If they see us divided, in pieces, they will eat us little by little
En los corredores del poder venezolano, donde la lealtad es moneda de supervivencia, Diosdado Cabello salió al paso de las acusaciones contra Delcy Rodríguez con la firmeza de quien sabe que una grieta interna puede ser más peligrosa que cualquier enemigo externo. Tras la captura de Nicolás Maduro por fuerzas estadounidenses en enero de 2026, las sospechas sobre los hermanos Rodríguez amenazaron con fracturar la coalición chavista desde adentro. La defensa de Cabello no fue solo un gesto de solidaridad: fue una declaración sobre la naturaleza del poder y la imposibilidad, según él, de cualquier transición política bajo el orden constitucional vigente.
- La captura de Maduro en enero de 2026 desató una tormenta interna: sectores duros del chavismo acusan a Delcy y Jorge Rodríguez de haber negociado en secreto con Washington antes de la operación.
- Una investigación de The Guardian sugiere que los Rodríguez señalizaron su disposición a cooperar con cualquier arreglo político posterior, aunque sin participar directamente en la captura ni orquestar un golpe interno.
- Cabello convirtió la defensa de Rodríguez en una advertencia estratégica: la división interna no es un debate ideológico, sino una puerta abierta para que la oposición desintegre el movimiento pieza por pieza.
- Al mismo tiempo, cerró cualquier horizonte de transición: la Constitución de 1999, dijo, hace imposible que la oposición gobierne Venezuela sin antes demoler el propio andamiaje legal del Estado bolivariano.
- El mensaje final fue doble —lealtad hacia una aliada bajo fuego y rigidez absoluta frente al cambio— dejando claro que el sistema no negocia su propia sustitución.
Diosdado Cabello, ministro del Interior y figura central del chavismo, tomó la palabra en un acto público para salir en defensa de la presidenta interina Delcy Rodríguez, blanco de acusaciones internas de traición a la revolución. "Jorge y yo estamos con ella", dijo, en referencia al hermano de Rodríguez. "Tenemos que ayudarla. Ella está al frente."
Las sospechas contra los hermanos Rodríguez emergieron tras la captura de Nicolás Maduro por fuerzas estadounidenses en enero de 2026. Sectores duros de la coalición gobernante comenzaron a circular versiones de que ambos habrían mantenido contactos secretos con funcionarios norteamericanos antes del operativo. Una investigación de The Guardian confirmó que los Rodríguez habían señalizado a intermediarios en Estados Unidos y Qatar su disposición a cooperar con el arreglo político que siguiera a la caída de Maduro, aunque las fuentes consultadas aclararon que ninguno participó directamente en la captura ni organizó un golpe desde adentro.
Cabello enmarcó las acusaciones como táctica deliberada del adversario. "¿Cuál era el objetivo de llamar traidora a Delcy?", preguntó. "Dividir la revolución bolivariana. Si nos ven como un bloque, lo pensarán dos veces. Si nos ven divididos, nos comerán poco a poco." La unidad, en su lectura, no es virtud sino condición de supervivencia.
Pero la defensa de Rodríguez vino acompañada de algo más contundente: el rechazo categórico a cualquier posibilidad de que la oposición gobierne Venezuela. Cabello invocó la Constitución de 1999 como barrera infranqueable. La oposición, afirmó, no puede dirigir el país bajo ese documento; tendría que derogarlo, eliminarlo. Recordó que cuando la Asamblea Nacional estuvo en manos opositoras en 2015, ese cuerpo creó un estatuto que se colocó por encima de la propia Constitución, lo que interpretó como una confesión de sus verdaderas intenciones.
La defensa de Delcy Rodríguez resultó ser, al mismo tiempo, una declaración sobre la inamovilidad del sistema: quien quiera gobernar Venezuela deberá primero desmantelar su arquitectura legal, un umbral que Cabello presentó como prácticamente imposible de alcanzar.
Diosdado Cabello, the interior minister and current leader of Venezuela's ruling socialist movement, stood before a public gathering and made a direct defense of interim president Delcy Rodríguez. The accusations against her—that she had betrayed the revolution—were, he said, nothing more than an opposition tactic designed to splinter the government from within. "Jorge and I stand behind her," Cabello said, referring to Rodríguez's brother. "We will keep doing so because we have to help her. She is at the front."
The suspicions surrounding Delcy and Jorge Rodríguez had surfaced after Nicolás Maduro's capture by U.S. forces in January 2026. Hardline factions within the ruling coalition began circulating claims that the siblings had maintained secret communications with American officials before the operation, suggesting they had negotiated Maduro's removal from power. A Guardian investigation later reported that the Rodríguez siblings had indeed signaled to intermediaries in the United States and Qatar that they would cooperate with whatever political arrangement followed Maduro's fall. But the sources consulted were careful to note that neither of them had directly participated in the capture itself or orchestrated an internal coup.
Cabello framed the accusations as a deliberate strategy. "What was the goal of calling Delcy a traitor? What is it?" he asked. "To divide the Bolivarian revolution. If they see us as one block, they will think twice. If they see us divided, in pieces, they will eat us little by little, swallow us whole, and buy people off." The message was unmistakable: unity was survival, and any crack in the facade was an opening for enemies.
But Cabello's defense of Rodríguez was paired with something harder—a categorical rejection of any possibility that the opposition could ever govern Venezuela. He invoked the 1999 Constitution, the legal foundation of the Bolivarian Revolution, as an insurmountable barrier. The opposition, he said, could never rule under that document. They would need to overturn it entirely, to erase it. "They cannot govern this country with this Constitution," he stated. "They need to repeal it, eliminate it."
He pointed to the 2015 National Assembly as proof of his argument. When that body had been controlled by opposition forces, he said, they had created a statute that placed itself above the Constitution, sidelining the founding document altogether. It was, in his telling, a confession of their true intentions. "Never will they be able to direct this country with this Constitution," Cabello said. "Have no doubt about it. Even if they came to power in 300 years, the first thing they would do is trample on this Constitution."
The message was layered. On one level, Cabello was defending a colleague under fire from within his own movement. On another, he was drawing a line that could not be crossed: the opposition would not govern, not now, not ever, not under the current legal order. Any transition of power would require a fundamental rewriting of Venezuela's constitutional framework—a threshold so high that Cabello was essentially declaring it impossible. The defense of Delcy Rodríguez, then, was also a statement about the immovability of the system itself.
Notable Quotes
Jorge and I stand behind her. We will keep doing so because we have to help her. She is at the front.— Diosdado Cabello, defending interim president Delcy Rodríguez
The opposition cannot govern this country with this Constitution. They need to repeal it, eliminate it.— Diosdado Cabello, on constitutional barriers to opposition rule
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Cabello need to defend Rodríguez so publicly? If the accusations are baseless, wouldn't silence be stronger?
Because silence reads as weakness in this context. The accusations are coming from inside the movement—from people who were there, who know the details. Public defense is a show of force, a way of saying the leadership is unified and the doubters should fall in line.
But the Guardian reported that Rodríguez did communicate with U.S. intermediaries. Isn't that a real problem?
It is, but Cabello's framing matters. He's saying she signaled cooperation with a new order, not that she orchestrated Maduro's removal. There's a difference—one is pragmatism, the other is betrayal. He's drawing that line carefully.
What about his argument that the opposition can't govern under the 1999 Constitution?
It's a way of saying the system is locked. The Constitution is the foundation, and if you accept it, you accept the rules the revolution wrote. He's essentially telling the opposition: you can never win here, so stop trying.
Is that actually true, or is it just rhetoric?
It's both. Constitutionally, he has a point—the document does embed revolutionary principles. But it's also a threat dressed in legal language. He's saying the opposition will never be allowed to govern, period.
What happens if factions keep accusing each other of treason?
That's the real danger. Cabello is trying to prevent that spiral by shutting down the narrative early. But if the accusations persist, if more people start believing them, the unity he's defending could fracture anyway.