Beyond the ‘War on Drugs’: The New Architecture of Power in the Caribbean Sea

Translated by Jennifer Di Giacomo

The U.S.–Venezuela crisis enters a new phase: from the “Drug Boat War” to power politics and the risk of regional escalation

A far more complex picture than a simple counter-narcotics operation is taking shape in the Caribbean. The intensification of U.S. military actions against alleged drug-smuggling vessels, combined with the growing presence of the U.S. Navy and the increasingly sharp reactions from Nicolás Maduro, suggests that the crisis between Washington and Caracas is entering a more unstable—and potentially explosive—phase.

Although the White House continues to frame the campaign as an extension of the “war on drugs,” many surrounding dynamics point in a different direction: a reorganization of U.S. strategy in the Western Hemisphere, mounting competition with extra-regional powers, and a renewed attempt by Washington to reassert its centrality in an area where Russia, China, and Iran have gained significant influence in recent years.

A Controversial Operation: 70 dead and many unanswered questions

According to U.S. Defense Department figures, the latest strike on 10^th November against a suspected drug-trafficking vessel left three people dead, bringing the total number of casualties to roughly seventy since the campaign began in September. Eighteen vessels have been destroyed so far, ranging from small boats to a semisubmersible craft.

The official narrative claims the targets were linked to “Designated Terrorist Organizations,” but no public evidence has been provided yet to substantiate this assertion. The lack of transparency has generated skepticism among regional observers and prompted some analysts to argue that the operation may constitute extrajudicial actions conducted at—or beyond—the margins of “preventive self-defense.”

Further ambiguity arises from accounts by local communities and regional governments, which suggest that some of those killed may have been civilian fishermen. These reports revive historic suspicions about unilateral U.S. interventionism in Latin America.

A military presence not seen since the 1980s

The naval campaign must be understood within a broader strategic framework. The United States has deployed six Navy vessels, F-35 fighters in Puerto Rico, the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group—the world’s largest aircraft carrier—and strategic bombers conducting “show-of-force” flights near Venezuelan waters.

Such a posture has no precedent since the 1989 invasion of Panama. The parallel is telling: then, as now, Washington invoked the language of counter-narcotics to justify escalating pressure on a Latin American leader.

The congress has also played a key role. The Senate rejected a resolution that would have curtailed President Trump’s authority, effectively allowing the administration to continue without additional oversight. Legal advisers are now examining expanded rules of engagement—an indication that the so-called “drug boat war” may be only the opening act of a broader strategic design.

Maduro’s counter-message: “Peace, yes. War, no. Never.”

In response to the escalation, Maduro has adopted a distinctive communication strategy. On 17^th November, during his weekly TV show, he addressed international audiences—and Donald Trump personally—speaking in English:

“Dialogue, yes. Peace, yes. War, no. Never, never war.”

The goal is clear: position Caracas as the aggrieved party, besieged by unjustified military pressure. Operationally, however, the government has mobilized roughly 200,000 soldiers, preparing the country for a potential defensive war should open conflict erupt.

The “War on Drugs” as a geopolitical tool

Operation Southern Spear follows a long-standing U.S. tradition of using anti-drug narratives to frame broader strategic initiatives, a pattern already visible during the Reagan era. Many analysts therefore suspect that counter-narcotics rhetoric is a pretext.

Routes for fentanyl—the deadliest drug in the United States—do not run through the Caribbean but primarily via Mexico and the Pacific. This raises serious questions about the coherence between official objectives and the chosen theater of operations. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has also expressed doubts, noting that her government has seen no evidence linking Maduro to the Sinaloa cartel.

Russia, China, and Iran: the triangle that alarms Washington

The crisis cannot be understood without considering the erosion of U.S. influence in Latin America. Venezuela sits at the centre of this shift. Russia remains the country’s main arms supplier, with local production of military systems now entrenched. China has invested billions in Venezuela’s energy infrastructure and supplied military equipment, including radar systems. Iran has provided expertise for Venezuela’s expanding drone program.

These partnerships are a direct consequence of years of U.S. sanctions and economic isolation. For Washington, Venezuela has become a strategic node in a larger global contest.

What does Washington really want?

Amid mounting military tension, three strategic U.S. objectives appear to transcend the official anti-drug justification:

First, containing Chinese and Russian geopolitical expansion
Washington seeks to curb extra-regional power projection in a maritime space it considers vital to national security.

Second, reinforcing the primacy of the U.S. dollar
A significant share of Venezuelan oil is traded in Chinese yuan—an erosion of the petrodollar system the U.S. is determined to reverse.

Third, weakening and ultimately replacing the Maduro government
The expansive naval presence and sanctions regime are tools aimed at constraining a leader viewed as defiant—and sitting atop the world’s largest oil reserves.

Those reserves underpin energy links connecting Venezuela with China, Russia, and Iran, bypassing dollar influence. Maritime blockades and sanctions are intended to paralyze those exports and restore U.S. leverage in global oil markets.

Possible Trajectories: Three Scenarios for the Crisis

1. Prolonged Militarization and the “normalization of the abnormal”

An open conflict is not inevitable. A more likely outcome is the consolidation of a semi-permanent U.S. military presence. The deployment of the Gerald R. Ford, strategic bombers, and F-35s—combined with the destruction of eighteen vessels and roughly seventy casualties—points to a strategy of sustained pressure that stops short of casus belli.

For Venezuela, this means chronic alert, high economic and political costs, and deeper social strain.

2. Regionalization without direct conflict

A second scenario involves broader diplomatic involvement by neighbouring countries. Mexico’s skepticism regarding U.S. claims could help open a wider negotiation space, making the crisis less strictly bilateral.

Regional actors may push for:

• greater transparency on U.S. operations,
• multilateral consultations,
• renewed debate within regional institutions.

Washington could face difficulty securing broad political support, even while retaining military freedom of action.

3. Venezuelan internal resilience and a long symbolic standoff

Maduro’s mobilization of 200,000 troops and his English-language outreach signal a dual strategy: domestic deterrence and international narrative building.

The crisis could evolve into a protracted symbolic confrontation:

• Washington frames its actions as a security mission with expanding objectives.
• Caracas depicts them as unjustified aggression, especially given the absence of public evidence linking targets to terrorism.

No war, no de-escalation—just a long battle of political legitimacy.

A fragile balance in a region that no longer accepts old automatic alignments

The new phase of the U.S.–Venezuela crisis does not simply recycle old interventionist or anti-drug templates—it updates and intensifies them in a region that has changed profoundly.

The U.S. has shown an uncommon determination in deploying strategic assets in the Western Hemisphere, backed by a Congress willing to grant latitude to the executive branch. Venezuela, however, is no longer isolated but embedded in political-military networks involving Russia, China, and Iran.

The crisis is not yet sliding toward war, but neither is it headed for resolution. It is settling into a gray zone of permanent exception—extrajudicial operations, expanding rules of engagement, and symbolic mobilizations replacing traditional diplomacy.

Latin America, moreover, no longer reacts as it once did. Caribbean and regional governments assert greater autonomy and do not automatically accept Washington’s narrative. This may be the most significant change of all: the U.S. can no longer rely on built-in consensus, and Venezuela—despite its vulnerabilities—can exploit fractures in the inter-American system.

The result is an increasingly unstable equilibrium, where any incident—a sunken boat, a rhetorical flare-up, a miscalculation—could become the breaking point. Not a declared war, but a permanent risk spreading quietly across the emerging architecture of power in the Americas.

Mondo Internazionale APS - All rights reserved ® 2025