TEHRAN – The abduction of a sitting head of state—blindfolded and rendered to a Manhattan courtroom—marks the definitive end of the post-WWII diplomatic era.

By January 6, the geopolitical fallout of “Operation Absolute Resolve” has transitioned from initial shock to a sustained global insurrection against American unilateralism.

The January 3 military raid on Caracas, which killed dozens, including 32 Cuban personnel, is being viewed not as a strike against crime, but as a naked act of imperial aggression designed to secure Venezuela’s massive energy reserves.

On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump boasted of U.S. actions in Venezuela, claiming power was cut nationwide: “The electricity for almost the entire country was, ‘Boom,’ turned off… The only people with lights were those with candles.”

The Telegraph reported that Trump has no clear plan after Maduro’s capture, with policy improvised “on the hoof,” with policy being developed day by day.

The Washington Post reported Trump withheld support for María Corina Machado because she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize he coveted. Though she dedicated it to him, one source called it “the ultimate sin,” adding: “If she had refused it for Trump, she’d be Venezuela’s president today.”

During an emergency UN Security Council session on January 5, the atmosphere was one of existential dread.

Economist and UN advisor Jeffrey Sachs delivered a scathing post-mortem on the intragovernmental organization’s charter, arguing that Washington has officially replaced international law with the “law of the jungle.”

Sachs highlighted a decades-long pattern of U.S. interventionism—from the 2002 coup attempt to the strangling sanctions that decimated the Venezuelan economy—concluding that this latest kidnapping is the logical endpoint of a foreign policy that views the globe as a colonial playground.

The Council’s fractures were absolute: while Washington spoke of “liberation,” Russia and China condemned the “hegemonic bullying” that now threatens the territorial integrity of every sovereign nation.

The legal theater in New York, where Maduro was arraigned on January 5, has only exacerbated the crisis.

Labeling himself a “prisoner of war,” Maduro’s refusal to recognize the court’s jurisdiction has turned the proceedings into a political show trial.

This erosion of diplomatic immunity has prompted a sardonic warning from Moscow.

Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, observed on Sunday that if heads of state are now fair game for snatch-and-grab operations, Western leaders should not consider themselves safe.

Medvedev specifically suggested that the abduction of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz—whom he termed a “neo-Nazi”—would be an “excellent twist in this carnival of events,” underscoring the potential for a chaotic cycle of retaliatory kidnappings.

The outcry has moved from diplomatic chambers to the streets. In London, Madrid, and Mexico City, protesters have branded the U.S. action as “state terrorism.”

Latin American leaders, led by Brazil’s Lula, have denounced the crossing of an “unacceptable line,” viewing the operation as a violent resurrection of the Monroe Doctrine.

The message from the global majority is clear: the U.S. can no longer cloak regime change in the language of law and democracy.

While Maduro remains in a Manhattan cell, it is the moral authority of the United States that is hemorrhaging with each act of unilateral coercion.