tensions

New Delhi, India – On January 3, 2026, a single directive from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) quietly ended the Indian Premier League (IPL) season of Bangladesh’s only cricketer in the tournament, Mustafizur Rahman, before it could even begin.

The Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR), a professional Twenty20 franchise based in Kolkata that competes in the IPL and is owned by Red Chillies Entertainment, associated with Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan, were instructed by India’s cricket board to release the Bangladesh fast bowler.

Not because of injury, form, or contract disputes, but due to “developments all around” – an apparent reference to soaring tensions between India and Bangladesh that have been high since ousted former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina received exile in New Delhi in August 2024.

Within days, Mustafizur signed up for the Pakistan Super League (PSL), the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) protested sharply, the IPL broadcast was banned in Bangladesh, and the International Cricket Council (ICC) – the body that governs the sport globally – was pulled into a diplomatic standoff.

What should have been a routine player transaction instead became a symbol of how cricket in South Asia has shifted from a tool of diplomacy to an instrument of political pressure.

Cricket has long been the subcontinent’s soft-power language, a shared obsession that survived wars, border closures, and diplomatic freezes. Today, that language is being rewritten, say observers and analysts.

India, the financial and political centre of world cricket, is increasingly using its dominance of the sport to signal, punish, and coerce its neighbours, particularly Pakistan and Bangladesh, they say.

The Mustafizur affair: When politics entered the dressing room

Rahman was signed by KKR for 9.2 million Indian rupees ($1m) before the IPL 2026 season.

Yet the BCCI instructed the franchise to release him, citing vague external developments widely understood to be linked to political tensions between India and Bangladesh.

The consequences were immediate.

Mustafizur, unlikely to receive compensation because the termination was not injury-related, accepted an offer from the PSL – picking the Pakistani league after an Indian snub – returning to the tournament after eight years.

The PSL confirmed his participation before its January 21 draft. The BCB, meanwhile, called the BCCI’s intervention “discriminatory and insulting”.

Dhaka escalated the matter beyond cricket, asking the ICC to move Bangladesh’s matches from the upcoming T20 World Cup, which India is primarily hosting, to Sri Lanka over security concerns.

The Bangladeshi government went further, banning the broadcast of the IPL nationwide, a rare step that underlined how deeply cricket intersects with politics and public sentiment in South Asia.

The BCB on January 7 said the International Cricket Council (ICC) has assured it of Bangladesh’s full and uninterrupted participation in the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2026, dismissing media reports of any ultimatum.

The BCB said the ICC responded to its concerns over the safety and security of the national team in India, including a request to relocate matches, and reaffirmed its commitment to safeguarding Bangladesh’s participation while expressing willingness to work closely with the Board during detailed security planning.

Yet for now, Bangladesh’s matches remain scheduled for the Indian megacities of Kolkata and Mumbai from February 7, 2026, even as tensions simmer.

Navneet Rana, a BJP leader said that no Bangladeshi cricketer or celebrity should be “entertained in India” while Hindus and minorities are being targeted in Bangladesh.

Meanwhile, Indian Congress leader Shashi Tharoor questioned the decision to release Mustafizur Rahman, warning against politicising sport and punishing individual players for developments in another country.

A pattern, not an exception

The Mustafizur controversy fits into a broader trajectory.

While all cricket boards operate within political realities, the BCCI’s unique financial power gives it leverage unmatched by any other body in the sport, say analysts.

The ICC, the sport’s global body, is headed by Jay Shah, the son of India’s powerful home minister Amit Shah – widely seen as the second-most influential man in India after Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The IPL, meanwhile, is by far the richest franchise league in the world.

India, with 1.5 billion people, is cricket’s biggest market and generates an estimated 80 percent of the sport’s revenue.

All of that, say analysts, gives India the ability to shape scheduling of events and matches, venues, and revenue-sharing arrangements. This, in turn, has made cricket a strategic asset for the Indian government.

When political relations sour, cricket is no longer insulated.

Nowhere is this clearer than in India’s relationship with Bangladesh at the moment. India has historically been viewed as close to Hasina, whose ouster in 2024 followed weeks of popular protests that her security forces attempted to crush using brutal force. An estimated 1,400 people were killed in that crackdown, according to the United Nations.

India has so far refused to send Hasina back to Bangladesh from exile, even though a tribunal in Dhaka sentenced her to death in late 2025 over the killings of protesters during the uprising that led to her removal. That has spurred sentiments against India on the streets of Bangladesh, which escalated after the assassination of an anti-India protest leader in December.

Meanwhile, attacks on Hindus and other religious minorities in Bangladesh since August 2024 – a Hindu Bangladeshi man was lynched last month – have caused anger in India.

Against that backdrop, the BCCI’s move to kick Rahman out of the IPL has drawn criticism from Indian commentators. Senior journalist Vir Sanghvi wrote in a column that the cricket board “panicked” and surrendered to communal pressure instead of standing by its own player-selection process, turning a sporting issue into a diplomatic embarrassment.

He argued Bangladesh did not warrant a sport boycott and warned that mixing communal politics with cricket risks damaging India’s credibility and regional ties.

Echoing the concern, Suhasini Haidar, diplomatic editor of The Hindu, one of India’s largest dailies, said on X that the government was allowing social media campaigns to overpower diplomacy. She referred to how Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar had travelled recently to Dhaka to attend the funeral of former Bangladesh PM Khaleda Zia, and wondered why Bangladeshi cricketers couldn’t then play in India.

Cricket analyst Darminder Joshi said the episode reflected how cricket, once a bridge between India and its neighbours, was increasingly widening divisions.

That was particularly visible late last year, when India and Pakistan faced off in cricket matches months after an intense four-day aerial war.

The Asia Cup standoff

The 2025 Asia Cup, hosted by Pakistan in September, was meant to be a celebration of regional cricket.

But citing government advice, the BCCI informed the ICC and the Asian Cricket Council (ACC) – the sport’s continental governing body – that India would not travel to Pakistan.

After months of wrangling, the tournament was held under a hybrid model, with India playing its matches in the United Arab Emirates while the rest were hosted in Pakistan.

But in three matches that the South Asian rivals played against each other during the competition – India won all three – the Indian team refused to publicly shake hands with their Pakistani counterparts.

“There is no rule in cricket that mandates a handshake. Yet players often tie each other’s shoelaces or help opponents on the field, that is the spirit of the game,” Joshi, the cricket analyst, told Al Jazeera. “If countries are in conflict, will players now refuse even these gestures? Such incidents only spread hate and strip the game of what makes it special.

“Sporting exchanges once softened bilateral tensions; this decision does exactly the opposite, making the game more hostile instead of more interesting.”

The controversy did not end with the final. India won the tournament, defeating Pakistan, but refused to accept the trophy from ACC President Mohsin Naqvi, who is also the Pakistan Cricket Board chairman and Pakistan’s interior minister.

The trophy remains at the ACC headquarters in Dubai, creating an unprecedented limbo that has defied resolution despite multiple ICC and ACC meetings. The BCCI requested that the trophy be sent to India. Naqvi has refused.

From bridge to divider

Unlike Pakistan, Bangladesh has historically enjoyed smoother cricketing ties with India. Bilateral series continued even during political disagreements, and Bangladeshi players became familiar faces in the IPL.

The Mustafizur episode marks a turning point. The current moment stands in stark contrast to earlier eras when cricket was deliberately used to soften political hostilities.

The most celebrated example remains India’s 2004 tour of Pakistan, the so-called “Friendship Series”.

That tour took place after years of frozen ties following the Kargil War, an armed conflict between India and Pakistan that took place from May to July 1999.

The then-Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee personally met the Indian team before departure, handing captain Sourav Ganguly a bat inscribed with the Hindi words: “Khel hi nahi, dil bhi jeetiye” which translates to “don’t just win matches, win hearts too”.

Special cricket visas allowed thousands of Indian fans to travel across the border. Pakistani then-President Pervez Musharraf followed the games and publicly lauded Indian cricketers who developed followings of their own in Pakistan.

The 2008 Mumbai attacks, carried out by fighters that Pakistan acknowledged had come from its territory, froze cricketing ties.

But in 2011, when India and Pakistan faced off in the World Cup semifinal in Mohali, Indian then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh invited his Pakistani counterpart, Yousuf Raza Gilani, over – the two premiers watched the match together in what was widely seen as an act of “cricket diplomacy”.

By intervening in a franchise-level contract and linking it, however obliquely, to geopolitical tensions as has happened with the Mustafizur case, the BCCI sent a clear message, say analysts: Access to Indian cricket is conditional.

Sport journalist Nishant Kapoor told Al Jazeera that releasing a contracted player purely on political grounds was “absolutely wrong” and warned it would widen mistrust in the cricketing ecosystem.

“He is a cricketer. What wrong has he done?” Kapoor said.

Tensions rise as Brazil reinforces its northern border following US air strikes in Venezuela and the abduction of its President Nicolas Maduro.

Sao Paulo, Brazil – Brazil plans to send national guard troops to northern Roraima state, which borders Venezuela and has a strong presence of illegal armed groups who traffic drugs and mine illegally on both sides of the international boundary, according to a government decree.

In an official decree published on Thursday, the government authorised an unspecified number of National Public Security Force (FNSP) troops to be sent to Pacaraima, as well as Roraima’s capital, Boa Vista, about 213km (132 miles) from the border.

The move comes after the US on Saturday bombed Venezuela and abducted its president, Nicolas Maduro. On Sunday, Brazil temporarily closed its border with Venezuela near Pacaraima.

The decree said the FNSP will support the state’s public security agencies and operate in ways “essential to the preservation of public order and the safety of people and property”.

Brazilian media reported on Wednesday that Venezuela was reinforcing its military presence on the border, and multiple armed groups, including Venezuelan colectivos and Brazilian gangs like the First Capital Command (PCC) and the Red Command (CV), operate in the area.

Gimena Sanchez, Andes director for the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), told Al Jazeera that Brazil’s deployment of guard troops to the border is an “appropriate move”. She said that violence caused by Colombian rebel groups active in Venezuela is pushing the population further south towards Brazil.

She added it “makes sense [for Brazil] to reinforce the border”, but noted there still has notbeen a mass displacement of Venezuelans.

Brazil has been a fierce critic of the US attacks. On the social media platform X, its president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, said the US had crossed an “unacceptable line”.

Asked whether President Lula’s comments could provoke Washington, Sanchez said that the US is more concerned with Cuba, Mexico and Colombia at the moment. “Given that context and also that some European countries as well condemned it, I don’t think Brazil is at risk of being the focus of ire of the Trump administration,” she concluded.

United States President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio say they want to free up the flow of Venezuelan oil to benefit Venezuelans after US forces abducted President Nicolas Maduro from Caracas.

“We’re going to rebuild the oil infrastructure, which requires billions of dollars that will be paid for by the oil companies directly,” Trump said at a media briefing at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida hours after Maduro was seized on Saturday. “They will be reimbursed for what they’re doing, but it’s going to be paid, and we’re going to get the oil flowing.”

Then, on Tuesday, the US president said he wanted to use proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan oil “to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States”. Rubio has echoed Trump in his comments in recent days.

But what has been holding back the flow of Venezuelan oil, preventing the country from attracting investments and driving the country into poverty?

A key reason is one that Trump and Rubio have been silent about: Washington’s own efforts to strangle Venezuela’s oil industry and economy through sanctions, which also have set off a refugee crisis.

What has Trump said about Venezuelan oil?

In a post on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday night, Trump said Venezuela will turn over 30 million to 50 million barrels of sanctioned oil to the US.

Trump wrote: “This Oil will be sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States!”

Trump added that he had directed his energy secretary, Chris Wright, to execute the plan “immediately”.

“It will be taken by storage ships, and brought directly to unloading docks in the United States,” Trump wrote.

During the news conference on Saturday, Trump said US oil companies would fix Venezuela’s “broken infrastructure” and “start making money for the country”.

Earlier Trump had accused Venezuela in a Truth Social post of “stealing” US oil, land and other assets and using that oil to fund crime, “terrorism” and human trafficking. Top Trump adviser Stephen Miller has made similar claims in recent days.

What does it mean for the US to take Venezuelan oil?

Oil is trading at roughly $56 per barrel.

Based on this price, 30 million barrels of oil would be worth $1.68bn and 50 million barrels of oil would be worth $2.8bn.

“Trump’s statement about oil in Venezuela is beyond an act of war; it is an act of colonisation. That is also illegal based on the UN Charter,” Vijay Prashad, the director of the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research based in Argentina, Brazil, India, and South Africa, told Al Jazeera.

Ilias Bantekas, a professor of transnational law at Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera that the US involvement in Venezuela was “less about Maduro as it is about access to Venezuela’s oil deposits”.

“This [oil] is the number one target. Trump is not content with just allowing US oil firms to get concessions but to ‘run’ the country, which entails absolute and indefinite control over Venezuela’s resources.”

According to the website of the US Energy Information Administration, the US consumed an average of 20.25 million barrels of petroleum per day in 2023.

What has Rubio said about Venezuelan oil?

In an interview on the NBC TV network’s Meet the Press programme that aired on Sunday, Rubio said: “We are at war against drug trafficking organisations. That’s not a war against Venezuela.”

“No more drug trafficking … and no more using the oil industry to enrich all our adversaries around the world and not benefitting the people of Venezuela or, frankly, benefitting the United States and the region,” Rubio said.

Rubio said in the interview that since 2014, about eight million Venezuelans have fled the country, which he attributed to theft and corruption by Maduro and his allies. According to a report by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees from May, nearly 7.9 million people have indeed left Venezuela.

But he was silent on the US’s own role in creating that crisis.

What are the US sanctions against Venezuela’s oil?

Venezuela nationalised its oil industry in 1976 under then-President Carlos Andres Perez during an oil boom. He established the state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) to control all oil resources.

Venezuela continued to be a major oil exporter to the US for some years, supplying 1.5 million to 2 million barrels per day in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

After President Hugo Chavez took office in 1998, he nationalised all oil assets, seized foreign-owned assets, restructured the PDVSA and prioritised using oil revenue for social programmes in Venezuela.

From 2003 to 2007, Venezuela under Chavez managed to cut its poverty rate in half – from 57 percent to 27.5 percent. Extreme poverty fell even more sharply, by 70 percent.

But exports declined, and government authorities were accused of mismanagement.

The US first imposed sanctions on Venezuela’s oil in retaliation for nationalising US oil assets in 2005.

Under US sanctions, many senior Venezuelan government officials and companies have been barred from accessing any property or financial assets held in the US. They cannot access US bank accounts, sell property or access their money if it passes through the US financial system.

Critically, any US companies or citizens doing business with any sanctioned individual or company will be penalised and risk becoming subject to enforcement actions.

Maduro took over as president in 2013 after Chavez’s death. In 2017, Trump, during his first term in office, imposed more sanctions and tightened them again in 2019. This further restricted sales to the US and access for Venezuelan companies to the global financial system. As a result, oil exports to the US nearly stopped, and Venezuela shifted its trade mainly to China with some sales to India and Cuba.

Last month, the Trump administration imposed yet more sanctions – this time on Maduro family members and Venezuelan tankers carrying sanctioned oil.

Today, the PDVSA controls the petroleum industry in Venezuela, and US involvement in Venezuelan oil drilling is limited. Houston-based Chevron is the only US company that still operates in Venezuela.

How have sanctions hurt Venezuela’s oil flows?

Trump might today be interested in getting Venezuelan oil flowing, but it is US sanctions that blocked that flow in the first place.

Venezuela’s oil reserves are concentrated primarily in the Orinoco Belt, a region in the eastern part of the country stretching across roughly 55,000sq km (21,235sq miles).

While the country is home to the world’s largest proven oil reserves – at an estimated 303 billion barrels – it earns only a fraction of the revenue it once did from exporting crude.

[BELOW: The sentence above promises statistics that will show how much oil exports have dropped, but the next graf doesn’t deliver. We should add that figure]

According to data from the Observatory of Economic Complexity, Venezuela exported $4.05bn of crude oil in 2023. This is far below other major exporters, including Saudi Arabia ($181bn), the US ($125bn) and Russia ($122bn).

How have US sanctions hurt Venezuelans and the country’s oil infrastructure?

The US sanctions on Venezuelan oil prevent US and non-US companies from doing business with the PDVSA. Because the US is a market no one wants to lose, firms, including banks, are wary of taking any steps that could invite Washington’s sanctions.

In effect, that has meant Venezuela’s oil industry has been almost entirely deprived of international financial investment.

The sanctions additionally restrict Venezuela from accessing oilfield equipment, specialised software, drilling services and refinery components from Western companies.

This has resulted in years of underinvestment in the PDVSA’s infrastructure, leading to chronic breakdowns, shutdowns and accidents.

The sanctions have also resulted in broader economic turmoil.

The country’s gross domestic product per capita stood at about $4,200 in 2024, according to World Bank data, down from more than $13,600 in 2010.

From about 2012, the economy went into a sharp decline, driven by domestic economic policies, a slump that was later deepened by US sanctions. The resulting hardships have pushed millions of Venezuelans to leave the country – the same people who Trump and Rubio now argue should benefit from Venezuela’s oil revenues.

Does the US have any claim to Venezuelan oil?

US companies began drilling for oil in Venezuela in the early 1900s.

In 1922, vast petroleum reserves were initially discovered by Royal Dutch Shell in Lake Maracaibo in Zulia state in northwestern Venezuela.

At this point, US companies ramped up their investments in the extraction and development of Venezuelan oil reserves. Companies such as Standard Oil led development under concession agreements, propelling Venezuela to a position as a key global supplier, especially for the US.

Venezuela was a founding member of OPEC, joining at its creation on September 14, 1960. OPEC is a group of major oil-exporting countries that work together to manage supply and influence global oil prices.

But the claims by Trump and Miller that Venezuela somehow “stole” US oil are baseless under international law, experts said.

The principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, adopted by the UN General Assembly in a resolution in 1962, is clear that sovereign states have the inherent right to control, use and dispose of their resources for their own development.

In other words, Venezuela alone owns its oil.

Venezuela’s interim leader, Delcy Rodriguez, has said that “no foreign agent” is running Venezuela in the wake of Nicolas Maduro’s abduction by United States military forces.

Rodriguez, who had been Maduro’s vice president before his abduction, spoke during a televised event on Tuesday, a day after Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, pleaded not guilty in a New York court to drug-trafficking conspiracy charges.

“The government of Venezuela is in charge in our country, and no one else. There is no foreign agent governing Venezuela,” Rodriguez said.

Venezuela’s prosecutor general, meanwhile, called for the immediate release of Maduro and his wife.

“The military operation, without a declaration of war or a UN Security Council resolution, represents an illegal act of armed aggression of a terrorist nature,” Tarek William Saab said.

The statements come amid the continuing fallout from Saturday’s military operation, which left dozens of people in Venezuela dead. The offensive has been broadly condemned as a violation of international law.

Venezuela on Tuesday released a list of the 24 soldiers killed in the predawn assault. Cuba also announced that 32 members of its military had died. Rodriguez declared a seven-day period of mourning to commemorate the fallen military members.

Since seizing Maduro from his residence, the administration of US President Donald Trump has offered little clarity about its plans for Venezuela.

Trump said on Saturday that the US would “run” Venezuela, a statement US Secretary of State Marco Rubio walked back the next day.

The top diplomat instead said that US officials would guide the “direction” of how the country is run and use sanctions and an ongoing embargo to force more access to Venezuela’s oil industry.

Rubio, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine briefed a bipartisan group of Congress members on Monday about the Venezuela operation.

But several lawmakers said that the administration had offered scarce insight into its justification for conducting the strike without first seeking approval from Congress, much less its plans for Venezuela’s future.

“This briefing, while very extensive and long, posed far more questions than it ever answered,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said afterwards.

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Trump ally in the Republican Party, said the next few days would show Venezuela’s “government structure and how willing they are to work with the US”.

In a social media post, Thune called Rodriguez a “practical person, pragmatic person” who “will understand the importance of figuring out a path forward to where America’s national security priorities can be prioritized by Venezuela”.

Trump, meanwhile, offered few new details on the operation during a retreat with Republicans on Tuesday, beyond praising the abduction as an “amazing military feat” and “brilliant tactically”.

Speaking from exile in Miami, Florida, former Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido said the country had a “wonderful and incredible opportunity”.

Guaido, who fled Venezuela in 2023, said that rebuilding the country’s democracy would allow millions of Venezuelans to return, and help “bring back to life the oil fields” and restore prosperity.

He condemned Rodriguez as “an acting dictator”, describing the current period as “a phase of transition” that will only be complete “once the rule of law has been reinstalled”.

Unease in Caracas

In Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, crowds gathered on Tuesday for a state-organised display of support for the government.

Some marchers flashed “V” victory signs. Hardline Minister of Interior Diosdado Cabello – who, like Maduro, has been indicted by the US Department of Justice – was seen wading through the gathering. He wore a blue cap emblazoned with the slogan, “To doubt is to betray.”

But Noris Argotte Soto, a Venezuelan reporter in Caracas, told Al Jazeera that the situation in the capital continues to be tense, with most residents staying inside their homes.

“In the peripheral areas of the city, everybody remains at home. The tension is rising; people are on edge. And people are very much afraid of going out into the streets, mostly because [of] the security forces that we see at the main points of the city,” she said.

Soto added that government-aligned paramilitaries have been working alongside the military in recent days to maintain security and crack down on potential dissent.

“They were working yesterday with the security forces,” she said.

“They were basically bullying people, intimidating people, searching their cars, even demanding their cell phones to check their messages, check their social media.”

Regional uncertainty

Anxiety was also felt across the region, as the Trump administration has upped its threats against Venezuela’s neighbour, Colombia, as well as the island of Greenland in the northern Atlantic.

In the aftermath of Saturday’s attack, Trump said he had not ruled out an attack on Colombia for allegedly failing to tamp down on the illegal drug trade.

He described the country’s president, Gustavo Petro, who has been a vocal critic of US operations in Venezuela, as a “sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States”.

On Tuesday, Colombia’s Foreign Affairs Minister Rosa Yolanda Villavicencio announced she will meet with the US Embassy’s charge d’affaires in Bogota to present a formal complaint over the recent US “threats”.

Villavicencio said she hopes to reassure the Trump administration “about all that we are doing in the fight against drug trafficking”.

Greenland and Denmark also called for an expedited meeting with Rubio on Tuesday to “discuss the significant statement made by the United States”, Greenland’s foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, wrote on social media.

In the wake of Maduro’s abduction, Trump again floated taking control of Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark.

Trump aide Stephen Miller later said that Washington has a right to seize sovereign territories if it deems such moves to be in its national interest.

The statement was in line with a White House national security strategy released in December, which pledged to re-establish US “pre-eminence” in the Western Hemisphere.

The White House on Tuesday again said it was exploring options to seize Greenland, adding that “utilizing the US military is always an option”.

An array of European countries, as well as Canada, have rushed to support Greenland, noting that Denmark is a NATO member. Therefore, an attack on the island would constitute an attack on the entire bloc.

On Tuesday, the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom joined with Denmark to issue a joint statement denouncing Trump’s remarks.

“Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland,” the statement said.

Caracas, Venezuela – The normally noisy capital of Caracas was eerily quiet on Monday, two days after the United States bombed the city and abducted Venezuela’s leader, Nicolas Maduro.

But many “caraqueños” nevertheless ventured out to buy food and other necessities, albeit at marked-up prices.

The tense atmosphere on Caracas’s streets was yet another sign of the uncertainty facing everyday Venezuelans, as they face the looming threat of further US intervention.

Local authorities have called for regular economic activity to continue in Venezuela. But some stores nevertheless remained closed, while households stocked up on basic supplies in case of shortages.

At Caracas’s central market, Quinta Crespo, many shopkeepers had shuttered their businesses for fear of unrest and looting.

Lines of 10 or more people often stretched outside the stores that remained open, despite the midday sun. Officers from the Bolivarian National Police patrolled outside to keep the queues calm.

Shoppers told Al Jazeera they were buying non-perishables, like corn flour, rice and canned goods, in case the security situation deteriorated in the capital.

“I’m looking for basic necessities, given the situation the country is going through,” said Carlos Godoy, 45, who lives in the western Caricuao district of Caracas. “We are waiting to see what happens. We are all in suspense, in uncertainty.”

Among the most expensive products Godoy saw on his shopping trip was powdered milk, which he said is selling for $16 per kilogram.

Another shopper, Betzerpa Ramírez, said she felt calm, despite the early-morning attack on Saturday. While she felt no need to hoard food items, she did note that prices for some goods have increased.

“Hygiene items are more expensive, even more than food,” she said.

Alexandra Arismendi, who works in a mobile phone shop at the Sambil mall in one of Caracas’s busiest shopping districts, expressed frustration with some of the recent price spikes.

The price of eggs, she said, was “exaggerated”.

“Prices are high,” she said. “A carton of eggs is selling for $10, which is beyond normal.”

Her colleague at the mobile shop, 23-year old María Gabriela, lamented the slump in sales, as shoppers stay indoors for fear of further unrest.

The normally bustling mall had largely emptied of its usual crowds. Gabriela herself was hesitant to show up for work. She travelled by taxi to avoid public transport.

“We thought people would be looking for chargers or power banks [for possible power failures], but they have been looking for other things,” Gabriela said.

“There has been no usual activity. It has been one of the strangest days in recent months.”

Venezuelans have become accustomed to volatile price increases and supply shortages over the past decade. Experts often blame government corruption, mismanagement and US sanctions for destabilising Venezuela’s economy.

During Maduro’s presidency, oil prices plummeted, sending Venezuela’s petroleum-heavy economy into free fall.

By 2018, inflation hit more than 130,000 percent, according to the country’s central bank. The COVID-19 pandemic also dealt the economy a wallop, leading to shortages of food and health supplies.

Maduro’s government has not published inflation statistics since he claimed victory in 2024’s disputed presidential election.

It remains unclear to what degree normalcy will return to Venezuela after the US attack on Saturday.

Early that morning, the administration of US President Donald Trump launched munitions against military installations in the states of Caracas, Aragua, Miranda and La Guaira.

At least 80 people died in the attack, according to an anonymous Venezuelan official quoted in The New York Times.

The US military offensive was over in a matter of hours. But Trump has warned he could authorise a “second wave” of attacks, should his demands for Venezuela not be fulfilled.

The Venezuelan government has also declared a state of emergency to “immediately begin the national search and capture of everyone involved in the promotion or support for the armed attack by the United States”.

It has maintained that Maduro remains the leader of Venezuela, despite his abduction to the US.

To Arismendi, the tension in Venezuela has not yet reached the level seen after the 2024 election, when thousands of protesters took to the streets.

“I feel that there was more tension around the elections,” said Arismendi. “Thank God we’re not at that level right now, but I feel like we’re not that far off either.”

The Panama Canal has become the focus of increased US pressure as the Trump administration tries to curb Venezuelan oil shipments. Al Jazeera’s Teresa Bo breaks it down.

Condemnation comes as Nicolas Maduro appeared in a court in New York and pleaded not guilty to drug charges.

Delcy Rodriguez, formerly Venezuela’s vice president, has been formally sworn in to lead the South American country following the abduction of Nicolas Maduro in a United States military operation.

On Monday, Rodriguez appeared before Venezuela’s National Assembly to take her oath of office.

Speaking before the legislative body, composed largely of government loyalists, Rodriguez reaffirmed her opposition to the military attack that led to the capture and removal of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

“I come with pain over the kidnapping of two heroes who are being held hostage: President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores,” Rodriguez, 56, told the assembly.

“I swear to work tirelessly to guarantee the peace, spiritual, economic and social tranquillity of our people.”

A former labour lawyer, Rodriguez has been serving as acting president since the early-morning attack that resulted in the abduction. Explosions were reported before dawn on Saturday in the capital, Caracas, as well as at nearby Venezuelan military bases and some civilian areas.

Monday’s swearing-in ceremony was overseen by Rodriguez’s brother – the president of the National Assembly, Jorge Rodriguez – and Maduro’s son, Nicolás Maduro Guerra, who held a copy of the Venezuelan Constitution.

Other members of Maduro’s inner circle, including Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello and Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino, were also in attendance.

The ceremony took place as Maduro, her predecessor and former boss, faced an arraignment proceeding in a New York City courthouse.

Federal prosecutors in the US have charged Maduro with four counts related to allegations he leveraged government powers to export thousands of tonnes of cocaine to North America.

The charges include narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, the illegal possession of machine guns and other destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess such guns and devices.

Maduro and his wife have pleaded not guilty to the charges, and their allies, including Rodriguez, have denounced the pair’s abduction as a violation of international law, as well as Venezuelan sovereignty.

In court on Monday, Maduro maintained he remained the rightful leader of Venezuela, saying, “I am still president.”

The administration of US President Donald Trump, however, has signalled that it plans to work with Rodriguez for the time being, though Trump himself warned that her tenure as president could be cut short, should she fail to abide by US demands.

“If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump told The Atlantic magazine in a Sunday morning interview.

A day earlier, in a televised address announcing the attack, Trump had said his administration plans “to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition”.

On Air Force One on Sunday, as he flew back to Washington, DC, Trump doubled down on that statement.

“Don’t ask me who’s in charge, because I’ll give you an answer that will be very controversial. We’re in charge,” he told reporters.

He added that Rodriguez is “cooperating” and that, while he personally has not spoken to her, “we’re dealing with the people who just got sworn in”.

The Trump administration’s seeming willingness to allow Rodriguez, a former labour lawyer, to remain in charge has raised eyebrows.

Rodriguez, who served as vice president since 2018, is known to be a stalwart “chavista”: an adherent of the left-wing political movement founded by Maduro’s mentor, the late Hugo Chavez. She has held various ministerial roles under Maduro, including leading the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

But Trump’s allies in the Republican Party have argued that keeping Rodriguez in place is simply a practical reality.

“We don’t recognise Delcy Rodriguez as the legitimate ruler of Venezuela. We didn’t recognise Nicolas Maduro as a legitimate ruler,” Republican Senator Tom Cotton told CNN on Sunday.

“It is a fact that she and other indicted and sanctioned officials are in Venezuela. They have control over the military and security services. We have to deal with that fact. That does not make them a legitimate leader.”

While on Air Force One, Trump largely avoided committing to new elections in Venezuela, indicating he would instead focus on “fixing” the country and allowing US oil companies access to its vast petroleum reserves.

One reporter on the aeroplane asked, “How soon can an election take place?”

“Well, I think we’re looking more at getting it fixed, getting it ready first, because it’s a mess. The country is a mess,” Trump replied. “It’s been horribly run. The oil is just flowing at a very low level.”

He later added, “We’re going to run everything. We’re going to run it, fix it. We’ll have elections at the right time. But the main thing you have to fix: It’s a broken country. There’s no money.”

Recent presidential elections in Venezuela have been widely denounced as fraudulent, with Maduro claiming victory in each one.

The contested 2018 election, for example, led to the US briefly recognising opposition leader Juan Guaido as president, instead of Maduro.

Later, Maduro also claimed victory for a third term in office during the 2024 presidential race, despite election regularities.

The official vote tally was not released, and the opposition published documents that appeared to show that Maduro’s rival, Edmundo Gonzalez, had won. Protests erupted on Venezuela’s streets, and the nonprofit Human Rights Watch reported that more than 2,000 protesters were unlawfully detained, with at least 25 dead in apparent extrajudicial killings.

The opposition has largely boycotted legislative elections in Venezuela, denouncing them as rigged in favour of “chavistas”.

Monday’s swearing-in ceremony included the 283 members of the National Assembly elected last May. Few opposition candidates were among them.

Hadramout governor says ports and airports will soon be operational after Saudi-backed government forces ousted secessionists from the south.

About 400 tourists are stuck on the Yemeni island of Socotra after flights were grounded because of clashes on the mainland between government troops backed by Saudi Arabia and secessionists with links to the United Arab Emirates.

Over the past few days, flights in and out of Yemen have been largely restricted during heavy fighting between rival armed factions loosely grouped under the Yemen’s fractious government, which is based in the southern port city of Aden.

The Socotra islands, 380km (236 miles) south of the mainland, are under the control of the United Arab Emirates-backed Southern Transitional Council, which has clashed with Yemen’s Saudi-backed government in the provinces of Hadramout and al-Mahra.

Yahya bin Afrar, the deputy governor for culture and tourism on Socotra, the largest island in the Socotra archipelago, said that “more than 400 foreign tourists” are stranded after their flights were “suspended”.

A local official, who spoke to the AFP news agency on condition of anonymity, said that 416 people of different nationalities were stranded on Socotra, including “more than 60 Russians”.

An unnamed Western diplomat said that “British, French and American” nationals were also among the stranded tourists.

Highly unstable region

In a post on X on Sunday, Poland’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Maciej Wewior, said Polish tourists were stuck too, adding that flights to Socotra by an Emirati airline had been suspended until Tuesday.

“Socotra is located in a highly unstable region, where an armed conflict has been ongoing for years. Currently, the security situation has further deteriorated. Due to the intensification of military operations, airspace has been closed,” the post said.

A travel agent in Socotra said at least two Chinese nationals were also there.

Tourists stuck on the island, many of whom went there to for New Year’s celebrations, are now reaching out to their embassies for help to be evacuated, according to another Western diplomat.

“Their relevant embassies have reached out to the Saudi and Yemeni governments to seek their evacuation,” said the diplomat.

The airport in Aden has been functional since Sunday, after disruptions that lasted for several days.

Pledge to restore order

Yemen’s civil war entered a new phase last month when secessionists with the UAE-backed STC extended its presence in southeastern Yemen with the aim of establishing an independent state.

But this week, the Saudi-backed “Homeland Shield” forces took back the oil-rich southern governorates of Hadramout and al-Mahra, which make up nearly half of Yemen’s territory, from the STC rebels.

In the past, the opposing forces were allied under the umbrella of the Aden-based  Presidential Leadership Council (PLC) – the governing organ of the internationally recognised government – against the Houthis, who control most of northwestern Yemen, including the capital, Sanaa.

On Friday, Salem al-Khanbashi, the governor of Hadramout, was chosen by the government to command the Saudi-led forces in the governorate.

In an interview with Al Jazeera Arabic on Monday, al-Khanbashi said that ports and airports in the governorate would soon be operational, stressing the need to restore service at the Seiyun airport in northern Hadramout.

He pledged to re-establish security and stability, saying meetings will be held with all political and tribal groups to form a united front to protect the governorate against future attacks.

Compensation will be extended for damage to public and private property caused during the STC’s advance. The authorities are focused on getting electricity, water and health services up and running again, al-Khanbashi said.

“We are here fulfilling our duties until you return.” The son of abducted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro delivered a message to his father from the floor of the country’s congress, where he also serves as a lawmaker. He also mentioned his mother, Cilia, who is also in US custody.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – recently abducted with his wife by US commandos from his home – has appeared in a federal courtroom in New York City for a hearing on alleged “narco-terrorism” and other charges.

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were brought before US District Judge Alvin K Hellerstein at 12pm (17:00 GMT) on Monday for a brief legal proceeding that kicks off a long legal battle over whether they can face trial in the United States.

Handcuffed and wearing blue jail uniforms, Maduro and his wife were led into the court by officers, and both put on headsets to hear the English-language proceeding as it was translated into Spanish.

Maduro pleaded not guilty in the US court, telling the judge: “I was captured. I am innocent and a decent man, the president of my country.”

Across the street from the courthouse, the police separated a small but growing group of protesters from about a dozen pro-intervention demonstrators, including one man who pulled a Venezuelan flag away from those protesting the US abduction.

The left-wing leader, his wife, son and three others could face life in prison if convicted of allegedly working with drug cartels to facilitate the shipment of thousands of tons of cocaine into the country. Some observers say there is no evidence linking him to cartels.

Maduro’s lawyers said they’ll contest the legality of his arrest, arguing he is immune from prosecution as a sovereign head of a foreign state, though he is not recognised as Venezuela’s legitimate leader by the US and other nations around the world.

Flores also pleaded not guilty to US charges against her during the arraignment. Hellerstein ordered the Venezuelan leader to next appear in court for a hearing on March 17.

‘Attacks’ against US people

Near the end of the hearing, Maduro’s attorney Barry J Pollack said his client “is head of a sovereign state and entitled to the privilege” that the status ensures.

Pollack said there were “questions about the legality of his military abduction”, and there will be “voluminous” pretrial filings to address those legal challenges.

Earlier, images showed the pair being led handcuffed and under heavy guard from a helicopter en route from a detention facility to the courthouse, two days after they were forcibly removed from Caracas in a brazen US special forces operation.

“The United States arrested a narco-trafficker who is now going to stand trial in the United States,” US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz told an emergency UN Security Council meeting about the US attack on Venezuela on Saturday.

Waltz accused Maduro of being “responsible for attacks against the people of the United States, for destabilising the Western Hemisphere, and illegitimately repressing the people of Venezuela”.

Samuel Moncada, Venezuela’s ambassador to the UN, accused the US of carrying out an illegal armed attack against his country.

Venezuela was subjected to bombing, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, the loss of civilian and military lives, and the “kidnapping” of Maduro and his wife, Moncada said.

The abduction of a sitting head of state breached a core norm of international law, the personal immunity of leaders in office, he added, warning that such actions set a dangerous precedent for all countries.

Vast oil wealth

All eyes are on Venezuela’s response to the swiftly moving events after US President Donald Trump said late on Sunday that the US is “in charge” of the South American nation, which has the world’s largest proven oil reserves.

Interim President Delcy Rodriguez, who took the place of her ally Maduro, initially took a defiant stand against the seizure of the president in what some observers labelled a return to “US gunboat diplomacy”. But she has now offered “to collaborate” with Washington.

Venezuela’s opposition appreciates US intervention to remove Maduro from power, but is alarmed by Trump’s comments about US plans to “run” Venezuela, apparently with members of his government, one analyst said.

“Trump doesn’t recognise the decision of the Venezuelan people. We are not a colony of the US. We are an independent country,” Jose Manuel Puente, a professor at the Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administracion, a private university in Caracas, told Al Jazeera.

“We want to initiate a transition to democracy, to rebuild the institutions, to rebuild the economy, to rebuild the oil sector. And we don’t see that from Trump until now.”

Rodriguez has served as Maduro’s vice president since 2018, overseeing much of Venezuela’s oil-dependent economy and its feared intelligence service, and was next in the presidential line of succession.

She’s part of a band of senior officials in Maduro’s administration who now appear to control Venezuela, even as Trump and other US officials say they’ll pressure the government to fall in line with their vision for the oil-rich nation.

On Sunday, some 2,000 Maduro supporters, including rifle-wielding men on motorcycles, rallied in Caracas with crowds shouting and waving Venezuelan flags. The Venezuelan military, loyal to Maduro, announced it recognised Rodriguez and urged calm.

The White House indicated on Sunday that it does not want regime change, only Maduro’s removal and a pliant new government that will enable US companies to exploit the country’s vast oil reserves – even if the government is filled with his former associates.

For many years before becoming president, Donald Trump publicly criticised the George W Bush administration over its decision to launch the war on Iraq. And yet, today, in his second term as president, he finds himself presiding over a military debacle that is quite reminiscent of Bush’s.

Trump ordered a military intervention to remove an antagonistic foreign leader, based on a flimsy argument of national security, with the goal of accessing that country’s oil. In both cases, we see a naive confidence that the United States can simply achieve its goals through regime change. US intervention into Venezuela reeks of the same hubris that surrounded the Iraq invasion two decades ago.

Yet there are also important differences to consider. The most important distinguishing feature of the operation in Venezuela is its lack of an overarching vision. On Saturday after Trump finished an hour-long news conference alongside his secretaries of defence and state, it was not clear what the plan was for Venezuela going forward, or if there was a plan at all. His statements threatening more attacks in the following days brought no clarity either.

Past instances of US-led regime change fit into the larger ideological visions of the incumbent US commander-in-chief. In 1823, President James Monroe declared the Western Hemisphere off-limits to European colonialism. As the United States spent the 20th century consolidating its sphere of influence across the Americas, the Monroe Doctrine would justify various interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Cold War added new justifications for the United States to overthrow leftist regimes and install friendly governments in the Americas.

As the Cold War ended, President George HW Bush sought to serve as a caretaker for a “new world order” in which the US had emerged as the world’s lone superpower. When Bush sent troops to Somalia in 1992 and his successor Bill Clinton reversed a military coup in Haiti in 1994, they did so under the paradigm of “humanitarian intervention”. When George W Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, it was done under the umbrella of the post-9/11 “war on terror”. When President Barack Obama intervened against the forces of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, he was guided by the “responsibility to protect” doctrine concerning civilians in danger.

But in the case of the US attack on Venezuela, there has been no ideological justification. Trump and his team have haphazardly thrown around references to humanitarianism, counterterrorism and more to justify the attack. The president even brought up the Monroe Doctrine. But just as it seemed that he was grounding his foreign policy in a larger ideology, albeit one borrowed from two centuries ago, he made a joke of the concept.

“The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal,” Trump explained on Saturday. “But we’ve superseded it by a lot, by a lot. They now call it the Donroe Doctrine.” Trump did not make up this pun; it was used by the New York Post a year ago to describe Trump’s aggressive foreign policy as he threatened to annex Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal.

The president’s decision to embrace the tongue-in-cheek term illustrates a disturbing reality of his foreign policy: Any notion that he is promoting an ideological vision is a joke.

The truth is Trump is pursuing an increasingly aggressive and militaristic foreign policy in his second term, not because he wants to impose a grand vision, but because he has discovered he can get away with it.

Striking a variety of foreign “bad guys” who have little capacity to fight back – ISIL (ISIS) affiliates in Nigeria who are “persecuting” Christians and “narcoterrorists” in Latin America – appeals to members of Trump’s base.

After he mentioned the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua during Saturday’s news conference, he went on a minutes-long tangent to brag about his military interventions into US cities. While the president’s inability to stay on topic may be concerning for those questioning his health and mental fitness, this digression into domestic affairs had some relevance for his Venezuelan intervention, at least as far as he was concerned: His increasingly militarised war on drugs and crime abroad justifies an increasingly militarised war on drugs and crime at home.

Past presidents have used US power to pursue a wide variety of ideologies and principles. Trump appears to be paying lip service to past ideologies to justify the use of US power. Many times, the “good” intentions of previous  presidents paved the way to hellish outcomes for the peoples who found themselves on the receiving end of US intervention. But those intentions at least created a level of predictability and consistency for the foreign policies of various US administrations.

Trump, by contrast, seems driven solely by immediate political concerns and short-term prospects for glory and profit. If there is a saving grace of such an unprincipled foreign policy, it may be the ephemeral nature of interventions conducted without an overarching vision. An unprincipled approach to military intervention does not foster the kind of ideological commitment that has led other presidents to engage in long-term interventions like the Iraq occupation.

But it also means that Trump could conceivably use military intervention to settle any international dispute or to pursue any ostensibly profitable goal – say assuming control of Greenland from Denmark.

Last year, he decided tariffs were a potent tool for asserting his interests and started applying them almost indiscriminately on allies and adversaries alike. Now that Trump has grown comfortable using the US military to achieve a range of goals – profit, gunboat diplomacy, distraction from domestic scandals, etc – the danger is that he will grow similarly haphazard in his use of force.

That does not bode well for the US nor for the rest of the world. At a time when multiple global crises are overlapping – climate, conflict and impoverishment – the last thing the world needs is a trigger-happy superpower without a clear strategy or a day-after plan.

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

Former Colombian President Ivan Duque Marquez, discusses how Colombia’s could play a supporting role in Venezuela transition after the abduction of Nicolas Maduro. US President Donald Trump has threatened military action against Colombia, accusing its government of making and selling cocaine to the United States.

The move comes after star Bangladesh fast bowler Mustafizur Rahman was dropped by his IPL team on the BCCI’s directives.

Bangladesh’s interim government has banned broadcast ‍of this ‍year’s Indian Premier League (IPL), the latest flashpoint in a growing row with neighbouring India, which has now extended to cricket ties between the two nations.

The move follows the decision by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to have the Kolkata Knight Riders drop Bangladesh pacer Mustafizur Rahman, ​who had signed for the IPL franchise for ‍this season.

The unceremonious dumping of a “star player” like Mustafizur from the IPL “defied logic” and had “hurt people”, the country’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said in a statement explaining its decision.

Bangladesh have also refused to play their matches of next month’s Twenty20 (T20) World Cup in India, demanding that those ‍be staged ⁠in Sri Lanka, co-host of the 20-team tournament.

The Bangladesh Cricket Board’s directors met in an emergency meeting on Sunday and confirmed their decision shortly afterwards.

“Following a thorough assessment of the prevailing situation and the growing concerns regarding the safety and security of the Bangladesh contingent in India and considering the advice from the Bangladesh Government, the board of directors resolved that the Bangladesh national team will not travel to India for the tournament under the current conditions,” it said.

“The board believes that such a step is necessary to safeguard the safety and wellbeing of Bangladeshi players, team officials, Board members and other stakeholders and to ensure that the team can participate in the tournament in a secure and appropriate environment,” the statement added, urging the ICC to take swift action.

The International Cricket Council (ICC) has not publicly responded to Bangladesh’s ‌demand to play World Cup matches in Sri Lanka.

Tensions have risen ‌in recent weeks between India ⁠and Bangladesh.

Following the protests, the Indian board asked ‍Knight Riders to drop Mustafizur.

The IPL, the ​world’s richest T20 league, is scheduled ‌from March 26 to May 31.

Venezuela’s interim president Delcy Rodriguez met with the country’s cabinet of ministers following the abduction of Nicolas Maduro. She has expressed willingness to work with the US, while Donald Trump warned of serious consequences if she fails to cooperate.

It was his 26th birthday, so Wilmer Castro was not surprised by the flurry of messages that lit up his phone.

However, as he began scrolling on Saturday morning, he realised the messages were not birthday wishes, but news of something he had long hoped for: Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro had been removed from power.

“I think it is the best gift that I will ever receive, one I will never forget,” the university student said from Ejido.

Castro told Al Jazeera that he was so elated by the news that he began daydreaming about his future self recounting the story of Maduro’s fall to his grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

“I will tell them that on January 3, 2026, a dictator fell, and [that moment] is going to be very beautiful.”

The abduction of Venezuela’s long-time authoritarian leader – and his wife – by the United States followed months of escalating tensions between the two countries, including US strikes on alleged drug-trafficking vessels and the deployment of US ships near Venezuela’s coastal waters.

But by Sunday morning, Castro’s initial jubilation was clouded by a heavy quiet. The weight of uncertainty brought the city to a sombre pause, one that closed in on him and felt unlike anything he had experienced before.

“It’s like being in a field with nothing else around. It’s a mournful silence; I can’t describe it,” he said.

That uncertainty was felt by many Venezuelans on Sunday morning.

Venezuela has had a socialist government since 1999, first under President Hugo Chavez and later Maduro, a period that began with oil-funded social programmes but unravelled into economic mismanagement, corruption and repression – with international sanctions further squeezing the population.

Momentum around the 2024 presidential election raised hopes that the opposition alliance would take control. But when Maduro declared victory, despite opposition claims of a landslide win for Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, a crackdown on dissent followed. It left many Venezuelans concluding that any real transition might depend on pressure — or even intervention — from outside the country.

‘Deathly silence’

In southeastern Caracas on Saturday, 54-year-old Edward Ocariz was jolted awake by a loud crash and the vibrating windows of his home near the Fort Tiuna military barracks. He thought it was an earthquake, but when he looked outside, he saw unfamiliar helicopters flying low above smoke rising in the city.

“The noise kept coming,” he said. “I could immediately tell the helicopters were not Venezuelan because I had never seen them here.”

Then, just as suddenly as it had started, it stopped.

“There was a deathly silence,” Ocariz said, adding that the brief suspension of mobile phone services and power outages contributed to the silence. “We were waiting to understand what was happening.”

Fear accompanied the fragments of information that did manage to seep through, Ocariz said. “But it was a fear mixed with joy – tremendous joy. It’s hard to explain.”

On Sunday, when images of a blindfolded and handcuffed Maduro began circulating, Ocariz reflected on the suffering he had endured under the president’s regime.

The human rights activist said he was wrongfully charged with “terrorism” and spent nearly five months as a political prisoner in Tocuyito prison, a maximum-security facility in Carabobo state.

Under Maduro, the country had a long history of jailing those who dissent. After the disputed 2024 election, nearly 2,500 protesters, human rights activists, journalists and opposition figures were arrested. While some were later released, others remain behind bars.

“I felt satisfied. A process of justice is finally beginning,” Ocariz said, fully aware that Maduro will not have to endure the dire prison conditions he did, or be denied food and legal representation.

Despite the joy he and other Venezuelans now feel, Ocariz warns that much remains to be done.

“The population still feels a huge amount of fear [from the authorities] — psychological fear — because it’s well known how the police and justice system use their power to criminalise whoever they choose.”

So far, key institutions remain in the hands of figures from Nicolas Maduro’s inner circle, including Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, who has been named acting president.

But for many Venezuelans — including Castro and Ocariz — seeing a senior Chavista figure still in power is unsettling, particularly as the Trump administration continues to engage with her.

“It is certainly frustrating for me. However, I understand that Venezuela needs to continue with its administrative, functional, and operational management as a country, as a nation,” Ocariz said, adding that the US must maintain some order to control the power vacuum and stamp out repression.

Economic concerns

Venezuela remains heavily militarised, and fears of further unrest linger. During periods of dissent, the authorities relied not only on formal security forces but also on “colectivos”, armed civilian groups accused by rights organisations of intimidation and violence.

Jose Chalhoub, an energy and political risk analyst at Jose Parejo & Associates in Caracas, said he is concerned about the possibility of more attacks and social unrest.

“Any potential new government that will move ahead with the cleansing of the top ranks of the armed forces and security and police forces will lead to the disarmament of the colectivos,” he said, adding that fixing the lingering economic crisis should also be one of the main priorities.

“A new government that applies quick economic measures leading to a recovery will outshine the ideological legacy of the Bolivarian revolution,” he said, referring to the ideology of Chavismo, defined by anti-imperialism, patriotism and socialism.

Those loyal to Maduro have long blamed Venezuela’s economic woes on the US — namely, the sanctions it imposed on the oil sector.

Chalhoub said he believed Trump’s promise to boost the country’s oil production could help the economy, though he found the US president’s assertion that the US will “run the country” baffling.

However, not everyone is happy with the Trump administration’s attack.

Alex Rajoy, a mototaxi driver in Caracas, said the US president was on an imperialist crusade with the goal of “robbing” Venezuela of its natural resources.

Despite his anger, Rajoy said he will stay home over the coming days because he is fearful of further attacks.

“These missiles aren’t aimed only at Chavistas,” he said, referring to those loyal to Venezuela’s socialist ideology.

“They threaten opposition people, too,” he said, adding that anyone supporting foreign intervention amounts to a betrayal. “It’s treason against the homeland,” he said.

What now?

For Castro, the university student, the elation he felt on Saturday has been interrupted by fear for his immediate needs – concerns over whether stores would remain open in Ejido and rising costs. Under Maduro, he has long struggled to afford basic items.

“People in the street were going crazy yesterday,” he said. “Everyone was buying food with half of what they had in their bank accounts, buying what they could, because we don’t know what the future holds.”

The scenes brought back memories of the shortages of 2016, when hyperinflation and scarcity plunged the country into crisis, forcing people to queue for hours and rush between shops with limits on how much each person could buy.

But a day after the attack, Castro said Venezuelans are reflecting on the future of their country and the uncertainty of that future.

“There’s happiness, there’s fear, there’s gratitude, there’s the ‘what will happen next?’” he said. “For my next birthday, I want total freedom for Venezuela – and hopefully, God willing, we will have it.”

UN Security Council to meet on Maduro’s abduction as Trump insists US in control of Venezuela.

Venezuela’s Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez has denounced the United States’ move to abduct leader Nicolas Maduro as a “cowardly kidnapping”, adding that some of the president’s bodyguards were killed “in cold blood”, as well as military personnel and civilians on the Venezuelan side.

In his televised statement on Sunday, Padrino Lopez also endorsed a Supreme Court ruling that appointed Vice President Delcy Rodriguez — who also serves as oil minister — as acting president for 90 days.

US President Donald Trump threatened that Rodriguez will pay a “very big price” if she doesn’t cooperate with Washington. “If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump told The Atlantic in a telephone interview.

US forces attacked Caracas in the early hours of Saturday, bombing military targets and spiriting away Maduro and his wife to face federal narco-trafficking charges in New York. The Venezuelan president was escorted off a plane at Stewart Air National Guard Base in New York state and taken to a Brooklyn jail.

He is due to make his first appearance on Monday in Manhattan’s federal court.

US to use oil blockade to leverage change in Venezuela

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday suggested that Washington would not take a day-to-day role in governing Venezuela other than enforcing an existing “oil quarantine”, using that leverage to press policy changes in the country.

Rubio’s statements seemed designed to temper concerns, a day after Trump announced the US would “run” the oil-rich nation. The Trump administration’s actions drew unease from parts of his own Republican Party coalition, including an “America First” base that is opposed to foreign interventions, as well as from observers who recalled past nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rubio dismissed such criticism, saying that Trump’s intent had been misunderstood by a “foreign policy establishment” that was fixated on the Middle East.

Al Jazeera’s Phil Lavelle, reporting from Doral, Florida in the US, said Trump had been elected on an “America First” policy centred around no engagement in foreign wars or sending US service personnel into danger.

“Now we’ve got this situation where he said, less than 24 hours ago, ‘We’re not afraid of putting boots on the ground,’” Lavelle said.

Protests took place in cities across the US against Trump’s military action in Venezuela. Hundreds gathered in the rain in downtown Los Angeles, carrying signs saying “Stop bombing Venezuela now!” and “No blood for oil”.

“I stand against US imperialism altogether. They want oil … They want to help the corporate billionaires. Bombing is just their means to building power like that, of taking control. So again, I’m against it,” said one protester named Niven.

Trump on Saturday delivered a speech in which he made little mention of the so-called “war on drugs” – which for months had been his main justification for bombing Venezuelan ship and assets – but argued that Venezuela had “stolen” oil from the US and that it would now be taken back.

The United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Saul, said the US actions in Venezuela were illegal, calling on Trump to be investigated and impeached. “Every Venezuelan life lost is a violation of the right to life. President Trump should be impeached and investigated for the alleged killings,” he said in a social media post.

The UN Security Council (UNSC) was set to meet on Monday to discuss the situation in Venezuela. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was “deeply alarmed” by the US strikes, which a spokesperson said could “constitute a dangerous precedent”.

Uncertainty in Venezuela after Maduro’s abduction

Some Venezuelans in Caracas have welcomed the US’s seizure of Maduro, but others said the action could worsen conflict in the country, with protests denouncing the US taking place.

“There should be a positive change for all Venezuelans, because it has been 28 years of government, and now is the time for transition in this country,” said Ronald Gaulee, a motorcycle rider in Caracas.

Merchant Juan Carlos Rincon was more cautious. “The truth is that there is a lot of manipulation behind all this,” he told the Reuters news agency. “We want to be at peace, move forward, and for Venezuela to have, like any other country, the right to choose its own destiny and its own leaders.”

Baker Franklin Jimenez said he would heed the government’s call to defend the country. “If they took him away, I think they shouldn’t have done so, because this will create an even worse conflict than the one we have now,” he said. “And as for the bombings and all that, we have to go out, we all have to go out into the streets to defend our homeland, to defend ourselves.”

Some Venezuelans decided to flee the country amid the uncertainty, crossing the Venezuela-Colombia border to reach the Colombian town of Cucuta. Karina Rey described a “tense situation” in the Venezuelan city of San Cristobal, just across the border.

“There are long lines, and people are very paranoid, or on edge, over food. Supermarkets are closing,” Rey told Al Jazeera. “The lines are very long just to stock up on food, because we don’t know what will happen in the coming weeks. We’re waiting to see what happens.”

Al Jazeera’s Alessandro Rampietti, reporting from Cucuta, said many Venezuelans there initially felt jubilant after Maduro was ousted. “But that quickly shifted to uncertainty,” he said.

“Several people said they expected the United States to immediately bring opposition leader Maria Corina Machado back into the country, along with Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, who many Venezuelans believe won the last presidential election,” Rampietti continued.

“Instead, with much of the existing leadership still in place and with Vice President Delcy Rodriguez appointed as interim leader, there is growing fear about what could happen next.”

Tiziano Breda, a senior analyst at the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, said what happens next hinges on the response of Venezuela’s government and armed forces.

“So far, they’ve avoided direct confrontation with US forces, but deployments on the streets point to efforts to contain unrest,” he said. “A smooth transition remains unlikely, and the risk of resistance from pro-regime armed groups – including elements within the military and Colombian rebel networks active in the country – remains high.”

Venezuelan officials say US air strikes killed at least 40 people, destroyed parts of the capital and violated their national sovereignty with the abduction of President Nicolas Maduro. Venezuelans are divided between fear of ongoing US intervention and celebrating his removal.

Bangladesh will not travel to India for the T20 World Cup next month “under current conditions” and have requested their matches be moved elsewhere, the country’s cricket board has said.

Bangladesh bowler Mustafizur Rahman was released by his Indian Premier League team at the request of the Indian board amid growing tensions between the countries.

That led to an emergency meeting at the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB), who now say they have “formally requested” the International Cricket Council (ICC) moves all Bangladesh’s matches.

“The board believes that such a step is necessary to safeguard the safety and well-being of Bangladeshi players, team officials, board members and other stakeholders and to ensure that the team can participate in the tournament in a secure and appropriate environment,” a statement said.

The move threatens to bring chaos to a competition which begins on 7 February and has already been affected by the political tensions between India and Pakistan.

Bangladesh are due to play all four of their group-stage matches in India, including on the opening day against West Indies and against England in Kolkata on 14 February.

The tournament is being co-hosted by Sri Lanka, where all Pakistan’s matches will be played because of the tensions with India.

The killing of a Hindu man during violent protests in Bangladesh pushed strained ties between Bangladesh and India into a deeper crisis.

The man was accused of blasphemy and beaten to death by a mob in Muslim-majority Bangladesh in an episode that resulted in protests by Hindu nationalist groups in India.

Anti-India sentiment in Bangladesh has grown since former prime minister Sheikh Hasina fled to the country in 2024.

India has not agreed to send her back despite several requests, while violent protests broke out over the murder of Sharif Osman Hadi, a prominent student leader, in Bangladesh.

Mustafizur was withdrawn from an IPL contract with Kolkata Knight Riders on Saturday.

No reason for the decision was given by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) but secretary Devajit Saikia referenced “recent developments”.

“The board reviewed the situation in detail, taking into account developments over the last 24 hours and expressed deep concern over the overall circumstances surrounding the participation of the Bangladesh in matches scheduled to be played in India,” said the BCB, who also announced their 15-strong squad on Sunday.

“Following a thorough assessment of the prevailing situation and the growing concerns regarding the safety and security of the Bangladesh contingent in India… the board of directors resolved that the national team will not travel to India for the tournament under the current conditions.”

The ICC has not responded to the BBC’s request for comment.

Bangladesh squad for T20 World Cup: Litton Das (capt), Saif Hassan, Tanzid Hasan, Parvez Hossain Emon, Towhid Hridoy, Shamim Hossain, Nurul Hasan (wk), Mahedi Hasan, Rishad Hossain, Nasum Ahmed, Mustafizur Rahman, Tanzim Hasan Sakib, Taskin Ahmed, Mohammad Saifuddin, Shoriful Islam.

In a move that stunned the world, the United States bombed Venezuela and toppled President Nicolas Maduro amid condemnation and plaudits.

In a news conference on Saturday at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, President Donald Trump praised the operation to seize Maduro as one of the “most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might and competence in American history”.

It was the riskiest and most high-profile military operation sanctioned by Washington since the US Navy’s SEAL team killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a safe house in Pakistan’s Abbottabad in 2011.

News of the 63-year-old Maduro being abducted took over the global news cycle.

After months of escalation and threats over Maduro’s alleged involvement in shipping drugs to the US, the Trump administration had increased pressure on Caracas with a military build-up in the Caribbean and a series of deadly missile attacks on alleged drug-running boats that had killed more than 100 people and whose legality has been heavily questioned by the United Nations and legal experts.

The US had also previously offered a $50m reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest.

But while the military was conducting operations in the Caribbean, US intelligence had been gathering information about Maduro, his eating habits, and special forces covertly rehearsed a plan to remove him from power forcibly.

Here’s everything we know about how Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were “captured”.

How was Maduro abducted?

The operation, named “Absolute Resolve”, was carefully rehearsed for months, according to General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who spoke at Trump’s news conference.

Trump also told Fox News that US forces had practised their extraction of Maduro on a replica building.

“They actually built a house which was identical to the one they went into with all the same, all that steel all over the place,” Trump said.

At 11:46pm local time on Friday (03:46 GMT on Saturday), Trump gave the green light.

On Friday night, Caine said, “the weather broke just enough, clearing a path that only the most skilled aviators in the world could move through”, with about 150 aircraft involved in the operation, taking off from 20 different airbases across the Western Hemisphere.

As part of the operation, US forces disabled Venezuela’s air defence systems, with Trump saying the “lights of Caracas were largely turned off due to a certain expertise that we have”, without elaborating.

Several deafening explosions rang out across the capital, with Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary, describing it as part of a “massive joint military and law enforcement raid” that lasted less than 30 minutes.

US helicopters then touched down at Maduro’s compound in the capital at 2:01am (06:01 GMT) on Saturday, with the president and his wife then taken into custody.

There has been no readout on whether there was an exchange of fire, in a chaotic scramble, or if they were taken without a struggle.

At 4:29am (08:29 GMT), just two and a half hours later, Maduro was put on board a US aircraft carrier, en route to New York. Trump later posted a photograph of the Venezuelan leader on his Truth Social social media platform, blindfolded, wearing a grey tracksuit.

After departing the USS Iwo Jima, US forces escorted Maduro on a flight, touching down in New York’s Stewart Air National Guard Base at about 4:30pm (21:30 GMT).

How many people were killed in the US strikes on Venezuela?

The US strikes hit Caracas as well as the states of Miranda, Aragua and La Guaira, according to the Venezuelan government.

To Linda Unamumo, a public worker, the US attacks caused an explosion that was so strong it destroyed the roof of her house.

“Even up until a little while ago, I was still crying … I was crying because I was so scared … I had to leave my house with my daughter, with my family, and go to another house, a neighbour’s house. It was really traumatic. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, really,” she told the AFP news agency.

While official casualty counts have yet to be released, an official told The New York Times newspaper on condition of anonymity that at least 40 people had been killed in the attacks.

According to Trump, a few US members were injured in the operation, but he believed no one was killed.

What’s next for Venezuela?

During his news conference on Saturday, Trump announced that the US would “run” the country until a new leader was chosen.

“We’re going to make sure that country is run properly. We’re not doing this in vain,” he said. “This is a very dangerous attack. This is an attack that could have gone very, very badly.”

The president did not rule out deploying US troops in the country and said he was “not afraid of boots on the ground if we have to”.

Trump also, somewhat surprisingly, ruled out working with opposition figure and Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, who had dedicated her prize, which he so wanted to win himself, to the US president.

“She doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country,” he said.

The Constitutional Chamber of Venezuela’s Supreme Court ordered Vice President Delcy Rodriguez to serve as acting president following the US’s abduction of Maduro.

The court ruled that Rodriguez will assume “the office of President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in order to guarantee administrative continuity and the comprehensive defence of the Nation”.

The court also said it would work to “determine the applicable legal framework to guarantee the continuity of the State, the administration of government, and the defense of sovereignty in the face of the forced absence of the President of the Republic”.

Trump had said earlier on Saturday that the US would not occupy Venezuela, provided Rodriguez “does what we want”.