![People gather outside Downing Street to protest against the US military attack on Venezuela, calling on the British government to condemn the forced removal of Nicolás Maduro and demanding his return to Venezuela in London, United Kingdom on January 05, 2026. [Wiktor Szymanowicz – Anadolu Agency]](https://i0.wp.com/d2.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/AA-20260105-40168416-40168394-NO_WAR_ON_VENEZUELA_PROTEST_IN_LONDON-scaled-e1767725571484.webp?fit=920%2C613&ssl=1)
Now imagine a powerful state crossing borders, bombing a capital, and seizing a head of government, only to retroactively recast the act as “law enforcement.” Is this merely an aggressive interpretation of international law, or something more consequential? A system in which legality is defined by capability rather than principle? If so, the pattern should feel disturbingly familiar.
READ: Statistics alone put the PA’s rhetoric to shame
It invites the inference- fair or not-that sovereignty is being treated as negotiable when it sits atop assets. And this is the culminating irony. International law was built- imperfectly, often hypocritically- but still built to prevent precisely the future that selective enforcement creates. If the “rules” bind only those without aircraft carriers, then what remains is international stratification, a hierarchy dressed as order.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.