolute Resolve. One is conditional support for the broader objective of ending authoritarian rule, viewed through the lens of the ROK–U.S. alliance. The other is a clear affirmation of respect for the principles of international law, grounded in South Korea’s national interests. While these positions may appear to be in tension, it is important at the state level to signal indirect support for the United States while simultaneously ensuring that South Korea’s commitment to international legal norms is firmly recorded in its diplomatic posture.
| Background and Preparatory Process of Operation Absolute Resolve
| Execution of Operation Absolute Resolve
| Assessment and Implications
| Implications for the Korean Peninsula
1) Gen. Caine (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), “Details Timeline of Venezuela Operation” (January 3, 2026), YouTube video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe2RuYI8KZY (accessed January 4, 2026). The operational account in this paper is based on the briefing delivered by Chairman Caine.
2) Caine, interview cited above.
3) The United States has emphasized domestic law-enforcement imperatives to justify the use of force. Vice President J.D. Vance presented “the need to stop drug trafficking and to recover stolen oil” as the core rationale (“the drug trafficking must stop, and the stolen oil must be returned”). Nevertheless, this justification does not conform to the principle set out in the United Nations Charter, which recognizes self-defense as the sole lawful basis for the use of force. Charter of the United Nations, Article 51, https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml (accessed January 4, 2026).
4) The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted during the Nixon administration to restrain presidential authority over the use of military force. For further details, see https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/news/war-powers-resolution-1973 (accessed January 4, 2026).
5) The White House, National Security Strategy (November 2025), pp. 15–19, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf (accessed January 4, 2026).
※ The contents published on 'Sejong Focus' are personal opinions of the author and do not represent the official views of Sejong Institue
