US president Donald Trump on Saturday announced that US forces had carried out a “large-scale strike” in Venezuela and claimed its long-time leader, Nicolás Maduro, had been captured and flown out of the country along with his wife. The operation amounts to the removal of a sitting president from his own capital without a declared war or full-scale invasion, an act with few modern parallels.US bombs Venezuela - follow live updatesSenior security analysts have likened the claim to the US captures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, operations that reshaped entire regions. Venezuelan authorities for their part have demanded for "proof of life". But the strike poses a bigger question, if Maduro is indeed gone, what comes next for Venezuela, and for the region?A capture without precedentAnalysts say the closest historical parallel is the 1989 US operation to seize Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega. Like Maduro, Noriega had claimed victory in disputed elections, was accused by Washington of drug trafficking, and faced intense US pressure before his removal. But Noriega’s capture followed a short, conventional war in which Panamanian forces were quickly overwhelmed.Also read: Who is Nicolas Maduro? Venezuelan president ‘captured’ after US strikesThis time, the scale and method appear radically different. According to BBC analysis, extracting a sitting president and his wife from the centre of Caracas without a ground invasion would make the operation “even more ambitious in its scope” than Noriega’s arrest.Details remain scarce, but the implication is of a precision raid deep inside a heavily defended capital.CNN’s chief international security correspondent Nick Paton Walsh described the development as “utterly startling”, saying it recalled “the operation against Osama bin Laden… and the capture of Saddam Hussein”. He called it the most forceful foreign military intervention of Trump’s presidency and said it demonstrated “the level of freedom with which President Trump believes he operates globally”.What is next for Maduro?Offering some clarity on the situation, Senator Mike Lee confirmed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio told him that no additional action in Venezuela is expected. Lee wrote on X that Rubio confirmed Maduro’s arrest to face US criminal charges, adding that the overnight kinetic operation was carried out solely to protect those executing the arrest warrant.Lee further wrote that the strike fall under Trump's "inherent authority" as the POTUS "to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack.""He informed me that Nicolás Maduro has been arrested by US personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States, and that the kinetic action we saw tonight was deployed to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant This action likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect US personnel from an actual or imminent attack," Lee wrote.While far right MAGA commentator Laura Loomer claimed that Delcy Rodriguez the current vice president of Venezuela will be announced as the interim president.Maduro has been indicted since 2020 in the Southern District of New York on narco-terrorism and cocaine trafficking charges. Over the years, Washington steadily escalated pressure, increasing a bounty on Maduro’s arrest to $50 million after Trump returned to office and designated the Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organisation.What happens next for VenezuelaIf Maduro has indeed been forcibly removed, the consequences inside Venezuela are far from predictable. Supporters of US intervention argue it could finally clear the path for democratic transition, potentially allowing opposition figures such as María Corina Machado or Edmundo González, the opposition candidate from the disputed 2024 election, to take power.Armed colectivos, criminal gangs, Colombian guerrilla groups and drug-trafficking networks operate across large parts of the country. Even without Maduro, these structures will not disappear overnight. The most likely outcome is neither instant democracy nor civil war, but a turbulent transition marked by instability, power struggles and difficult negotiations with military elites.The current intervention could deepen Venezuela’s crisis. The economy is again sliding towards hyperinflation, wages are effectively worthless, and poverty affects most of the population. While many Venezuelans would welcome Maduro’s removal by almost any means, a sudden power vacuum risks empowering armed groups, criminal networks and rival military factions that have coexisted uneasily under the current regime.History suggests Venezuela’s most durable opposition gains have come through negotiations and the ballot box, not force. A chaotic transition could leave the country more violent and less governable than before.The removal of Maduro may have ended one chapter, but it has opened another filled with uncertainty that has crossed a line unseen in Latin America for more than three decades.Not the first US intervention in South AmericaAlthough the stakes are much higher this time, this isnt the first time that the United States has intervened in South America. That history is commonly traced to the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, which warned European powers against interference in the Americas. In the early 20th century, President Theodore Roosevelt expanded it into a justification for direct US action, asserting Washington’s right to act as a regional policeman. Military force, covert operations and economic pressure became central tools of US policy.Also read: The Donroe doctrine - Is Venezuela the next Iraq? Trump’s oil war escalatesDuring the Cold War, intervention was largely framed around stopping the spread of communism. In practice, this meant backing coups, supporting authoritarian governments and running covert CIA operations. The 1954 overthrow of Guatemala’s elected president Jacobo Árbenz, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba in 1961 and support for right-wing regimes in Chile and elsewhere left deep political scars and, in many cases, prolonged instability.From the 1980s, US involvement became more overt. The invasion of Grenada in 1983 and support for the Contra rebels in Nicaragua were justified on security grounds, but produced mixed outcomes. Nicaragua endured years of conflict, while Grenada eventually stabilised under democratic rule.Panama stands out as a rare case often cited as a relative success. The 1989 US invasion removed dictator Manuel Noriega, and the country has since seen economic growth and regular elections. Even there, critics argue the benefits owed more to Panama’s own institutions than to foreign intervention.The current strike comes after Trump escalated the United States’ confrontation with Venezuela, launching an aggressive military and intelligence campaign that Washington said was aimed at drug cartels.Since early September, US forces have carried out a sustained series of strikes against vessels accused of smuggling narcotics in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, with at least 35 known attacks killing more than 100 people, according to administration announcements.The military buildup has been extensive. Warships, submarines, fighter jets and, eventually, the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford have been deployed to the region, bringing roughly 12,000 US personnel into nearby waters.Chaos, fear and mobilisation in CaracasOn the ground, the impact was immediate and visceral. At least seven explosions were reported across Caracas as residents rushed into the streets or sheltered indoors. Smoke rose from military installations, parts of the capital lost power, and armed civilian militias loyal to the government appeared in some neighbourhoods, while other areas remained eerily empty.“The whole ground shook. This is horrible,” said Carmen Hidalgo, a 21-year-old office worker. “We heard explosions and planes. We felt like the air was hitting us.”(With inputs from agencies)