Steven Sahiounie, journalist and political commentator
A recent US military airstrike on a vessel off the coast of Venezuela has dramatically heightened tensions between President Donald Trump and President Nicolas Maduro. The US government alleges the boat was transporting narcotics to the United States, a claim that has fueled speculation about a potential military confrontation. This aggressive move coincides with the deployment of a significant US naval armada to the Caribbean Sea, ostensibly to support counter-narcotics operations targeting Venezuela, but critics see regime change as the real goal.
The Trump administration attack on Venezuela has been orchestrated by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has been vocal in opposition to Venezuela for decades. Rubio is the son of Cuban immigrants to Florida, and was raised to hate Communism.
While Cuba is a Communist state, Venezuela is a socialist government, and Maduro has cracked down on the Communist party there.
But, Rubio regards all leftist Latin American leaders as the enemy.
Rubio posted details on social media about the strike Tuesday, in which 11 people were killed, according to the White House.
“History is full of examples of tyrants who believe they are invulnerable & then face sudden collapse,” Rubio tweeted.
“Mr. President Donald Trump, you have to be careful because Marco Rubio wants your hands stained with blood, with South American blood, Caribbean blood, Venezuelan blood,” Maduro told reporters this week.
The Pentagon’s deployment includes guided-missile destroyers, the “Iwo Jima” amphibious ready group, a nuclear-powered submarine, P-8 intelligence aircraft, and approximately 4,500 personnel. In response, Maduro has ordered the full mobilization of his nation’s armed forces and encouraged civilians to join militias, declaring his readiness to counter the US naval presence.
The roots of US-Venezuela tensions are deeply intertwined with oil. Since the discovery of massive petroleum reserves in the early 20th century, Venezuela became a focal point for major US energy corporations, which controlled the country’s oil wealth for decades. This dynamic shifted in 1976 when the Venezuelan government nationalized its oil industry.
The country experienced significant economic decline and political instability in the following years. The election of Hugo Chávez in 1998 marked a definitive turn. His government pursued leftist socialist policies, forging closer ties with US adversaries like Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba. Upon Chávez’s death in 2013, he was succeeded by Nicolas Maduro, who continued his predecessor’s policies amidst a deepening economic crisis, exacerbated by US sanctions.
Washington has refused to recognize the legitimacy of Maduro’s elections, imposed extensive sanctions on the Venezuelan government and its elite, and, in 2020, the US Justice Department indicted Maduro on charges of narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, and money laundering. In a significant escalation just before leaving office, the Biden administration placed a $15 million bounty for information leading to Maduro’s capture.
The Trump administration has adopted an increasingly confrontational approach. It has accused Venezuela of facilitating the influx of millions of undocumented migrants into the US, including criminals and the mentally ill, and of sponsoring deadly drug trafficking through Caribbean waterways and overland routes via Mexico.
On the first day of his second term, President Trump designated the Venezuelan criminal organization, Tren de Aragua, as a terrorist group practicing “narco-terrorism.” The administration had previously sanctioned the group and offered $12 million in rewards for the arrest of its leaders. Trump, a long-time proponent of ousting Maduro, also authorized a $50 million reward for information leading to the Venezuelan president’s arrest.
The immediate catalyst for the current crisis was the US military’s destruction of a ship alleged to be carrying drugs operated by Tren de Aragua, resulting in the deaths of 11 people on board. The White House provided scant detail but insisted the individuals were gang members involved in drug trafficking, murder, extortion, and human smuggling.
Following the strike, Defense Secretary Pete Higgseth warned that the US would maintain its assets in the Caribbean and target anyone in those waters known to be a “narco-terrorist.” This operation represents a significant shift in US tactics for combating drug smuggling in the Western Hemisphere, serving as both a message to regional governments to cooperate and a direct warning to traffickers.
The legality of the strike is heavily contested. US officials refused to detail the legal authority used to justify the attack. Experts in international and maritime law argue the US acted illegally, as it is not a signatory to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which prohibits interfering with vessels in international waters.
Domestically, questions have been raised about whether the White House complied with US law, specifically the War Powers Resolution. While the Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war, it also designates the President as Commander-in-Chief. The extent of this power to authorize force against non-state actors like drug cartels, without congressional approval, remains a subject of intense legal debate.
The Venezuelan government’s official reaction has been limited to questioning the authenticity of the video evidence released by Washington. Meanwhile, the Tren de Aragua gang is central to the US narrative. The administration claims the group has expanded internationally, recruiting among the over 7 million Venezuelans who have fled the country, with hundreds of thousands reaching US soil. Trump consistently blames the gang for being a root cause of violence and illicit drug trade in American cities and repeats the allegation that it operates under Maduro’s control—a claim Venezuela vehemently denies.
A critical, often unstated, element of Trump’s regional strategy is countering Chinese influence in Latin America. Venezuela itself has received approximately $50 billion of the $150 billion in loans China extended to Latin American countries between 2007 and 2019. Furthermore, Panama, within Venezuela’s geopolitical sphere and a signatory to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, has been criticized by Trump for its canal fees and Chinese influence. This broader contest for hemispheric influence forms the backdrop of the pressure on Caracas.
Despite the bellicose rhetoric, a full-scale US military invasion of Venezuela is currently considered highly unlikely for several key reasons:
1. Strategic Blunder: US strategists likely recognize that an invasion would be a “colossal mistake,” meeting fierce armed resistance and lacking domestic popular support, contradicting Trump’s stated aversion to new foreign land wars.
2. International Entanglement: A military conflict could draw in other international actors, such as China, which would be keen to see the US bogged down in a regional quagmire.
Within the Trump administration, the objectives remain ambiguous, oscillating between genuine counter-narcotics efforts and a veiled attempt at regime change. The shadow of the 1989 US invasion of Panama to arrest leader Manuel Noriega on similar drug charges looms large, with one official noting, “This could be the sequel to the Noriega operation.”
The primary expectations within US policy circles are that Maduro may:
· Negotiate an exit from power.
· Be targeted for assassination by military elements seeking the bounty.
· Choose to normalize relations with the United States.
Short of a full invasion, US officials anticipate continued interception and possible sinking of suspected drug-running vessels off the Venezuelan coast. Targeted airstrikes on remote cocaine production facilities, cartel operations, or even Russian-made ammunition factories are also considered a possibility.Oil remains a central factor. Trump has already shown a pragmatic side by allowing Chevron to resume and expand its oil operations in Venezuela, providing the regime with a crucial financial lifeline. This suggests that while maximum pressure is applied, economic interests are never far from the calculus.
Ultimately, while the Trump administration has demonstrated a willingness to use decisive force, as seen with the targeting of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, many officials privately concede that successfully ousting Maduro is a perilous and potentially futile task. The future of this high-stakes standoff hinges on whether the strategy is one of coercive diplomacy or the prelude to a more direct and dangerous conflict.
Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist.
