Víctor de Currea Lugo | January 4, 2026
A few days before the United States’ military aggression against Venezuela, I was speaking with an ambassador about the possibility of an attack of such magnitude. He told me it was impossible, but it happened. Could the same thing happen to Petro as happened to Maduro?
Now, speaking with various political scientists, they tell me that the possibility of an attack involving Colombia, or specifically President Petro, is unlikely. But the truth is, external threats remain real and could materialize, which should make the audience more vigilant.
I know that Venezuela is not Colombia, neither in terms of oil’s weight in the economy nor in its recent political history. So, I will play the sad role of devil’s advocate by mentioning those things in which we are comparable, without, of course, repeating the childish notion of Castro-Chavismo to equate two different processes.
Making an analysis that invokes international law seems a bit naive, especially after Gaza. Or to assume there is an identifiable logic in President Trump’s administration is also naive, because his erratic decisions are the only constant.
Let’s begin. In the case of Venezuelan society, there was a growing process of polarization (see, for example, the guarimbas) to such an extent that political positions were demonized and society was radicalized, without any mechanisms for dialogue.
The breakdown of internal dialogue processes allows for the «justification» of extreme solutions (Egypt, Syria, and Libya are good examples). In the Colombian case, the configuration of a polarized crisis scenario fuels the voices of those who demand a similar solution for Colombia.
The hegemonic global press fabricated a Maduro who permitted and legitimized an operation like the one that occurred. Likewise, the construction of a President Petro has already begun, who is accused, directly and without evidence, of producing cocaine and being a drug trafficker, who is included on the Clinton List and who is positioned as the next target of the United States.
Petro’s international stance on Gaza, his distancing from Washington’s security agenda, his fight against climate change, and his push to broaden the drug trafficking debate highlight his vulnerabilities. Recognizing these can help the audience understand the delicate position Petro faces and the need for strategic resilience.
Isolation and fracture are just around the corner
Venezuela is alone, in the same sense that Gaza has been alone; no other country is going to risk its neck beyond formal political declarations that invoke international law.
This isolation mirrors what Colombia would face if attacked, with external actors like the US and allies potentially intervening, highlighting the risk of external influence on Petro’s government.
There is another aspect to explore, and it concerns internal unity in Venezuela. Despite much emphasis on the potential tensions between figures like Padrino López, Diosdado Cabello, and Delcy Rodríguez, they now present themselves to their country as a unified bloc.
There are no fractures within the Armed Forces, and the opposition has not been able to celebrate, even in neighborhoods where it holds a majority. Emphasizing this unity can inspire confidence in Colombia’s resilience, reassuring the audience about the importance of internal cohesion.
In politics, betrayal has been constant since the time of Julius Caesar and Brutus’s daggers, and it persists to the present day. An operation like the one carried out by the United States is unthinkable without considering the internal elements that facilitated the flow of all the information. In Petro’s case, he himself has stated that he has been betrayed on several occasions.
Chávez’s manual, «Golpe de Timón» (published a few months before his death), is, among other things, a list of what Chavismo ignored. And then we must ask ourselves: in what aspects is Petro’s movement ignoring Petro? And this question is not rhetorical.
Narcotizing the Debate
Undoubtedly, there are interconnected links between different dynamics in the region involving the situation in Venezuela, the presence of the ELN on both sides of the border, drug trafficking, and Trump’s political stance. Denying these connections is serious but lumping them all together without nuance is even more serious.
Simplistic interpretations of drug trafficking (such as the supposed «Cartel of the Suns» as the sole variable) ignore what several presidents, including Petro, stated in a recent communiqué: we are facing an aggression.
Furthermore, this logic serves the US approach of presenting everything within the framework of the war on drugs, without considering geopolitics. This is how the murder of fishermen in the Caribbean Sea has been justified.
Anti-Petro sentiment and Israel
Israel’s presence in Colombia not only leads us to consider the involvement of Israeli military officers in the formation of paramilitary groups, but also their genuine interest in contributing to «recovering» Colombia for the right wing, the once-called Israel of Latin America. And in this scenario, Petro is much more than a thorn on their side.
The Mossad, Israeli intelligence, is no minor force. They could kidnap the Kurdish leader and hand him over to Turkey, organize a fifteen-year plan to destroy the beeper systems used by Hezbollah operatives, and carry out a series of assassinations against Palestinians in Europe, as depicted in Steven Spielberg’s film, ‘Munich’.
This is not an abstract hypothesis, but a reminder of history. We must remember that uncertain operations, extractions, and wars without formal declarations are not historical exceptions, but rather part of the playbook of actual international politics.
There have been precise and concrete reports of assassination attempts against President Petro, a media fabrication of Petro as a narco-terrorist, and, as he himself warned, calls for Mossad to extract him. The United States withdrew many of the defense elements that the Nariño Palace had.
Petro and the United States
When asked about US intervention, the answer is clear: they are already present in Colombia, and sectors within Petro’s government may not remain loyal if military action occurs, raising concerns about external influence and internal loyalty.
If the Venezuelan experience teaches us anything, it is that being right against the external adversary is not enough if internal warnings are neglected. Cohesion, the early detection of betrayals, and the ability to heed uncomfortable warnings are not political luxuries: they are conditions for survival.
The United States’ interference is not only military. It has already demonstrated his interference in Honduras and in other electoral processes. It would be foolish to think that Donald Trump is threatening Petro, but that he will remain silent regarding the 2026 elections in Colombia.
And therein lies the great challenge: just as in Venezuela, in Colombia, several aristocrats do not hesitate to support anything to prevent the continuation of a progressive government, and there are even those who openly call on the United States to take military action against Petro. A warning is not wishing for it to happen; it is refusing to remain silent after we have already seen how these stories end.
PS1: The United States needs Colombian territory to use as a platform against Venezuela, just as Pakistani territory was used to attack Afghanistan.
PS2: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the institution for which he works. The author is the Colombian government’s Presidential Advisor for the Middle East.
Spanish version: De Maduro a Petro
