Note: Political Awareness never authorizes its published communication on behalf of any candidate or their committees.

EDITOR’S NOTE

In the early hours of January 3, 2026, the United States conducted a unilateral military extraction of a sitting foreign head of state. The tactical success of the mission is evident, but we are only beginning to map its institutional consequences. This analysis avoids the emotional rhetoric of the moment to examine a more durable risk: the transformation of unilateral regime removal from a global anomaly into a repeatable precedent. Political Awareness examines this event not as a partisan victory or defeat, but as a structural shift in the international order.

Precedent, Not Legality: How Power Is Remembered

International bodies often frame their responses to the use of force using legal language. Treaties are cited, charters are invoked, and violations are cataloged. History shows that international order is not primarily governed by legal compliance. Memory governs it. What ultimately shapes state behavior is not whether an action was permissible, but whether it became usable as precedent.

People widely discuss the legality of the recent U.S. military action against Venezuela. Particularly with reference to Article 2, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter. Which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state. These arguments are not incorrect; they are simply insufficient. International law lacks consistent enforcement mechanisms, particularly when applied to powerful states. Consequently, the most consequential question is not whether the intervention was justified. But how it will be remembered by the collective expectations of the international system.

I.  The Cumulative Lowering of the Threshold

States do not operate in a vacuum. When force is used, other governments do not ask only whether the action conformed to international law. They ask whether it was tolerated. Whether it succeeded, and whether it can be cited in the future. Accumulated examples shape international behavior more than written rules do.

This dynamic is best understood by comparing it to historical reference points:

• Panama (1989): Resulted in the removal of a sitting head of state under the stated aims of protecting U.S. nationals and restoring democratic order. It became a reference point for rapid, unilateral regime removal framed as stabilization rather than conquest.
• Nicaragua (1980s): Pressure was applied through asymmetric and covert The lesson absorbed by many observers was that powerful states could shape outcomes without bearing proportional diplomatic or legal costs.
• Grenada (1983): Framed as a protective measure, the speed of the operation and control of the narrative reduced long-term repercussions, reinforcing the perception that decisiveness could blunt legitimacy challenges.

None of these cases alone dismantled international norms. Together, they lowered the perceived threshold for action. The Venezuela intervention fits within this established pattern, but its timing—occurring in an environment already strained by repeated norm erosion—gives it greater weight.

II.  Appearance as Consequence

In international politics, appearance is causal. Actions that appear isolated are remembered as anomalies. Actions that appear replicable become templates.

The Venezuela intervention bypassed established collective mechanisms and relied on unilateral judgment. Whether the objectives were legitimate or flawed, the form of the action matters. It reinforces the perception that regime removal without broad authorization remains an available tool of statecraft. This perception provides rhetorical cover for other global actors to frame similar actions as “precedent-aligned” rather than exceptional.

DEMOCRATIC IMPLICATIONS

What does this mean for democracy?

A democracy’s adherence to process ties its strength. When the executive branch bypasses both domestic (Congressional) and international (UN/OAS) frameworks for a kinetic strike, it centralizes power in a way that is difficult to reverse. The “success” of a mission may often obscure the long-term weakening of the checks and balances designed to prevent impulsive statecraft.

Where does citizen responsibility live here?

Citizens must distinguish between the outcome (the removal of a specific leader) and the mechanism (unilateral military force). Stewardship requires us to ask whether we are comfortable with other nations or future administrations with different priorities using this mechanism.

What happens if this fails?

If broken rules become familiar, the international system moves from “Rule of Law” to “Rule of Power.” This creates a more volatile world where military parity, rather than diplomatic agreement, determines security

FACT-CHECK & SOURCES

2. Charter of the United Article 2(4) and Chapter VII.
3. S. Department of State. 2020 Indictment of Nicolás Maduro for Narco-Terrorism.
4. Congressional Research The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice. 2024.
5. The White Statement on Operation Absolute Resolve. January 3, 2026.
6. International Court of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America).

 THE MISSION

Political Awareness commits to conducting non-partisan, research-driven analysis of democratic institutions, governance norms, and civic responsibility. Our aim is to examine the “plumbing” of the state—not to tell you who to vote for, but to help you understand how the systems you rely on actually work.