Shortly before 2 a.m., Caracas was jolted awake by a series of explosions followed by the sound of low‑flying aircraft. Images and eyewitness accounts reported smoke near military installations—particularly around La Carlota—as well as power outages in several districts of the capital. Early news dispatches confirmed at least seven blasts and prolonged overflights above the city.
During this same timeframe, international media pinpointed impacts and plumes of smoke around major installations (La Carlota and Fuerte Tiuna), while the Venezuelan executive denounced a “military aggression” targeting civilian and military sites in Caracas and in the states of Miranda, Aragua, and La Guaira, declaring a state of emergency.
Videos circulating online showed helicopters attributed to U.S. special operations forces (160th SOAR, MH‑47 and possibly MH‑60) flying at very low altitude over the capital, in what appeared to be a raid‑type operation—penetration, extraction, and close air support.
Official acknowledgement and alert mechanisms
Washington did not immediately issue a detailed operational report, but several U.S. media outlets and agencies reported, shortly after dawn, the presidential claim: Donald Trump announced that a “large strike” had been conducted and that Nicolás Maduro and his wife had been captured and exfiltrated to the United States. U.S. authorities did not at that stage provide details regarding the location of detention or the precise chain of operations.
From a security standpoint, an official alert was rapidly issued: the website of the U.S. Embassy (handling Venezuelan affairs from Bogotá) advised American citizens to shelter in place.
On the civil aviation side, the FAA prohibited U.S. commercial flights over Venezuelan airspace (SVZM FIR) due to risks associated with military activity—an extension of heightened warnings already in force since late 2025 (Security Advisory NOTAM A0012/25).
The military narrative: a special operation marked by a distinct U.S. signature
As the hours passed, the contours of the mission grew clearer. The operation—codenamed “Absolute Resolve”—reportedly mobilized a substantial aerial architecture (fighter jets, bombers, drones, and rotary‑wing platforms) along with special operations forces tasked with a targeted extraction. Specialized publications detailed the presence of MH‑47 Chinooks and MH‑60s from the 160th SOAR (“Night Stalkers”), aircraft typically used for infiltration and exfiltration in hostile urban environments.
Video sequences captured in Caracas showed helicopters operating with an unusual degree of freedom for a capital equipped with air‑defense systems; local sources noted at least one MANPADS launch that had no meaningful impact on the operation.
Legal and diplomatic framework: a deliberately maintained gray zone
The Venezuelan government described the action as a “flagrant violation” of the United Nations Charter and called for an emergency meeting of the Security Council. International officials and experts highlighted the unprecedented nature of conducting an extra‑territorial capture of a sitting head of state, and questioned the legal grounds cited by Washington—an operation presented as a form of “law enforcement” backed by military force.
At the regional level, Colombia requested an emergency meeting of the Security Council and warned of possible refugee flows, while several allies of Caracas issued condemnations of the attack.
Strategic communication and information management
By early morning, Donald Trump declared that the United States would “run Venezuela” on an interim basis, indicating potential involvement in the oil sector—though this position was later softened by other administration officials. Fact‑checking teams documented contradictions and ambiguities, including real‑time information gaps, absence of prior Congressional notification, and unclear transitional mechanisms.
Images and infographics spread rapidly, including some unverified photos (such as Maduro allegedly escorted by American agents), feeding the ongoing narrative battle. Newsrooms repeatedly stressed the unverified status of certain visuals to prevent misinformation.
Oil‑market consequences: a shock—yet no price surge (for now)
Why prices are not soaring despite such an “extreme event”
At the opening of Asian markets on Monday, Brent crude slipped to around $60–60.5, indicating that structural oversupply and expectations of weak demand outweighed fears of immediate supply disruption.
Major institutions (Goldman Sachs, EIA) had already projected a depressed 2026 price band (average Brent between $56–59), driven by excess supply (long‑cycle projects coming online, cautious OPEC+, rising non‑OPEC output). The Venezuelan episode is widely seen as not altering the fundamental outlook in the short term.
In essence, the geopolitical risk premium appears partly priced in and counterbalanced by an abundant market; in the near term, OPEC+ responsiveness and sanctions enforcement will have more influence on price direction than the event itself.
What could “Americanization” of Venezuela’s oil sector change?
If Washington reopens Venezuela’s upstream sector to U.S. majors (ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, etc.), any significant production increase would require years and massive capital expenditure (infrastructure, Orinoco upgrading, refining, export logistics). Analysts expect, at best, a gradual recovery with deferred downward pressure on prices—likely beyond 2027.
Algeria facing the new market landscape
Transmission to Algeria’s budget
In a Brent‑below‑$60 scenario, Algerian export revenues contract mechanically, reducing fiscal space and increasing the need for trade‑offs (current expenditures, investment, subsidies). Projections of an average Brent at $56 in 2026 confirm a constrained environment.
OPEC+ posture and the quota dilemma
OPEC+ intensified consultations in early January to stabilize a softening market; if Venezuelan barrels return more quickly than expected, the group may be required to tighten quotas. For Algeria, this would amount to a “double penalty”: reduced (or frozen) output to support prices, while still facing low price levels.
Mitigation levers for Algeria (practical avenues)
- Tactical hedging on a share of production (forwards, collars) to smooth revenue volatility, particularly relevant in an early‑year price range of $55–65.
- Acceleration of gas‑focused strategies: long‑term LNG contracts, optimization of pipeline flows, and seasonal arbitrage to offset weak oil prices (consistent with EIA expectations of rising global inventories in 2026).
- Targeted partnerships with U.S. majors already active in Algeria, securing capital and expertise—including offshore—without compromising strategic control.
- Fiscal discipline: revising price assumptions in the finance law, prioritizing high‑multiplier domestic projects, and reinforcing counter‑cyclical mechanisms (a modernized stabilization fund).
Key items to monitor over the next 7–10 days
- Exact FAA NOTAM text and any extension; prolonged airspace restrictions increase logistical friction and insurance costs.
- Official U.S. communication (DoD, White House) on operational architecture, legal basis, and interim governance arrangements.
- U.N. Security Council developments and positions of key actors (Russia, China, Colombia, Brazil).
- Signals from OPEC+ regarding potential quota tightening to counter sustained downward pressure.
- Brent/WTI spot movements in Asia and Europe: confirmation of the $55–65 band or a break below.
Strategic takeaways: five major lessons
- Integrated raid capability: a combined use of air superiority, electronic warfare, drones, and helicopters confirms a U.S. doctrine of urban‑core apprehension with multi‑domain coverage.
- Deliberate legal ambiguity: framing the action as “law enforcement” supported by military power creates dual readings under international law while projecting regional deterrence.
- Information operations and media tempo: unverified imagery amplified competing narratives, while official channels maintained tight timing control (press conferences, statements).
- Market resilience: the absence of a price spike reflects ample inventories and persistent oversupply; geopolitics alone no longer overturns bearish trends without a concrete supply shock.
- Algeria’s low‑price stewardship: navigating a sub‑$60 environment requires hedging, gas leverage, technical partnerships, and vigilant OPEC+ coordination.
Conclusion
The operation in Caracas marks a precedent rich in diplomatic and regional implications. Militarily, it demonstrates the United States’ ability to conduct an extraction in the heart of a capital under dense air cover. Politically, it opens a gray zone concerning transitional mechanisms and sovereignty. Economically, it underscores that the 2026 oil market is fundamentally shaped by structural surplus: unless Venezuelan output returns swiftly and significantly, Brent near $60 remains plausible. For Algeria, the challenge lies in transforming this depressed environment into an incentive for discipline and optimization—securing gas flows, refining hedging strategies, strengthening technical partnerships, and working within OPEC+ to stabilize an increasingly shock‑resistant market.
Comments
Post a Comment