Dr. Sodfa Mohamed Mahmoud‏‏

U.S. military movements in the Caribbean signal a new approach that goes beyond mere drug enforcement, reflecting Washington’s renewed desire to assert its influence in the Western Hemisphere. Operation Southern Spear seems more than just a security campaign; it represents a political framework that allows the U.S. to link drug trafficking with terrorism, thereby justifying the potential use of greater military force beyond its borders. The deployment of several U.S. warships, including the aircraft carrier <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-weighing-military-options-to-attack-venezuela-within-days-report/ar-AA1QnY3M?ocid=BingNewsSerp" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">USS Gerald R. Ford</a>, indicates that Washington seeks to demonstrate its power and deterrence capabilities near Venezuela, in a move reminiscent of its interventionist practices during the Cold War. Moreover, the CIA’s authorization to conduct covert operations, along with requests to develop plans for the use of force against <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/could-russia-end-up-fighting-us-forces-in-venezuela/ar-AA1QjqM3?ocid=BingNewsVerp" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">drug networks</a> in Venezuela, suggests that the United States is leaving open the possibility of escalation against the Venezuelan government, not just against smugglers.Multiple ObjectivesThere are several objectives that President Donald Trump’s administration may seek to achieve by intensifying its military presence in the Caribbean and escalating threats against Venezuela, including:1- Targeting Venezuelan Drug Gangs: The stated goal of U.S. military movements in the Caribbean is to pressure Venezuelan drug gangs. The Trump administration informed Congress that the United States is now in an "armed conflict" against drug gangs, beginning with its first strike on September 2, 2025, labeling the casualties as "unlawful combatants." The strikes quickly expanded from the Caribbean to the eastern <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/trumps-caribbean-campaign-data-behind-developing-conflict" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Pacific</a>. However, some members of Congress, as well as international legal experts and human rights advocates, argue that these strikes are "illegal" and that potential traffickers should be prosecuted, since the Trump administration has not provided public evidence of drugs on the targeted vessels or of their connection to <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/02/politics/timeline-us-strikes-caribbean-pacific-vis" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">drug</a> cartels.2- Changing the Venezuelan Ruling Regime: The United States does not recognize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as a legitimate leader and has offered a $50 million reward for information leading to his capture, citing his alleged links to drug trafficking to the <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/could-russia-end-up-fighting-us-forces-in-venezuela/ar-AA1QjqM3?ocid=BingNewsVerp" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">United States.</a> Trump has stated that he believes Maduro’s days in power are <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/video/trump-maduro-days-numbered-strikes-in-caribbean-continue/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">numbered</a>. Observers therefore believe that the deployment of the USS Ford signals Trump’s intention to pursue a regime-change strategy aimed at ousting Maduro, supported by influential figures within the U.S. administration, particularly Secretary of State Marco Rubio.3- Controlling Venezuelan Oil: The Venezuelan government claims that U.S. military movements in the Caribbean are merely a pretext for controlling the country’s wealth, which holds the largest oil reserves <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/investment/why-any-u-s-military-strike-on-venezuela-could-damage-america-s-fuel-supply-and-the-global-oil-market/ar-AA1Qrv1u?ocid=BingNewsVerp" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">in the world</a>. Reports indicate that the Trump administration is seeking preferential contracts for U.S. companies, redirecting Venezuelan oil exports from China to the U.S., and reducing Venezuela’s energy and mining agreements with Chinese, Russian, and Iranian firms.4- Escalating Pressure on Latin American Countries: Washington’s military actions in the Caribbean can be seen as a veiled warning to certain regional countries that the Trump administration believes are not doing enough to combat criminal gangs. Recently, the U.S. refused to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/09/16/nx-s1-5543055/colombia-drugs-u-s-trump-petro" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">certify</a> Colombia as a partner in the war on drugs for the first time since 1997 and imposed <a href="https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0292" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">sanctions</a> on its president, Gustavo Petro, over his alleged involvement in the drug trade. In response to U.S. pressure, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum confirmed her country’s interest in strengthening intelligence-sharing with the U.S., allowing Mexican forces to intercept and arrest alleged drug traffickers at sea rather than <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-s-escalating-venezuela-rhetoric-military-moves-alarm-region-s-leaders/ar-AA1QuFGC?ocid=BingNewsVerp" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">kill them.</a>5- Increasing U.S. Influence in Latin America: President Trump has demonstrated his willingness to use U.S. naval capabilities to achieve his geopolitical goals. The military buildup in the Caribbean is likely intended as a signal to both U.S. and Latin American audiences that his administration is committed to curbing the drug trade, and protecting U.S. borders. The move also aims to align Latin American interests with that of the United States, as well as underline Washington’s influence in the <a href="https://nationalinterest.org/feature/marco-rubio-building-pro-america-future-our-hemisphere-210706" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Western Hemisphere.</a>Determinants of Direct InterventionThe U.S. administration’s decision to undertake direct military intervention in Venezuela could be influenced by several factors, including:1- Balancing U.S. Military Options: The U.S. is currently focused on striking criminal gangs to slow the flow of drugs into the U.S. Meanwhile, it also seeks to signal to the Maduro regime that Washington has the ability to use force if it wishes. This approach gives the U.S. considerable flexibility: it can carry out one or more strikes against the gangs and then withdraw quickly, claiming to have dealt a significant blow to their activities without engaging in a prolonged confrontation. Targeting Maduro government sites would completely change the equation, as it would mean that Washington had shifted from "fighting gangs" to "pursuing regime change." In this case, a quick withdrawal would not be an option, and the U.S. would be forced to launch a broad and sustained air campaign aimed at weakening and destabilizing the Maduro regime. History shows that air strikes alone rarely achieve victory. They are usually effective only when accompanied by a <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/trumps-caribbean-campaign-data-behind-developing-conflict" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">ground presence</a> or a clear plan on the ground.2- U.S. Domestic Restrictions: The White House <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/designating-cartels-and-other-organizations-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially-designated-global-terrorists/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">designated</a> "Tren de Aragua," a Venezuelan criminal organization with <a href="https://hrf.org/latest/venezuelas-maduro-continues-to-use-tren-de-aragua-for-transnational-repression-kidnapping-assassination/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">alleged ties to Maduro</a>, as a foreign terrorist organization, providing a legal pretext to strike Venezuela under the banner of counterterrorism. However, the U.S. forces currently stationed near Venezuela (between <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-signals-decision-on-venezuela-as-us-military-buildup-intensifies-in-caribbean/ar-AA1QuzaG?ocid=BingNewsVerp" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">15,000 and 16,000 personnel</a>) would not be sufficient on their own for a ground invasion or amphibious landing. Such an operation would require <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/trumps-war-drug-cartels-interdiction-caribbean-or-invasion-venezuela" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">50,000</a> or more U.S. troops and would likely require explicit Congressional authorization. This may explain, at least in part, Trump’s attempt to leave room for political solutions to the crisis; on November 16, 2025, he indicated that Washington might hold discussions with Venezuelan President Maduro.3- The Nature of Russian Support for the Maduro Regime: Maduro has reportedly contacted Russia to request surface-to-air missile systems and components. Some reports claim that a Russian cargo plane recently arrived in Venezuela, possibly carrying <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/trumps-caribbean-campaign-data-behind-developing-conflict" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">military</a> supplies. However, Russia may be content to condemn Washington and support Caracas through political rhetoric. It may also share intelligence with Venezuela, but it is unlikely to send Russian troops to defend Caracas and Maduro, for fear of provoking Trump, who has recently sought rapprochement with <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/could-russia-end-up-fighting-us-forces-in-venezuela/ar-AA1QjqM3?ocid=BingNewsVerp" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Russia</a>.4- The Ability of Latin American Countries to Take a Unified Stance: The U.S. military escalation has prompted critical reactions from the governments of Colombia and Brazil. The Colombian government suspended intelligence-sharing with the United States. Meanwhile, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva stated that he does not want to see a "ground invasion." He said, "I told President Trump that political problems are not solved with guns. They are <a href="https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2025/11/13/venezuela/venezuela-frontera-colombia-brasil-guyana-orix" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">solved through dialogue</a>," offering to mediate in the crisis. However, it is unlikely that the countries in the region will adopt a unified stance on the current situation, given political divisions among their leaders and differing positions toward the Venezuelan president.Potential ImplicationsDirect U.S. military intervention in Venezuela could have significant implications, including:1- Internal chaos in Venezuela: An attempt to oust Maduro could spark civil war and unrest in Venezuela, amid uncertainty over the opposition’s readiness to fill the <a href="https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-donald-trump-is-not-set-on-venezuelan-regime-change" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">leadership vacuum</a> following Maduro’s departure. One of his loyalists may emerge as his successor and continue Maduro’s policies, or the army may seize power. Despite Venezuela’s limited military capabilities and weaker equipment compared to the U.S., the Venezuelan government plans to wage <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/venezuelan-military-preparing-guerrilla-response-in-case-of-us-attack/ar-AA1QeNrl?ocid=BingNewsVerp" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">guerrilla warfare</a> from dense jungles and mountain ranges in the event of a U.S. air or ground attack.2- Exacerbation of the illegal immigration problem: Venezuela’s neighbors would be at risk of destabilization as they are forced to cope with an influx of refugees. The instability in Venezuela is likely to increase the number of migrants fleeing to North America, undermining the Trump administration’s efforts to address illegal immigration.3- Disruption of regional security and stability: Due to Venezuela's extensive land borders with Colombia, Brazil, and Guyana, as well as its long maritime borders in the Caribbean, any military conflict within the country could quickly escalate into chaos spilling beyond its borders. In such a volatile scenario, drug gangs may seize the opportunity to expand their influence and operate more freely, while armed groups from neighboring countries could be drawn into Venezuela in search of safe havens, exacerbating instability and adding new security burdens for the entire region.4- Threats to US interests: Direct US military intervention in Venezuela could deepen popular resentment and encourage local resistance against US forces or political leaders backed by Washington, given Latin America's long history of opposition to repeated US military interventions. Washington’s rivals, such as China and Russia, both of which maintain strong ties with the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/22/china-russia-have-deep-financial-ties-venezuela-heres-whats-stake/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Maduro</a> regime, could support their proxies to bolster their influence in Venezuela and foment instability in the US’s "backyard." If Washington attacks Venezuela, American tourists and businesspeople in <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2025/11/14/venezuela-trump-latin-us-interventions/87265717007/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Latin America</a>, as well as energy infrastructure in the Caribbean, could become targets. Maduro has recently <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-has-suggested-he-s-made-a-decision-on-venezuela-military-operations-here-s-what-we-know/ar-AA1QvpK6?ocid=BingNewsVerp" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">warned</a> that US military intervention could lay the groundwork for what he described as "another Gaza," "a new Afghanistan," or "another Vietnam."In conclusion, the US appears militarily capable of carrying out air or missile strikes inside Venezuela at any time, but this does not mean that war is an inevitable option, especially given Trump’s recent statements about the possibility of negotiating with the Venezuelan president. Even if the Trump administration decides to target the Maduro regime directly, it would face domestic political obstacles, particularly since a large portion of Trump’s supporters oppose any new foreign military involvement. Furthermore, the sharp divisions within the Venezuelan opposition make it uncertain whether military pressure would lead to a stable transition of power. In the event of an escalation, Washington would likely begin with limited strikes targeting sensitive sites such as ports or airstrips linked to smuggling networks, aiming to gauge reactions before moving to a larger phase. Nevertheless, much uncertainty remains: Will the Maduro regime step down? Does the opposition have the capacity to govern if the regime collapses? Without answers, the Trump administration risks a prolonged and costly intervention, exactly what it has sought to avoid.

What Could Drive a U.S. Intervention in Venezuela?