According to IRAF News Agency, most Afghan users on social media, particularly on Facebook and Twitter—have reacted strongly to the news.
Yesterday, in what was described as an aggressive operation carried out by U.S. Army special forces, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife were abducted and transferred to the United States to face trial.
The operation, conducted under the direct supervision and order of U.S. President Donald Trump, has drawn sharp criticism from numerous countries and prompted reactions from governments around the world.
Reactions from Afghan Analysts and Commentators
Following the publication of images showing Nicolás Maduro in the custody of U.S. security forces, a wave of reactions emerged from Afghan analysts and observers.
Malik Setiz, a political activist, wrote on X that the United States had launched a military attack on the capital of one of Latin America’s long-standing states and a founding member of the United Nations, arrested its president within hours, toppled the government, detained its leaders, and transferred the president and his wife to the United States—while, at the same time, the U.S. ambassador at the UN Security Council spoke about respect for international law. He questioned the justifications offered by Washington, including allegations of corruption, drug trafficking, and human rights abuses, and asked why similar concern was not shown over what he described as historic crimes in Gaza. Setiz strongly criticized U.S. unilateralism, calling the operation a blatant violation of the UN Charter and international peace.
Abdul Latif Pedram, leader of the National Congress Party, also condemned the U.S. action against Venezuela, describing the military strike on Caracas as a “shameful violation of international law” and a “mocking insult” to the United Nations and its Security Council. He said, the attack on a sovereign state demonstrated that the claimed democracy of the United States and its allies was “nothing but lies and deception,” and stressed that the operation was unjustifiable and indefensible.
Cultural activist Mohammad Nabi Elham, posting images of U.S. soldiers detained by Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf alongside images of Maduro in U.S. custody, wrote: “Two contrasting images—Maduro and American soldiers; American soldiers in the Persian Gulf and Iranian soldiers.”
Journalist Qader Bayat commented that if the concept of fairness still had meaning, the United States would one day have to pay the price for its overt aggression, killings, and brutality. He warned that the fate of the American people could one day mirror the bitter destinies of countries damaged by direct U.S. military intervention, adding that the wounds inflicted on these nations would take centuries to heal.
Other analysts described the U.S. action as an insult to an entire nation and criticized what they saw as the silence of other countries and international bodies, interpreting it as fear of provoking Trump’s anger.
Afghan journalist Samira Shoja’ referred to remarks by Trump, writing that he had compared the recent U.S. military action against Venezuela to what he called America’s failure in Afghanistan, while criticizing the previous U.S. administration and asserting that the U.S. military was now the best-equipped and most powerful force in the world.
These reactions come amid reports that Nicolás Maduro has been transferred to a prison in New York, a city whose newly elected mayor, Zohran Mamdani, is a vocal critic of Trump. Mamdani reportedly described the move as an act of war and said he opposed it.
Shah Hossein Mortazavi, a former presidential adviser, commented without naming Trump that history, experience, and established patterns show that leaders of major powers have rarely served as suitable role models for political ethics.
Overall, Afghan analysts and commentators have taken a critical stance on Maduro’s arrest, interpreting Trump’s actions as bullying and unilateralism.
What Afghan Social Media Users Are Saying
Most Afghan social media users have criticized the arrest of Maduro as a sitting president, describing it as a violation of a country’s national sovereignty.
Abdol Latif Foroozesh, a Facebook user, wrote: “Ernesto Che Guevara was also captured, yet his ideas remain alive across Latin America today. Criminal America cannot extinguish ideas through abduction.”
Criticism of the U.S. attack on Caracas and the arrest of Maduro and his wife has become one of the dominant topics on Afghan social media in recent days. Some users have framed the move as an assault on national independence, raising concerns about whether such actions could be repeated in the future. They questioned who would decide who is right and who has the authority to attack countries and detain their presidents.
Others, pointing to what they describe as U.S. silence over Israeli actions in Palestine, argued that Venezuela’s oil resources were Washington’s primary motive.
Mehdi Hosseini wrote: “Shame on a world that remains silent in the face of such aggression and force. Silence only makes brutal states and actors even more brutal.”
Many users also criticized the silence of governments and international institutions, warning of the consequences of U.S. unilateralism. Hosseini Seraj wrote that regardless of whether Maduro was a good politician or not, the world was witnessing the peak of political arrogance and bullying by the U.S.-led system of domination—yet, regrettably, everyone remained silent.
What happened in Venezuela, many argued, amounted to a clear assault on the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of a state—an outcome that should alarm governments worldwide. They warned that if Trump could arrest Venezuela’s president without regard for international law, the question remained whether diplomats or ministers from opposing countries could one day face detention while attending meetings at the United Nations.
