The official story is one the world has heard before. The United States government claims a massive naval armada patrolling the southern Caribbean—the largest such deployment in decades—is there to interdict the flow of narcotics. Yet, the presence of 10,000 soldiers aboard a fleet featuring a nuclear submarine, destroyers, and a missile cruiser tells another, more familiar story: one of raw geopolitical power, hemispheric control, and the relentless pursuit of regime change.
This military escalation has already had lethal consequences. In what constitutes extrajudicial killings, at least seven boats allegedly transporting drugs have been bombed, resulting in the deaths of over 32 individuals. The rhetoric from Washington has grown increasingly belligerent, with the Trump administration threatening direct military action. The Pentagon has reportedly drawn up plans for strikes inside Venezuela, and President Trump has authorised the CIA to conduct lethal covert operations, complementing the existing $50 million bounty on President Nicolás Maduro’s head.
The justification for this posture, as articulated by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a longtime Venezuela hawk, is that Maduro leads a “designated narco-terrorist organisation,” the “Cartel de los Soles,” and is personally responsible for trafficking drugs into the United States.
A Fabricated Pretext
This official narrative, however, is a house of cards. The existence of a government-run “Cartel de los Soles” with a commanding role in the transnational cocaine trade has been largely debunked by experts and intelligence reports. A classified National Intelligence Council assessment reportedly concluded that Maduro does not control any drug trafficking organisation. Tellingly, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s own 2024 National Drug Threat Assessment does not even mention Venezuela as a primary concern.
While criminal groups like the “Tren de Aragua” operate within Venezuela, their capacity is a fraction of the powerful cartels in Colombia, Mexico, or Ecuador. There is no denying that some drugs transit through Venezuela, but the volume is marginal compared to the torrent flowing through South America’s Pacific Coast routes. Furthermore, Venezuela plays no role in the production and export of synthetic drugs like fentanyl, the primary driver of the U.S. opioid crisis. If the Trump administration were genuinely intent on combating drug trafficking, targeting Venezuela would be a strategic and logical fallacy.
Political Theatre or Prelude to Invasion?
So, what is the true objective of this dramatic military build-up? Initially, it appeared to be a form of political theatre—an opportunity for President Trump to project a “tough on crime” image for his domestic MAGA base, for whom crime remains a primary concern. The spectacle of blowing up small boats in the Caribbean provides powerful imagery, albeit with tragic human cost, in the absence of any serious U.S. drug policy addressing consumption or money laundering.
Another interpretation was that it was a cynical bluff to appease the neoconservatives in his administration and hardline Venezuelan opposition figures, like Nobel Laureate Maria Corina Machado, who have called for foreign intervention. By projecting toughness, Trump could placate these factions while simultaneously securing Venezuela’s oil resources, as evidenced by his recent granting of an operating licence to Chevron.
However, the sheer scale of the military deployment and the decision to sever all diplomatic backchannels with Caracas suggest this is more than a stunt. The pursuit of regime change through military means is emerging as the most plausible explanation.
The Rubio Doctrine and the Return of Gunboat Diplomacy
For Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his fellow Florida Republicans, toppling the Venezuelan government is a generational objective, rooted more in political passion and fantasies of ideological victory than in cold strategic calculus. Having seen U.S. sanctions, coup attempts, and the support for a parallel government in 2019 all fail to dislodge Maduro, Rubio appears to have concluded that direct military force is the only remaining option.
This represents a stark return to gunboat diplomacy, a throwback to the early 20th century when the U.S. frequently intervened in the Caribbean. In this new multipolar world, which even Rubio acknowledges, the United States is reasserting its traditional sphere of influence, wielding a “big stick” in its own hemisphere to counter the growing influence of rivals like Russia and China.
The Grim Scenarios: From Air Strikes to Quagmire
The asymmetry of power between the U.S. and Venezuela is vast, but an invasion would not be a simple replay of Panama (1989) or Haiti (1994). Venezuela, with a population of 28 million—comparable to Iraq in 2003—presents a far more complex challenge. Chavismo, even weakened, commands a sizable and ardent base. Any intervention would almost certainly trigger a fierce, protracted resistance and insurgency, fuelled by widespread nationalist sentiment against foreign occupation.
Given the high risks of a ground invasion, a campaign of limited air strikes appears more likely—a “Libya-style” or “shock-and-awe-lite” option designed to decapitate the regime. However, the Venezuelan military has proven remarkably resilient, weathering multiple coup attempts and destabilisation campaigns with increasing loyalty. There is no guarantee that bombing would trigger the mass uprising or military putsch that Rubio desires.
This is the slippery slope: if the first strike fails, regime-change advocates will likely demand another, and then another. Convinced the government is on the brink, they would pressure Trump to escalate, potentially leading to the creation of an armed proxy force. Such a conflict would flood an already volatile region with weapons, empowering the very criminal organisations the operation was supposedly launched to combat. Groups on Venezuela’s borders with Colombia would thrive in the chaos, creating a nightmare of violence and instability for all of Latin America.
The Inescapable Irony and the Looming Catastrophe
The bitter irony is profound: an operation justified by anti-narcotics rhetoric would create the perfect conditions for drug-trafficking organisations to expand their power and reach.
The human cost would be catastrophic. U.S. sanctions alone have contributed to a humanitarian crisis that pushed over seven million Venezuelans to flee their country. A full-blown war would unleash a refugee crisis of unimaginable scale, dwarfing the current exodus and further destabilizing neighbouring countries like Brazil and Colombia, who have already strongly opposed military intervention.
The warships off the coast of Venezuela are not just fighting ghosts; they are anchoring the first act of a potential tragedy. The escalation is a gamble with the lives of millions, threatening to plunge Venezuela and the wider region into a conflagration that would bring immense suffering, create a political quagmire for the United States, and achieve the exact opposite of its stated goals. The path to war is a slippery one, and the United States is taking a dangerous step onto the slope.
Support Dawat Media Center
If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future. Support the Dawat Media Center from as little as $/€10 – it only takes a minute. If you can, please consider supporting us with a regular amount each month. Thank you
DNB Bank AC # 0530 2294668
Account for international payments: NO15 0530 2294 668
Vipps: #557320
Support Dawat Media Center
If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future. Support the Dawat Media Center from as little as $/€10 – it only takes a minute. If you can, please consider supporting us with a regular amount each month. Thank you
DNB Bank AC # 0530 2294668
Account for international payments: NO15 0530 2294 668
Vipps: #557320
Comments are closed.