The United States has intensified its military presence in the Caribbean, ostensibly to target drug trafficking operations linked to the Maduro regime in Venezuela. However, analysts speculate that the underlying motive may be more strategic: to undermine Nicolás Maduro’s authoritarian rule. Over the past month, the military launched strikes against four boats tied to cartel networks, as President Trump escalates pressure on the Venezuelan government.
Defensive posturing raises an important question: Is the U.S. preparing for direct conflict with Caracas? The short answer from military analysts is likely not. A ground invasion would necessitate a substantial troop presence—estimates vary between 50,000 and 150,000 soldiers. Currently, only about 10,000 American troops are stationed in Latin America, according to a senior defense official cited in the New York Times.
Mark Cancian, a senior defense adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, stated, “The U.S. just doesn’t have enough forces there.” The military capabilities currently in place are likely intended for precise strikes against either the cartels or the Maduro regime, with Cancian betting on the cartels. Still, he acknowledges that a strike against Maduro’s government could also be a possibility.
This tactic reflects what some experts define as a modern form of coercive diplomacy. As Brandan Buck from the Cato Institute explains, “It sort of looks like we’re in the throes of a 21st-century version of gunboat diplomacy.” The goal appears to be nudging a transition in power away from Maduro without resorting to a full-scale invasion.
The pressure is mounting on Maduro this year. The administration raised the bounty on him to a staggering $50 million, signaling increased frustration with his stubborn resistance to relinquishing power. Moreover, recent reports indicate that diplomatic discussions with Caracas have ceased, while the Pentagon maintains its narrative that the operation is about counter-narcotics.
Yet analysts point out that Venezuela’s crucial role in the drug trade complicates this mission. Ryan Berg, who directs the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that Washington’s evolving strategy indicates a readiness to confront the Maduro regime. “There appears to be growing appetite to confront Maduro’s regime directly,” he said, hinting at the possibility of land-based strikes.
The legal groundwork for such actions is reportedly being laid out as well. Berg explains, “The clearest signal yet is the legal justification for a non-international armed conflict,” suggesting that various departments are preparing to build a case for direct military engagement.
While publicly promoting the operation as a safeguard against drug trafficking into the U.S., analysts point out that targeting cartel operations could inadvertently destabilize a regime that heavily relies on those same networks. Brent Sadler, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, commented, “The Maduro regime is reliant on the cartels to maintain its bottom line and stay in power.” Weakening these connections could ultimately render Maduro’s government unsustainable.
As the situation evolves, Cancian warns that America’s expanding military presence could imply a long-term engagement. “This thing may end up being larger or go on longer than expected,” he noted, citing how strikes against inland cartel operations could inadvertently hit government targets, blurring the lines between combating narcotraffickers and attacking the regime.
Political tensions also exist at home. Democrats have accused Trump officials of attempting to embroil the nation in another protracted conflict. Recently, Republican senators thwarted an effort to curtail Trump’s war powers, emphasizing that proper congressional approval would be necessary for any military actions.
The risk of retaliation by the Maduro regime lingers. Venezuela’s conventional military capabilities may be weak, but analysts warn that alliances with cartels or proxy groups could facilitate indirect aggression. Cancian cautioned, “Maduro could facilitate their retaliation,” indicating that attacks could be aimed at American citizens or DEA agents operating in the region.
Interestingly, support for Maduro among neighboring nations appears to be waning. Many regional players would welcome his departure. Berg remarked that “many would be secretly happy to see him go,” noting the split in regional alliances, with some leaders voicing their disapproval of U.S. military action, while others see Maduro as a looming threat.
Venezuelan political activist Erik Suarez highlighted the growing divide within South America. “We can divide South America [into] two sides,” he expressed, referring to leaders like Lula in Brazil and Petro in Colombia aligning with Maduro, while others, including nations such as Ecuador, Peru, and Guyana, perceive Venezuela as a threat due to issues like immigration and drug trafficking.
Suarez emphasized that the Maduro regime’s connection to armed factions and terror groups poses a significant concern for U.S. security, stressing that, “Venezuela represents a huge national security threat.” This perspective resonates with many opposition leaders in the U.S. and Latin Americans who fled past regimes, sharing a view that keeping Maduro in power is a long-term danger.
Even if the U.S. manages to topple Maduro, rebuilding the war-torn nation will be an arduous task. The Venezuelan opposition, led by figures like María Corina Machado, faces the daunting responsibility of stabilizing a country facing severe challenges. “The opposition has had months to prepare for governing,” Berg noted, indicating that plans for Venezuela’s recovery have already been formulated.
"*" indicates required fields
