failed

PARIS — We’ve long had your back, now it’s our turn. That is how the famously transactional President Trump is framing his demands that allies help him with the Iran war. He wants to call in IOUs for decades of U.S. security guarantees.

The string of refusals indicates his stock of European goodwill is low. He has put allies through the wringer since returning to the White House, bullying them over tariffs, Greenland and other issues, and disparaging the sacrifices their soldiers made alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Now he’s demanding — not just requesting — that they send warships to help the U.S. unblock the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s traded oil passes — essentially mop up behind the conflagration that he and Israel ignited in the Middle East.

The reply has been a “global raspberry.”

That’s how a veteran French defense analyst, François Heisbourg, described allied responses.

No close ally has come forward with immediate help. Britain is flat-out refusing to be drawn into the war. France says the fighting would have to die down first. Others are non-committal. China, which is not an ally but was also asked to help, is ignoring Trump’s call.

“This is not Europe’s war. We didn’t start the war. We were not consulted,” European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said Tuesday.

Trump’s frustration with the ‘Rolls-Royce of allies’

Trump has singled out the refusal from the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Keir Starmer cultivated ties with Trump and reached an early trade deal with the administration, but is now among allies who refuse to join a regional war with no clear endgame.

The U.K. “was sort of considered the Rolls-Royce of allies,” Trump said Monday, adding that he’d asked for British minesweeping ships.

“I was not happy with the U.K,” Trump said. “They should be involved enthusiastically. We’ve been protecting these countries for years.”

Starmer said Britain “will not be drawn into the wider war” and that British troops require the backing of international law and “a proper thought-through plan” — suggesting those were not in place.

He initially refused to let U.S. bombers attack Iran from British bases before accepting their use for strikes on Iran’s ballistic missile program.

Retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, former commanding general of the U.S. Army in Europe, said allies are “looking at the United States in a way that they never have before. And this is bad for the United States.”

Having previously appeased Trump, some European leaders are “starting to realize that there’s no benefit or value in using flattery,” he said.

European leaders say it’s not their war

Going to war without consulting allies was in keeping with Trump’s America-first outlook.

“My attitude is: We don’t need anybody. We’re the strongest nation in the world,” he said Monday.

But failing to get an international mandate, as the U.S. did before intervening in the 1990 Gulf War, is boomeranging.

“It is not our war; we did not start it,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said. “We want diplomatic solutions and a swift end to the conflict. Sending more warships to the region will certainly not contribute to that.”

French President Emmanuel Macron envisions possible naval escorts in the Strait of Hormuz — but only once fighting has died down.

“France didn’t choose this war. We’re not taking part,” he said.

After bruising tariff battles with Trump last year, the first months of 2026 have further strained alliances. Trump’s renewed pressure for U.S. control of Greenland, including a tariff threat against eight European nations, and his false assertion that allied troops avoided front-line fighting in the Afghanistan War, upset partners in the NATO military alliance.

“Allies, or at least the Europeans, aren’t willing to be at the beck and call of a demand from Donald Trump,” said Sylvie Bermann, a French former ambassador to China, the U.K. and Russia.

“And even in asking for a helping hand, he is doing so in a brutal manner, saying: ‘You’re useless, we’re the strongest, we don’t need you, but come,’” she said.

A dangerous mission

Retired naval officers say that unblocking the Strait of Hormuz with military escorts while the war rages and without Iran’s consent would be dangerous.

France, which has rushed its Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean, is working with other countries to prepare such a mission once the air war has subsided. French military spokesman Col. Guillaume Vernet said any escorting would be conditional on talks with Iran, and Macron has publicized two calls in eight days with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian.

That has won points with Trump.

“On a scale of zero to 10, I’d say he’s been an eight,” Trump said Monday. “Not perfect, but it’s France. We don’t expect perfect.”

But he’s fuming at other allies.

“We will protect them, but they will do nothing for us, in particular, in a time of need,” Trump said Tuesday.

Trump has leverage, including in Ukraine

Allies in Europe and Asia need oil, gas and other products from the Middle East to flow again. That gives Trump some leverage.

Allies also know from experience that resisting Trump carries risks of retaliation.

“It really could be anything. Are the Europeans prepared for that?” asked Ed Arnold, a former British army officer and now a researcher at the Royal United Services Institute, a London think tank.

European allies need Trump’s continued blessing for U.S. weaponry, intelligence, and other support for Ukraine, as well as financial pressure on Russia. The U.S. has started to chip away at some sanctions on Moscow by temporarily allowing shipments of Russian oil to ease shortages stemming from the Iran war. Allies also want him to reengage in talks to end the war.

“That was what kept European leaders quiet for a lot of last year in the face of the rhetoric and actions,” said Amanda Sloat, a former U.S. national security adviser who now teaches at Spain’s IE University.

“It is also the thing that is making them a little bit nervous now.”

Leicester and Burrows write for the Associated Press. Burrows reported from London. AP journalists Jill Lawless in London, Lorne Cook in Brussels, Suman Naishadham in Madrid, Geir Moulson and Kirsten Grieshaber in Berlin, Simina Mistreanu in Taipei, Taiwan, and Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo contributed to this report.

For years, Iran’s leaders believed time was on their side.

After the United States withdrew from the 2015 nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Tehran effectively adopted what later came to be described as a “strategic patience” approach. Rather than immediately counter-escalating, Iran chose to endure economic pressure while waiting to see whether diplomacy could be revived.

The logic behind the strategy was simple: eventually, Washington would recognise that confrontation with Iran was against its own interests.

Today, that assumption lies shattered.

The collapse of diplomacy and the outbreak of war have forced Iran’s leadership to confront a painful reality: their belief that the US would ultimately act rationally may have been a profound miscalculation.

If Iran survives the current conflict, the lessons Iranian leaders draw from this moment may motivate them to pursue a nuclear deterrent.

The strategy of waiting

After the first Trump administration withdrew from the JCPOA and launched its “maximum pressure” campaign in 2018, Tehran initially avoided major counter-escalation. For nearly a year, it largely remained within the deal’s limits, hoping the other signatories, particularly Europeans, could preserve the agreement and deliver on the promised economic benefits despite US sanctions.

When that failed, Tehran began gradually increasing its nuclear activities by expanding enrichment and reducing compliance step by step while still avoiding a decisive break.

The pace accelerated after Iran’s conservative-dominated parliament passed a law mandating a significant increase in nuclear activities, in the wake of the assassination of top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. The shift was reinforced further by the 2021 election of conservative President Ebrahim Raisi.

The ultimate goal was to rebuild negotiating leverage, as Tehran believed that broader geopolitical and regional trends were gradually shifting in its favour. From its perspective, China’s rise, Russia’s growing assertiveness, and widening fractures within the Western alliance suggested that Washington’s ability to isolate Iran indefinitely might weaken over time.

At the same time, Iran pursued a strategy of reducing tensions with its neighbours, seeking improved relations with Gulf states that had previously supported the US “maximum pressure” campaign. By the early 2020s, many Gulf Cooperation Council countries had begun prioritising engagement and de-escalation with Iran, culminating in moves such as the 2023 Saudi-Iran rapprochement brokered by China.

Against this backdrop, even as tensions rose, Tehran continued to pursue diplomacy. Years of negotiations with the Biden administration aimed at restoring the JCPOA ultimately produced no agreement. Subsequent diplomatic efforts under Trump’s second presidency also collapsed.

Underlying this approach was a fundamental assumption: that the US ultimately preferred stability to war. Iranian officials believed Washington would eventually conclude that diplomacy, rather than endless pressure or a major war, was the most realistic and least costly path forward.

The joint US-Israeli assault on Iran has now exposed how deeply flawed that assumption was.

The return of deterrence

While Tehran based its strategy on mistaken beliefs about the rationality of US foreign policy, Washington, too, is misreading the situation.

For years, advocates of the maximum pressure campaign argued that sustained economic and military pressure would eventually fracture Iran internally. Some predicted that war would trigger widespread unrest and even the collapse of the regime.

So far, none of those predictions has materialised.

Despite the enormous strain on Iranian society, there have been no signs of regime disintegration. Instead, Iran’s political base — and in many cases broader segments of society — has rallied in the face of external attack.

Furthermore, Iran spent years reinforcing its deterrence capabilities. This involved expanding and diversifying its ballistic missile, cruise missile and drone programmes and developing multiple delivery systems designed to penetrate sophisticated air defences. Iranian planners also drew lessons from the direct exchanges with Israel in 2024 and the June 2025 war, improving targeting accuracy and coordination across different weapons systems.

The focus shifted towards preparing for a prolonged war of attrition: firing fewer but more precise strikes over time while attempting to degrade enemy radar and air defence systems.

We now see the results of this work. Iran has been able to inflict significant damage on its adversaries. Retaliatory attacks have killed seven Americans and 11 Israelis, placing a growing strain on US and Israeli missile defence systems, as interceptors are steadily depleted.

Iranian missile and drone strikes have hit targets across the region, including high-value military infrastructure such as radar installations. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent global energy markets into turmoil.

Apart from the immense cost of war, the US decision to launch the attack on Iran may have another unintended consequence: a radical shift in Iranian strategy.

For decades, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei maintained a longstanding religious prohibition on nuclear weapons. His assassination on the first day of the war may now motivate the new civilian and military leadership of the country to rethink its nuclear strategy.

There may now be fewer ideological reservations about pursuing nuclear weapons. The logic is simple: if diplomacy cannot deliver sanctions relief or permanently remove the threat of war, nuclear deterrence may appear to be the only viable alternative.

Iran’s actions in this conflict suggest that many leaders now see patience and diplomacy as strategic mistakes. These include the unprecedented scale of Iranian missile and drone attacks across the region, the targeting of US partners and critical infrastructure, and political decisions at home that signal a harder line, most notably the appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as supreme leader.

The choice of Khamenei’s son breaks a longstanding taboo in a system founded on the rejection of hereditary rule and reflects a leadership increasingly prepared to abandon previous restraints.

If a more zero-sum logic of deterrence takes hold across the region, replacing dialogue as the organising principle of security, the Middle East may enter a far more dangerous era in which nuclear weapons are viewed as the ultimate form of deterrence and nuclear proliferation can no longer be stopped.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

On the day news broke that Kyler Murray had been informed his services would no longer be needed in Arizona, the longtime Cardinals quarterback sent out a message to the team and its fans that was more than just heartfelt.

It was heart-wrenching.

“I wanted nothing more than to be the one to end the 77 year drought for this organization,” Murray wrote Tuesday on X. “I am sorry I failed us. I wish this community and my brothers nothing but the best.”

A person familiar with the situation told the Associated Press that the Cardinals have told Murray they are letting him go at the beginning of the new league year on March 11. The team has not publicly announced the decision.

The Cardinals have won two NFL championships, both in the pre-Super Bowl era (1925, 1947). Hall of Fame quarterback Kurt Warner led the team to its lone Super Bowl appearance, a 27-23 loss to the Pittsburgh Steelers following the 2008 season.

Murray won the 2018 Heisman Trophy with Oklahoma and was drafted by Arizona at No. 1 overall the following spring. He was named the offensive rookie of the year in 2019 and made the Pro Bowl in each of the next two seasons.

Also in 2021, the Cardinals had their only winning season (11-6) and playoff appearance (a 34-11 loss to the Rams in the wild-card round) of Murray’s tenure. Before the 2022 season, Murray signed a $230.5-million, five-year contract extension with the Cardinals that included $160 million guaranteed.

Murray missed at least six games because of injury in three of the last four seasons. In 2025, a foot injury in Week 5 ended up keeping him out for the rest of the season, with backup Jacoby Brissett playing well in his place to create a quarterback controversy.

Murray compiled a record of 38-48-1 over seven seasons, completing 67.1% of his passes for 20,460 yards with 121 touchdowns and 60 interceptions. He has also rushed for 3,193 yards and 32 touchdowns.

“To everyone that supported me and showed kindness to my family and I during my time in AZ, from the bottom of my heart, thank you,” Murray wrote.

Brissett has one season left on his two-year, $12.5-million contract with the Cardinals. Murray, who is owed $36.8 million in guaranteed money next season, joins a free-agent quarterback class that also could include Malik Willis, Aaron Rodgers, Kirk Cousins, Marcus Mariota and others.

“I am no stranger to adversity,” Murray wrote. “I am prepared for whatever’s next. I trust in God and my work ethic. I truly believe my best ball is in front of me and I look forward to proving it.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

When he became Nigeria’s Inspector-General of Police (IGP) in 2023, Kayode Egbetokun vowed to fight criminality and insecurity with vim and vigour. He seemed determined to reform the police; he promised to improve officers’ welfare and make Nigeria a safer, better country for its people. As Usman Alkali stepped out of the IGP office and Kayode stepped in, Nigerians hoped he could deliver on his promise.

“I really can’t describe how I feel currently, but if I have to tell you anything, I will tell you that right now, I feel like a tiger inside of me, ready to chase away all the criminals in Nigeria. And some other times, I feel like a lion in me, ready to devour all the internal enemies of Nigeria. That’s my feeling right now,” he said during his decoration as acting IGP at the Presidential Villa in Abuja.

On Feb. 24, the reign of the 61-year-old police chief came to an end. He was forced to resign, according to local media reports. His regime appeared to have dampened the high hopes for police reform in Nigeria, leaving the new IGP, Tunji Disu, a highly decorated police chief, with a legacy of a failed policing system.

Disu is a familiar name within the police force, having held various important roles and risen through the ranks. In 2021, for instance, he succeeded Abba Kyari, a Nigerian once-upon-a-time supercop, as head of the Police Intelligence Response Team (IRT). He was an Assistant Inspector-General of Police before emerging as Nigeria’s new IGP.

Born on April 13, 1966, Tunji joined the police force in May 1992. Appointed as acting IGP at 59, he is due to retire in April this year, upon reaching the mandatory age of 60. However, in 2024, the National Assembly amended the Police Act, 2020, enabling him to serve out his full four-year term as IGP, unless the president removes him.

He had led the Rapid Response Squad (RRS) of Lagos State Police Command successfully and presented himself as a diligent supercop throughout his career. While his antecedent might have been thrilling, he’s inheriting the disturbing legacies of his predecessor, leaving him a deep forest to clear. 

To understand what lies ahead, HumAngle engaged police officers, journalists, civic leaders, and human rights advocates, who not only reflected on the legacies of the former IGP but also outlined urgent priorities for the new administration. Their insights reveal both the depth of Nigeria’s policing crisis and the expectations riding on Disu to restore trust, improve welfare, and confront systemic failures within the force.

The legacy of human rights abuses

The NPF was infamous for several unlawful activities under the former IGP’s command, including high-handedness towards journalists demanding social justice and accountability. Journalists, whistleblowers, and media practitioners across Nigeria were targeted for simply doing their jobs, creating a climate of fear that undermined press freedom. On many occasions, journalists reported being beaten or threatened during arrests and manhandled at rallies, while editors said they received threatening calls warning them against publishing sensitive stories.

Over 80 incidents of attacks against journalists and media organisations were recorded in 2025, according to a report by the Media Rights Agenda (MRA), a non-profit organisation that promotes and protects freedom of expression, media freedom, and access to information in Nigeria. The report stated that arrests and detentions were the primary tools for suppressing media freedom and freedom of expression, constituting the most common form of attack, with 38 documented cases accounting for over 44 per cent of all incidents.

“In terms of perpetrators of attacks against journalists and violations of other freedom of expression rights, the Nigeria Police Force was identified in the report as the worst offender,” the report stated.

The police, under the former IGP, were also accused of weaponising the cyber law to incarcerate journalists seeking public accountability. Sometimes instigated by influential people within and outside government, the police have used this legislation to clamp down on journalists and activists despite the recent amendment. Digital journalists were even more targeted using Nigeria’s Cybercrime Act. In 2024, the National Assembly amended sections of the law following the ECOWAS Court’s declaration that they were inconsistent with Nigeria’s obligations under Article 1 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and with best practices.

The amended Cybercrimes Act 2024 has revised Section 24 of the 2015 law, which was previously used to prosecute individuals for “insulting” or “stalking” public officials. The updated amendment provides clearer definitions of the offences, focusing on computer-based messages that are either pornographic or intentionally misleading. However, despite these changes, the police have still been using this provision to intimidate journalists.

One interesting case, among several others, involved Nurudeen Akewusola, a senior journalist with the International Centre for Investigative Reporting (ICIR). In 2024, Nurudeen’s investigation exposed how two former IGPs, among others, were implicated in a shady multimillion-naira land deal involving property originally designated for police barracks in Abuja. The police detained Nurudeen and his employer, Dayo Aiyetan, over this story, asking the reporter to reveal his sources. He refused to name his sources, upholding journalistic ethics. 

The reporter and his employer were detained by the Nigeria Police Force National Cybercrime Centre (NPF-NCCC), which was purportedly probing a “case of cyberstalking and defamation of character” against the reporter and the executive director of the ICIR.

Two years later, Nurudeen told HumAngle that his experience with the police still haunts him. The incident has since made him worried about the safety of journalists and truth-seekers in Nigeria. He remembers how he was detained and mistreated when chasing any similar public interest story. 

“The incident also took a toll on those close to me. My family and loved ones were anxious and confused; calls kept coming in as people tried to understand what was happening and what might happen next. Watching them carry that fear because of my work was a heavy emotional burden,” he said.

Scores of journalists in Nigeria faced even worse attacks from police under the former IGP’s leadership.  Busola Ajibola, the deputy director of journalism at the Centre for Journalism Innovations and Development (CJID), told HumAngle that at least 40 cases of press freedom attacks were recorded under former IGP Kayode. The media civic leader said there seemed to be a culture of impunity against journalists that predated the former police chief and was more pronounced during his administration.

“We’re building an environment that lacks accountability,” she warned, noting that media oppression by the police could have grave consequences. “We’re denying the public of demanding accountability using the media. Media oppression also has impacts on the right to freedom of expression generally.”

Failed to rein in terrorist attacks

Despite his flowery promises to curb insecurity, the former IGP seemed to have failed to secure lives and property in Nigeria’s most volatile communities. Communal crises lingered for so long that they attracted global attention, and terrorism resurged with terrorists operating brazenly, especially in the northwestern region. Between 2023 and 2024, for instance, Nigeria grappled with widespread insecurity, particularly in the northwestern and north-central regions. Kidnappings for ransom surged, with rural communities and travellers along highways being frequent targets. Armed groups intensified their operations, often overwhelming security forces. The HumAngle Tracker recorded hundreds of deaths during this period, revealing the persistent inability of police institutions to contain violence.

Insurgency intensified within the northeastern region, spreading rapidly to the north-central states, including Nigeria’s capital city. Boko Haram and ISWAP factions raided villages, military bases, and convoys, leading to significant civilian casualties. This period also saw an increase in targeted killings and ambushes. 

Terrorist attacks expanded beyond the northern regions in 2025, with the South East Nigeria experiencing heightened violence linked to separatist movements and criminal gangs. Attacks on security personnel, government facilities, and civilians became more frequent. The HumAngle Tracker documented a rise in politically motivated violence, especially around election-related activities. Meanwhile, oil-producing areas in the South-South continued to experience militancy and pipeline vandalism, disrupting economic stability. By early 2026, the tracker data showed that insecurity remained entrenched, with no significant nationwide improvement.

In November 2025, however, the former IGP described how the police were fighting terrorism and armed violence in Nigeria, saying insecurity was not something that could be fought in silos. While addressing reporters at the Lagos Police Command in Ikeja,  the police chief said there must be synergy with other agencies and all communities for Nigeria to contain insecurity. He also advised Nigerians to stop spreading misinformation and falsehood about the police and other security agencies.

“When people spread falsehood against security institutions that are providing security, they are weakening the resolve of the nation,” he said. “So, let us all be committed to saying the truth about security agencies who are taking risks and providing security for the country.”  

Decentralised the Police Complaints Response Unit

At first, the former police chief introduced a policing model that appeared to prioritise public complaints. Barely four months into his role as acting IGP, he decentralised the Police Complaints Response Units (CRU) to cater to the disturbing trust deficits in the policing system. In August 2023, he ordered police commissioners to establish the state-based police complaint units. The CRU made contact information for police spokespersons available online and set up social media pages to engage with citizens nationwide. He said the purpose of decentralising the CRU was to create a conducive platform for interaction between the police and the public, particularly regarding officers’ unprofessional conduct.

“It is going to enhance police-community collaboration and build confidence with members of the public,” he said, appealing to the public to supply the police with information for transparency. “Officers who are going to man the CRU are going to be carefully selected; they are going to be officers with impeccable integrity.”

The CRU emboldened citizens to hold police officers accountable for their actions. The initiative brought several erring police officers to justice when citizens lodged complaints. However, the CRU decentralisation became defective when the police became reluctant to prosecute some officers caught in shady dealings. Journalists and civic actors who closely monitored the CRU said the initiative was promising at first, but it later flopped.

Daniel Ojukwu, a senior journalist with the Foundation for Investigative Journalism and Social Justice, said that while the former IGP must be commended for decentralising the CRU, he must also be blamed for ignoring significant citizen complaints against the police. Daniel covers police activities, seeking justice for citizens whose rights were violated by high-handed officers. The journalist also had his share of press attacks by police officers. He was arrested and detained – albeit illegally – by the force headquarters for an investigation he had conducted.

“Egbetokun did well with the CRU decentralisation, but of course, there were holes. We hope that the new IG will prioritise making the CRU work better,” he said.

HumAngle spoke with several police officers to inquire about the IGP’s general performance. Many of them believe he lost his way the moment he attained the highest position in the police force. Most of his promises, they said, were unfulfilled. Some of the officers we spoke with said he was a poor administrator who had the chance to reform the police but failed woefully. The officers begged not to be identified by name for fear of retribution.

“His administration made no sense,” one officer said bluntly. “We all thought he would be different, but our leaders are all the same.”

Setting the agenda for the new IG

On Feb. 25, President Bola Tinubu decorated Tunji Disu as the acting IGP, officially signalling a change in authority at the NPF. Interestingly, the newly decorated IGP vowed to enforce a zero-tolerance regime against corruption and human rights abuses. He told journalists after his inauguration that his leadership would ensure that police officers are well-trained to protect Nigerian citizens and engage them with utmost civility.

“I will let them (fellow policemen and women) know that the era of impunity is over,” he declared. “Most importantly, I’m going to drum it into them that we can never succeed without the cooperation of members of the public.”

His declaration seems to be a shift in tone for the police force. Beyond his heavy promises and rhetoric, Nigerians are eager to see how these promises translate into action. Civil society organisations, human rights advocates, and community leaders have long pressed for reforms that prioritise accountability, transparency, and respect for citizens. 

As Tunji steps into this role, civic actors are articulating their expectations of the new IG, underscoring the urgency of building trust between the police and the people they are sworn to protect. While some security experts believe the police seem to have neglected their counterterrorism role, other civic actors demand a safe space for journalists and activists to demand transparency in governance without being persecuted by the force. 

Busola Ajibola of CJID reiterated that, beyond flowery speeches about fighting impunity, the new IGP must take a clear stand, backed by action, against press freedom violations and investigate officers who unlawfully violate journalists’ rights.

“He should invest in re-training middle-level and low-ranking officers on human rights and press freedom,” Busola noted. “Most times when we engage with senior police officers, we realise that they appear to know the right thing, but the problem is usually the middle-level or low-ranking officers who have little knowledge of press freedom and human rights.”

Speaking about his years of experience covering the police, Daniel said it has become clear to him that the police force is highly underfunded. He asked the current IG to prioritise funding for the police. An officer who asked not to be named confirmed this, saying that a system that fails to properly finance the police automatically sets operatives against the people.

“These officers don’t even have fuel in their vehicles to run operations many times. How do you expect them to be effective?” Daniel asked. “People go to lodge complaints in police stations, they’re asked to pay.” He added that to make the CRU more effective, the police must have a speed dial number that’s responsive and easy to memorise, so citizens can contact the police quickly when they face any challenge.

The kidnapping of a sitting head of state marks a grave escalation in US-Venezuela relations. By seizing Venezuela’s constitutional president, Washington signaled both its disregard for international law and its confidence that it would face little immediate consequence.

The response within the US political establishment to the attack on Venezuela has been striking. Without the slightest cognitive dissonance over President Maduro’s violent abduction, Democrats call for “restoring democracy” – but not for returning Venezuela’s lawful president.

So why didn’t the imperialists simply assassinate him? From their perspective, it would have been cleaner and more cost-efficient. It would have been the DOGE thing to do: launch a drone in one of those celebrated “surgical” strikes.

Targeted killings are as much a part of US policy now as there were in the past. From Obama’s drone strikes on US citizens in 2011 to Trump’s killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, lethal force has been used when deemed expedient. And only last June, the second Trump administration and its Zionist partner in crime droned eleven Iranian nuclear scientists.

The US posted a $50-million bounty on Maduro, yet they took him very much alive along with his wife, First Combatant (the Venezuelan equivalent of the First Lady) Cilia Flores.

The reason Maduro’s life was spared tells us volumes about the resilience of the Bolivarian Revolution, the strength of Maduro even in captivity, and the inability of the empire to subjugate Venezuela.

Killing Nicolás Maduro Moros appears to have been a step too far, even for Washington’s hawks. Perhaps he was also seen as more valuable to the empire as a hostage than as a martyr.

But the images of a handcuffed Maduro flashing a victory sign – and declaring in a New York courtroom, “I was captured… I am the president of my country” – were not those of a defeated leader.

Rather than collapsing, the Bolivarian Revolution survived the decapitation. With a seamless continuation of leadership under acting President Delcy Rodríguez, even some figures in the opposition have rallied around the national leadership, heeding the nationalist call of a populace mobilized in the streets in support of their president.

This has pushed the US to negotiate rather than outright conquer, notwithstanding that the playing field remains decisively tilted in Washington’s favor. Regardless, Venezuelan authorities have demanded and received the US’s respect. Indeed, after declaring Venezuela an illegitimate narco-state, Trump has flipped, recognized the Chavista government, and invited its acting executive to Washington.

NBC News gave Delcy Rodríguez a respectful interview. After affirming state ownership of Venezuela’s mineral resources and Maduro as the lawful president, she pointed out that the so-called political prisoners in Venezuelan prisons were there because they had committed acts of criminal violence.

Before a national US television audience she explained that free and fair elections require being “free of sanctions and…not undermined by international bullying and harassment by the international press” (emphasis added).

Notably, the interviewer cited US Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s admission made during his high-level visit to Venezuela. The US official brushed aside demands for short-term elections, instead arguing that they could be held by the end of 2027. In contrast, Rodríguez stressed that Venezuela’s electoral calendar is set by the country’s Constitution.

As for opposition politician María Corina Machado, the darling of the US press corps, Rodríguez told the interviewer that Machado would have to answer for her various treasonous activities if she came back to Venezuela.

Contrary to the corporate press’s media myth, fostered at a reception in Manhattan, that Machado is insanely popular and poised to lead “A Trillion-Dollar Opportunity: The Global Upside of a Democratic Venezuela,” the US government apparently understood the reality on the ground. “She doesn’t have the support within, or the respect within, the country,” was the honest evaluation, not of some Chavista partisan, but of President Trump himself.

Yader Lanuza documents how the US provided millions to manufacture an effective astroturf opposition to the Chavistas. It is far from the first time that Washington has squandered money in this way – we only have to look back at its failed efforts to promote the “presidency” of Juan Guaidó. Its latest efforts have again had no decisive result, leaving Machado in limbo and pragmatic engagement with the Chavista leadership as the only practical option.

Any doubts that there is daylight between captured President Maduro and acting President Rodríguez can be dispelled by listening to the now incarcerated Maduro’s New Year’s Day interview with international leftist intellectual Ignacio Ramonet.

Maduro said it was time to “start talking seriously” with the US – especially regarding oil investment – marking a continuation of his prior conditional openness to diplomatic engagement. He reiterated that Venezuela was ready to discuss agreements on combating drug trafficking and to consider US oil investment, allowing companies like Chevron to operate.

That was just two days before the abduction. Subsequently, Delcy Rodríguez met with the US energy secretary and the head of the Southern Command to discuss oil investments and combating drug trafficking, respectively.

Venezuelan analysts have framed the current moment as one of constrained choice. “What is at stake is the survival of the state and the republic, which if lost, would render the discussion of any other topic banal,” according to Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein. The former government official, who was close to Hugo Chávez, supports Delcy Rodríguez’s discussions with Washington – acknowledging that she has “a missile to her head.”

“The search for a negotiation in the case of the January 3 kidnapping is not understood, therefore, as a surrender, but as an act of political maturity in a context of unprecedented blackmail,” according to Italian journalist and former Red Brigades militant Geraldina Colotti.

The Amnesty Law, a longstanding Chavista initiative, is being debated in the National Assembly to maintain social peace, according to the president of the assembly and brother of the acting president, Jorge Rodríguez, in an interview with the US-based NewsMax outlet.

As Jorge Rodríguez commented, foregoing oil revenues by keeping oil in the ground does not benefit the people’s well-being and development. In that context, the Hydrocarbon Law has been reformed to attract vital foreign investment.

The Venezuelan outlet Mision Verdad elaborates: “The 2026 reform ratifies and, in some aspects, deepens essential elements of the previous legislation…[I]t creates the legal basis for a complete strategic adaptation of the Venezuelan hydrocarbon industry, considering elements of the present context.”

As Karl Marx presciently observed about the present context, people “make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances.” The present US-Venezuelan détente is making history. So far – in Hugo Chávez’s words, por ahora – it does not resemble the humanitarian catastrophes imposed by the empire on Haiti, Libya, Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan.

But make no mistake: the ultimate goal of the empire remains regime change. And there is no clearer insight into the empire’s core barbarity than Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s speech at the Munich conference with his praising of the capture of a “narcoterrorist dictator” and his invocation of Columbus as the inspiration “to build a new Western century.”

Washington’s kidnapping of Maduro was intended to demonstrate the empire’s dominance. But it also exposed its limits: the durability of the Bolivarian Revolution and the reality that even great powers must sometimes negotiate with governments they detest. The outcome remains uncertain.

With minor edits by Venezuelanalysis.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.