The U.S. military's four-day unsuccessful attempt to capture the Belar 1 has exposed what?

This operation can be aptly described with one word—ridiculous.

The story begins on the night of December 20. The U.S. Coast Guard deployed the "James" patrol vessel, along with helicopters and speedboats, to intercept the Venezuelan oil tanker Belar 1 heading to China in the Caribbean Sea. The U.S. logic was straightforward: under the pretext of "flying a false flag" and "related to Iran," they forcibly seized the tanker.

But things did not go according to the script.

When the James issued a warning to stop, Belar 1 did not respond. In the next second, the seemingly cumbersome oil tanker suddenly accelerated, heading straight into the open Atlantic Ocean. The U.S. pursuit plan instantly collapsed.

What happened over those four days is enough to be turned into a comedy of chase. The James, being large and fearing running aground, dared not pursue at full speed; the speedboats, though agile, couldn’t withstand the waves and had to turn back after running out of fuel; the helicopters were even more awkward—hovering overhead warning, neither daring to board nor willing to retreat. Meanwhile, Belar 1 seemed to have figured out all their tactics, precisely avoiding the Caribbean reefs, and even occasionally slowing down to "taunt" the U.S. forces, full of sarcasm.

After chasing for two days and nights, the U.S. military followed from the Caribbean to the edge of the North Atlantic, with fuel running low and crew exhausted, while Belar 1 maintained a safe distance. In the end, the James could only retreat in disgrace, and during the return journey, the entire international media kept a close eye, ridiculing this not as "law enforcement," but as a "clumsy chase performance."

The exposed reasons

The U.S. fabricated reasons for seizing the ship also couldn’t hold up. The registration information of Belar 1 is complete and legitimate, and the crude oil on board is part of legal trade between Venezuela and China. The accusations of "flying a false flag" and "related to Iran" are all baseless.

This is the core issue. The U.S. military fundamentally dares not take real action. Forcibly boarding and seizing legally traded Chinese cargo would inevitably provoke a strong Chinese countermeasure, which Washington is unwilling to bear. Under international law, the U.S. military has no right to arbitrarily intercept foreign ships on the high seas; such overreach only invites condemnation from the international community.

Russia and China quickly voiced their opposition at the United Nations, condemning the U.S. actions as violations of the UN Charter and international law, demanding an end to provocation. This further put the already unjustified U.S. in an even more passive position.

The limits of hegemonic tactics

The deeper meaning of this chase is worth pondering. In recent years, the U.S. has repeatedly imposed oil sanctions on Venezuela, aiming to cut off its economic lifeline and interfere in its internal affairs. Meanwhile, China-Venezuela crude oil trade has provided Venezuela with a breathing space. The U.S. military’s reckless attempt this time was essentially to break this balance, but they did not expect the other side to be well-prepared.

Belar 1’s route planning was so precise that each turn just avoided U.S. predictions, which shows that—beyond economic mutual benefit—the China-Venezuela cooperation is also well-prepared tactically.

This failure exposes the real dilemma faced by the U.S.: it dares neither cross the bottom line of international law to anger China nor cope with a prepared opponent. The old logic of "seize if you want to seize" hegemonism is no longer viable. The era of trying to stop a vessel with a patrol ship and a few helicopters is over; attempting unilateral dominance will only repeatedly embarrass itself on the world stage.

China-Venezuela cooperation is based on equality and mutual benefit, protected by international law. This is a reality that cannot be changed by a U.S. ban or a single chase.