Some US experts have challenged the legality and motives of the US military operation that led to the forcible seizure of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, highlighting risks to international norms and regional peace.

In a panel discussion at a forum at the Brookings Institution on Thursday, speakers focused on the military intervention's broader implications.

Vanda Felbab-Brown, director of the initiative on nonstate armed actors, expressed deep skepticism about US intentions and methods."The (Donald) Trump administration feels very emboldened with other very aggressive, really 19th-century imperialist Yankee domination agenda," Felbab-Brown said, pointing to the operation's failure to address underlying issues and its potential to spark unrest.

She warned of the danger of prolonged instability from such unilateral actions. "There is a tremendous amount of possibility of either stagnation staying as it is, with all its problems and its fundamental accountability and legitimacy, or many forms of violence exploding across the country," Felbab-Brown added, emphasizing how the approach could exacerbate tensions without genuine resolution.

Thomas Wright, a senior fellow in foreign policy, condemned the resource-driven nature of the policy."It presents US foreign policy as focused on that extractive domination element and not actually a normative goal," Wright said, comparing the operation with past interventions and arguing that it undermines principled diplomacy.

Scott R. Anderson, a fellow in governance studies, focused on the legal flaws. "That is a very contentious legal proposition for the rest of the world and that no one else in the rest of the world has really clearly bought into, even those who have been tentatively supportive of the Trump administration's actions for the simple reason that it would be hugely destabilizing," Anderson said.

The US Senate had advanced a War Powers Resolution to limit further US involvement by Jan 8, reflecting domestic pushback against the operation's unilateral nature.

An earlier Jan 5 event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies echoed some of these concerns. Christopher Hernandez-Roy, deputy director of the Americas program, criticized the coercive approach. "I think 'running the country' means forcing the administration under the threat of further military action to do these headline items," Hernandez-Roy said.

Clayton Seigle, a senior fellow in energy and geopolitics, warned of uncertainties in US economic objectives. "The preeminent requirement is political stability. And a lot of people are talking about that this week because the events … haven't really clarified what the outlook for political stability in Venezuela is going to be."

Trump, in a Jan 6 statement, asserted US oversight, claiming Washington would "run" the country if necessary. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in a Jan 7 interview with The New York Times, outlined phases emphasizing US-imposed stability, further fueling debates over the motives for intervention.

Felbab-Brown at Brookings reiterated the potential for escalation. Resource pursuits could lead to "many forms of violence exploding across the country", she said.