Outline:
- Donald Trump stated on Saturday that the United States had taken Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro into custody.
- The attack generated intense but conflicting responses from business leaders and international relations experts.
- Some believe removing Maduro presents economic possibilities; others argue it might intensify international tensions.
President Donald Trumpon Saturday revealed that the United States carried out a raid in Venezuela, leading to the arrest ofVenezuelan President Nicolás Maduroand his wife, along with prominent figures in business and international policy, have been responding as the consequences develop.
Here’s what they have been stating:
Charles Myers
Myers, who leads the political risk consulting company Signum Global Advisors, shared with Business Insider that foreign investment in the oil, tourism, and construction sectors will be the main focus of Venezuela’s economic revival. He also mentioned that he believes the nation’s economy will expand more quickly over the next two years than many expect, due to the magnitude of foreign investment.
Myers, who previously led the investment advisory company Evercore, is organizing a visit for 15 to 20 investors to Venezuela in March to explore opportunities.investment opportunities. Signum Global Advisors has organized comparable trips for investor groups in Syria and Ukraine.
Ian Bremmer
Bremmer, the creator of the political risk research and advisory company, Eurasia Group, stated in a LinkedIn post that “the US assumes that upcoming Venezuelan leaders will now comply with American demands since they’ve just witnessed the ‘or else.'”
With the post came a picture of a sketch depicting a horse. The back part of the horse was illustrated with elaborate detail, and marked “SOF”operation to capture Maduro, referring to the special operations forces mission that took place early Saturday. The horse’s head was shown as a simple child’s drawing, labeled “plans for the future of Venezuela.”
“I wouldn’t really refer to it as a plan,” Bremmer added.
In a different post, he stated: “The law of the jungle is perilous. What happens to your adversaries today could happen to you tomorrow. Don’t overlook the direction the world is moving.”
Bill Ackman
The wealthy hedge fund manager stated in a post on X that “Removing Maduro would reduce oil prices, which benefits America and harms Russia. A weaker Russian economy would make it more likely that the”war in Ukraineends earlier and under more advantageous conditions for Ukraine. And Putin will be resting in his secure room from this point onward.
Henry Gao
Gao is a senior fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation and serves as a law professor at Singapore Management University. In a series of messages on X, he stated that the raid in Caracas marked “the brave new world of international law.”
“The arrest of Maduro has sparked the most significant resurgence in international law since Grotius — and suddenly made everyone on X an expert in international law, eager to draw parallels between Venezuela and Taiwan,” he wrote.
But China has never considered the Taiwan issue to be a matter of international law,” he continued. “It has always been viewed as an internal matter, with Taiwan seen as arenegade provinceThe reason China has not taken action is not due to a lack of legal basis, but rather because it lacks the necessary ability. Therefore, US operations in Venezuela do not offer China any further legal justification.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren
The Democratic senator from Massachusettswas a former Harvard Law professor with significant knowledge in bankruptcy and consumer finance. In a post on X, she stated that Trump’s move to seize Maduro, “regardless of how despotic he may be — is unconstitutional and risks pulling the US into more conflicts in the area.”
What does it mean when the US is said to ‘control’ Venezuela, and what will Trump do next on the global stage?” Warren wrote. “The American people voted for lower costs, not for Trump’s risky military actions abroad that won’t make the American people safer.
Elon Musk
The chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX spent most of Saturday sharing admiration for the Trump administration and the military actions in Venezuela, stating that it was “heartwarming to see so many Venezuelans celebrating their country’s liberation from a brutal dictator.”
In a separate post, Musk shared a White House image showing Maduro on the USS Iwo Jima following his arrest, accompanied by the caption “Congratulations, President Trump! This is a victory for the world and a strong message to evil dictators everywhere.”
Musk and Trump have had atumultuous relationshipover the years, shifting between seeming like close allies and exchanging strong criticisms in the press.
Richard Branson
Writing on X, the British billionaireand the founder of the Virgin Group stated that Maduro’s “corrupt and incompetent rule” had “brought endless suffering to the Venezuelan people and pushed this beautiful country to the brink of economic and social collapse.”
“He won’t be noticed,” he wrote.
Branson stated that a “just and equitable transition involves transferring authority to Venezuelans, particularly those who have a definitive mandate to guide the country.”
Vishnu Varathan
Vishnu Varathan, head of macro research for Asia ex-Japan at Mizuho, stated that Washington’s strong influence over Venezuela would provide the United States with a significant energy benefit.
The first benefit is practical and industrial: Venezuela’s heavy crude oil is ideal for the refining capabilities in the United States. The second benefit is strategic: Having access to Venezuela’s large oil reserves would provide the US a significant energy advantage in the artificial intelligence competition, especially compared to China.
Ultimately, Varathan pointed out a shipping benefit. The close distance provides the US with a logistical advantage in accessing Venezuelan oil, whereas the loss of access makes China’s remaining oil imports more susceptible to key maritime bottlenecks.
“China’s energy security is slightly undermined, while the US gains a substantial advantage in energy dominance,” Varathan wrote.
Jonathan Panikoff
Panikoff, who leads the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council and previously served as a deputy national intelligence officer at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, challenged the notion that Trump’s raid was mainly focused on oil.
In a post on Saturday, he mentioned that although Venezuela possesses approximately 17% to 18% of the world’s oil reserves, it contributes only 1% to 1.5% to global production, referring to oil as a “secondary advantage” instead of the primary reason.
Panikoff stated that the action demonstrates Trump’s longstanding belief that the United States should establish control in the Western Hemisphere and reduce the impact of China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba.
“America First means American leadership in the Western Hemisphere,” he wrote, noting that the operation seemed more like a return to the Monroe Doctrine rather than a standard drug war initiative.
Richard Haass
Haass, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations think tank, stated that while Maduro’s removal might be broadly supported, the operation was not tactically sound.
In his “Home & Away” newsletter, Haass referred to the raid as a “military operation driven by preference, not necessity,” noting that Maduro “presented little immediate danger to the United States.”
He mentioned that eliminating a leader is much simpler than overhauling a regime, referencing former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn rule”— the principle that if you cause a country to collapse, you are responsible for the outcomes.
“We shattered it, so now we are responsible for it,” Haass wrote.
Haass also mentioned that the operation might establish a harmful precedent, possibly encouraging Russia and China to support interventions in Ukraine and Taiwan using comparable reasoning.
If you liked this tale, make sure to followBusiness Insider on MSN.