In the wake of the U.S. strikes on Venezuela and the reported capture of President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026, allies of Caracas such as Cuba and Iran issued some of the most forceful international condemnations, portraying the assault as a blatant violation of sovereignty and a dangerous precedent in global affairs. Cuba’s president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, took to social media in the early hours of the crisis to denounce what he called a “criminal attack” and “state terrorism” against Venezuela and its people, asserting that the so-called **“Zona de Paz” — the region of peace that Latin America has historically claimed — was being “brutally assaulted” by foreign forces and demanding an urgent reaction from the international community. His rhetoric echoed revolutionary slogans and emphasized solidarity with Venezuela, framing U.S. military action not as targeted strikes but as imperial aggression against “Our America.”
Iran’s reaction, voiced through a statement from its foreign ministry, aligned closely with Cuba’s condemnations. Tehran “strongly condemned the American military attack on Venezuela,” labeling it a “flagrant violation of the national sovereignty and territorial integrity” of the South American nation. The Iranian government criticized the U.S. for disregarding fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter that prohibit the use of force against sovereign states, underscoring Iran’s long-standing strategic and diplomatic ties with Caracas. Iranian officials portrayed the action as part of a broader pattern of Western interference in the internal affairs of independent nations, calling on international actors to oppose what they viewed as an illegal and dangerous escalation.
These stances from Cuba and Iran were echoed by several other governments aligned with or sympathetic to Venezuela’s Maduro administration. Russian officials condemned the strikes as “an act of armed aggression,” questioning the legal justifications offered by Washington and stressing the need to prevent further escalation through dialogue rather than force. Some governments in Latin America, notably Colombia, reacted with alarm over the potential for humanitarian repercussions and regional instability, urging emergency sessions of bodies such as the United Nations Security Council and the Organization of American States to address the crisis and uphold principles of sovereign equality under international law.
The Cuban and Iranian condemnations were part of a broader chorus of official rebukes from nations and blocs that view the U.S. strike as crossing a red line in international conduct. Havana specifically called for mobilization of international opinion against what it termed a “terrorism of State,” suggesting that the offensive represented not just a military operation but a symbolic offensive against Latin American self-determination. Iran’s framing, meanwhile, blended legal critique with geopolitical concern, emphasizing that attacks on sovereign nations undermine the stability of the international system and set a dangerous precedent that could justify similar actions elsewhere.
These condemnations arrived against a backdrop of explosions in Caracas and emergency declarations across Venezuela, with U.S. authorities asserting that the strikes were aimed at neutralizing alleged criminal networks linked to Maduro and that the Venezuelan leader had been captured and transported out of the country. While those claims have not yet been independently verified by Venezuelan authorities or neutral observers, the reactions from Cuba and Iran reflect deep geopolitical fault lines and illustrate how rapidly the situation has reverberated across diplomatic corridors worldwide.
Together with similar statements from Russia and a number of non-aligned governments, the Cuba Iran condemn strikes narrative underscores the emergence of a sharply divided global response: some leaders decry the U.S. actions as unlawful and destabilizing, while others — particularly within parts of Latin America and a few Western capitals — call for restraint, legal process, or, in some cases, support for measures aimed at ending what they describe as authoritarian rule in Venezuela. How these competing international positions translate into concrete diplomatic engagement, sanctions relief, peace negotiations, or further escalations remains uncertain, but the immediacy and intensity of Cuba and Iran’s denunciations mark a significant flashpoint in the crisis unleashed by the events of January 3, 2026.
