Friday World January 4, 2026
On January 3, 2026, US President Donald Trump ordered a large-scale military operation against Venezuela. American forces conducted airstrikes on targets in and around the capital Caracas, resulting in explosions, power outages, and significant disruption. In a dramatic raid, US special forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, who were flown out of the country to New York to face charges related to narco-terrorism and drug trafficking.
Trump described the action as a success in combating drug trafficking and reclaiming "stolen" Venezuelan oil resources. He announced that the United States would temporarily "run" Venezuela until a safe and orderly transition to a legitimate government could be achieved. This marked one of the most direct US interventions in Latin America since the 1989 invasion of Panama.
The operation has sparked widespread international reactions. Latin American nations such as Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia condemned it as a violation of sovereignty. Russia, China, and Iran labeled it an act of aggression and a breach of international law. UN Secretary-General António Guterres called it a "dangerous precedent." European leaders have responded with caution, but British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's measured statement has drawn particular attention for its indirect expression of concern.
Starmer's Initial Response: No Involvement and Emphasis on Facts Immediately after the strikes, Starmer stated clearly that the United Kingdom was "not involved in any way" in the US operation. He confirmed that he had not yet spoken to President Trump, citing the fast-moving nature of events. In interviews with British broadcasters and the BBC, he stressed the need to "establish the facts" before drawing conclusions.
Key Quote from Starmer "I always say and believe we should all uphold international law, but I think at this stage, a fast-moving situation, let’s establish the facts and take it from there." He reiterated his desire to speak with Trump and allies once more information becomes available.
Later Statement on X (Formerly Twitter) In a follow-up post, Starmer wrote: "The UK has long supported a transition of power in Venezuela. We regarded Maduro as an illegitimate president and we shed no tears about the end of his regime. The UK government will discuss the evolving situation with US counterparts in the days ahead as we seek a safe and peaceful transition to a legitimate government that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people."
Why This Is Seen as Indirect Opposition Starmer's response is carefully balanced. On one hand, he expresses no regret over Maduro's removal—aligning with long-standing Western views that the 2024 Venezuelan elections were flawed and Maduro's rule illegitimate. On the other hand, his repeated emphasis on "international law" and the need for facts subtly questions the legality of the unilateral US military action, which lacked UN approval or apparent consultation with allies.
Avoidance of Direct Condemnation Unlike opposition figures such as Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey and Green Party leader Zack Polanski—who called the strikes "illegal" and urged Starmer to condemn them outright—Starmer has refused to label the operation unlawful. International law expert Philippe Sands described this "silence" as speaking volumes, drawing parallels to the controversies surrounding the 2003 Iraq War.
Avoiding Immediate Contact with Trump By publicly noting that he has not spoken to Trump and prioritizing fact-finding, Starmer maintains distance from the US action. This is notable given the historic "special relationship" between the UK and US. Analysts suggest this deliberate pause avoids granting implicit legitimacy to the strikes while preserving diplomatic channels.
Britain's Broader Dilemma The UK remains America's closest ally, but Starmer's Labour government prioritizes human rights, multilateralism, and adherence to international law. Maduro's regime was widely criticized in the West, so his downfall is not mourned. However, a unilateral military intervention without broad consensus echoes past interventions like Iraq, which Starmer (a former human rights lawyer) has historically approached with caution.
Strategic Approach Starmer's strategy appears clear: Protect the UK-US alliance without compromising core principles. The response avoids outright support for the method while welcoming a potential democratic transition.
This cautious stance has positioned Britain as a voice of restraint amid global alarm.
Conclusion: A Balanced Yet Firm Message Keir Starmer's reaction to the US operation in Venezuela reflects Britain's complex position—neither full endorsement nor open condemnation. By avoiding immediate contact with Trump, insisting on facts, and repeatedly highlighting international law, he conveys indirect opposition to the unilateral nature of the action. As events unfold, this measured approach may influence discussions on a peaceful path forward for Venezuela. The coming days will reveal whether this caution evolves into stronger statements.
Friday World January 4, 2026
Sajjadali Nayani ✍
