Bryen, former US Deputy Undersecretary, says: "Maduro was being monitored hour by hour. Cuba and Panama are next."

From an Interview

[Editor’s Note: Journalist Roberto Vivaldelli interviewed me for the Italian news outlet, Inside Over. This is a translation from Italian. Inside Over evolved from “Gli Occhi della Guerra” (The Eyes of War), active since 2014 in Italy, with an English version launched in 2019. The publication offers an alternative, cosmopolitan view of the world, going “inside” complex issues and reporting from lesser-known areas. It features in-depth reports, analysis from international commentators, and award-winning photography, covering war, politics, and culture.]

Stephen Bryen is an expert with over 50 years of experience in the field of U.S. defense. In his long career, he served as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Trade Security Policy during the Reagan administration and as Director of the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA) at the U.S. Department of Defense. In the private sector, he was president of Finmeccanica North America (now Leonardo) and other defense consulting firms. Today he runs a widely followed Substack page (Weapons and Strategy) and writes for publications such as Asia Times.

We reached out to him to ask some questions about the U.S. military operation in Venezuela that led to the capture of Nicolás Maduro, in order to better understand the U.S. perspective and the operational details of the operation.

Dr. Bryen, how did the U.S. military operation unfold? Is it true that U.S. intelligence knew exactly where Maduro was located?

Fuerte Tiuna, the base where Maduro slept, was mostly destroyed by US airstrikes, as seen in this satellite photo

The information available so far indicates that the operation to capture Maduro was meticulously planned and carefully rehearsed. It involved sophisticated intelligence assets (satellites, aircraft, drones), personnel on the ground, and informants within the Maduro regime. The United States used numerous air assets, including bombers, fighter jets (F-22, F-35, F-18), drones, and helicopters, some launched from ships in the Caribbean Sea, others from land bases in the United States and Puerto Rico. It is unknown how many soldiers were deployed to physically capture Maduro, but it is clear that numerous armed helicopters and troop transport vehicles were active. Unfortunately for analysts, the Pentagon is keeping most of the details secret.

So Maduro’s location was certainly no longer a mystery.

Not only was Maduro’s location known (he was monitored daily, even hourly), but the Department of Defense knew the location of the reinforced room inside the fortress where Maduro was supposed to take refuge in case of emergency. According to what was said at Trump’s press conference, Maduro attempted to open the security door of the reinforced room in an attempt to escape, but was captured while doing so. Obviously, the floor plan and Maduro’s location inside the fortress were known to US intelligence. The fact that US personnel managed to overcome the guards and quickly take control, capturing Maduro and his wife, is extraordinary.

Several aspects seem inconsistent or highly unusual. How is it possible that the Venezuelan army did not react at all to the US operation? Was Maduro betrayed by his own armed forces and considered expendable?

The Venezuelan army did react at the fortress, and there were a number of firefights. We know few details, although it is clear that US helicopters fired on armed personnel protecting Maduro, and that armed men fired on US helicopters, one of which was hit. In addition, the United States neutralized Venezuela’s air defenses and destroyed numerous military complexes with bombing/smart weapon attacks. We may learn more about what was destroyed later. We do not know how many Venezuelan soldiers were killed or wounded. [Reports a day after the interview say that arounds 80 were killed in the US operation, with 32 of them Cuban officers who were guarding Maduro. There were no US personnel killed.]

Destroyed vehicles at La Carlota military air base, after U.S. President Donald Trump said the U.S. has struck Venezuela in Caracas, Venezuela, on January 3, 2026

The next steps remain uncertain. President Trump mentioned the vice president, but she released a video stating that Maduro is the only legitimate president. What could happen now?

I wish I could answer this question, as it is of fundamental importance. How the United States will “handle Venezuela,” as President Trump put it, is unclear. From what can be gleaned from his comments, the only planned U.S. boots on the ground presence is around the oil facilities. I suspect we have trained opposition personnel to take over the running of the government. U.S. intelligence has been working on this for many years. However, many questions remain about what to do with the Venezuelan military, and how to eliminate the 20,000 Cuban, Iranian, Hezbollah, and other mercenaries and terrorists operating in the country.

Could the Maduro regime continue to function without its leader?

I don’t think the Maduro regime, currently represented by the newly installed president, Delcy Rodríguez, will remain in power for long. She presumably accepted the transition. She is an unelected vice president from a radical family. The United States has presumably carefully planned the next steps in Venezuela, but we can only speculate on how things will proceed.

Delcy Rodriguez

There has been much discussion of the Monroe Doctrine and a potential “Trump corollary.” As you noted in your latest Substack article, will Cuba be next?

The Monroe Doctrine (1823) defined Latin America as a US sphere of influence and made it clear that the United States would not tolerate outside interference (primarily from Europe, particularly Spain and France at the time). President Theodore Roosevelt added that the United States would intervene in Latin American countries to stabilize them and prevent European intervention, establishing the United States as an “international police power.” I believe Trump is expanding Theodore Roosevelt’s definition, as the US approach is not only to keep outsiders out, but also to oppose radicals who are hostile to the United States and oppress their own people.

And what consequences might this have?

Hostility to the United States typically means alignment with Russia, China, Cuba, or Iran, or terrorists like Hezbollah. While I have written about the impact on Cuba, it is also noteworthy that the United States wants significant changes in Panama, which has been heavily influenced by China. Here, the United States sees this as a threat to the US ability to move naval forces and supplies from the Atlantic to the Pacific. If I were Chinese, I would expect to see my companies expelled from Panama. Panama recently abandoned the Chinese Belt and Road initiative, and a Chinese monument in Panama was destroyed. More actions will follow. Colombia is also on Trump’s list, as are Cuba and even Mexico because of the cartels.

How do you assess the reactions of Russia and China?

The Chinese are in shock. I don’t think they thought Trump would act in Venezuela. China faces a major challenge if both Iranian and Venezuelan oil supplies are cut off. This gives Trump significant leverage that he can use to deter the Chinese from attacking Taiwan. Russia, of course, is “in contact with” the new Venezuelan authorities. In short, the Russians will do nothing but complain (while at the same time saying that the US operation in Venezuela and the Russian operation in Ukraine are equivalent in the sense that military intervention is sometimes necessary). The air defenses and radar systems supplied by Russia in Venezuela were mostly destroyed in the US operation, another low blow after Israel did the same thing in Iran. It’s worth remembering that Trump has significantly changed the strategic balance in the world. I believe that some actors considered hostile from the US perspective, such as Russia for example, will see the signs and make deals with the United States.

Is it correct to say that Marco Rubio played a leading role in the operation against Maduro and, more generally, in the Trump administration’s Venezuelan policy?

I think Rubio is the mastermind behind the Venezuelan operation, in the sense that he knows all the players, speaks fluent Spanish, and has a strong political understanding of what needs to follow to transform Venezuela into a prosperous democratic state. I believe he was deeply involved with elements of the opposition in Venezuela and, perhaps, even with some within the former Maduro government who wanted to switch sides.

Will American companies like Chevron and Exxon see significant benefits from these developments?

Chevron certainly, and perhaps others including Exxon, are being invited to invest in the restructuring of the Venezuelan oil industry. Trump has indicated that billions of dollars in investment will be needed and that the money must come from the private sector. Obviously, the corporations that invest will reap significant profits. What is still undetermined is how much of the future oil revenues will go to the Venezuelan treasury and benefit the Venezuelan people. The administration will have to establish clear financial rules very soon, firstly because investors will want to know the terms of the agreement, and secondly because it is central to future revenues for the Venezuelan people. My personal hypothesis is that the oil facilities will be jointly owned by the state and the investing companies, and that Venezuela will likely hold a majority stake.