12/9 – International Relations News & Geopolitical Analysis

Since early September, the United States has pursued a rapidly intensifying campaign of air strikes against vessels it claims are involved in maritime drug trafficking across the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. What began as targeted interdictions has evolved into a sprawling military effort that has already destroyed more than 20 boats and killed at least 87 people, prompting growing concerns across Latin America and beyond. Officials in Washington insist the strikes are part of a larger strategy to dismantle drug-smuggling networks. Yet the scale of the military deployment, the geographic reach of operations, and the administration’s increasingly direct threats against Venezuela’s government have fueled speculation that the campaign is intended to pave the way for coercive regime change in the South American nation. 

Military Build-Up & Escalations at Sea 

The first major signs of escalation emerged in late August, when the United States began quietly shifting personnel and assets to the Caribbean. Air force teams arrived in Puerto Rico to refurbish a long-abandoned naval base and restore its airstrip. By mid autumn, warships, bombers, fighters, and surveillance aircraft were circulating throughout waters overseen by the Pentagon’s Southern Command. On November 11th, the navy announced that the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, had arrived in the region accompanied by three destroyers. Observers immediately noted that this represented the largest American maritime concentration in the Caribbean since the Cuban missile crisis.

The operational tempo heightened further as aircraft executed a steady rhythm of reconnaissance flights, dry-run strike simulations, and maritime interdictions. The White House framed these actions as part of a broadened mandate to confront “narco-terrorist” groups. 

The first lethal strike occurred on September 2nd when American forces hit a Venezuelan boat in the Caribbean, killing 11 people believed by Washington to be members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. From that point forward, the tempo accelerated. Four separate vessels were destroyed in the eastern Pacific on October 27th, taking 14 lives and marking the deadliest day of the campaign.

In total, 22 confirmed strikes have been carried out across both bodies of water. The most recent attack, on December 4th, killed four men aboard a vessel in the eastern Pacific that the administration said was carrying narcotics to the United States. The government has described the broader mission as “Operation Southern Spear” and has entrusted many of the strikes to Joint Special Operations Command, which controls elite units including Delta Force and the Navy SEALs.

The administration argues that these operations qualify as lawful armed conflict. President Trump has officially designated the targeted cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and treats boat crews as enemy combatants. Legal scholars across the political spectrum dispute this characterization, warning that the administration’s approach bypasses domestic and international law. 

Controversies surrounding the issue have escalated further after the Washington Post reported that commanders overseeing the September 2nd strike observed two survivors clinging to wreckage. According to the report, Admiral Frank Bradley ordered a second missile strike that killed the unarmed men. International law prohibits the killing of individuals who are out of combat and pose no threat. The allegation has triggered accusations of war crimes and strained cooperation with allies. 

A Broader Strategic Objective

Although the administration continues to insist that the primary target is drug trafficking, the scope of American deployments suggests a more expansive objective. Over 15% of the United States Navy is now positioned in the region, including more than 10k sailors and the world’s most advanced carrier group. Pilots have been conducting simulated strike missions on Venezuelan targets. The arrival of an American destroyer in Trinidad and Tobago in late October, only 11 km from Venezuelan shores, further underscored the proximity of military assets to Caracas.

President Trump has even warned international airlines to treat Venezuelan airspace as fully closed. He has also stated that the United States will conduct strikes on Venezuelan territory “very soon” and confirmed that he has authorized covert action activities inside the country. On October 15th he publicly acknowledged these covert missions. Several senior officials have hinted that the introduction of land strikes is under review.

The design appears reminiscent of the war on terror approach. The administration’s language closely resembles the rhetoric once used against jihadist organizations. Hegseth has argued that drug trafficking groups have killed more Americans than al-Qaeda and should be treated accordingly. 

The Venezuela Question

Analysts suggest that the acceleration of operations coincides with renewed interest in removing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power. While the administration is unlikely to launch a traditional ground invasion, it appears committed to coercive pressure backed by targeted strikes. Officials believe that sustained military action may persuade Maduro’s inner circle or the armed forces to negotiate terms of exit. To reinforce this message, American envoys have quietly circulated offers of amnesty and assurances aimed at Venezuelan military leaders, promising support for modernization if a new government takes power and avoiding any wholesale purge of the officer corps.

The administration’s strategy also aligns with a revived interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The second Trump Administration’s National Security Strategy, released last week, declares that the United States will enforce a “Trump Corollary” aimed at preventing adversarial influence in the Western Hemisphere. Officials highlight Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua as the last hostile governments in the region and justify a more forceful posture to remove openings for Russian and Chinese involvement. 

A Shift in Global Priorities

The prioritization of the Western Hemisphere raises broader strategic questions. Resources channeled into the Caribbean and Pacific must come from somewhere, and the United States is already stretched across Europe, the Indo Pacific, and the Middle East. A more assertive hemispheric stance risks pulling attention away from longstanding security architectures in Europe and the Indo Pacific that have anchored American influence since the end of WWII.

Despite these concerns, the administration believes the domestic political costs are low. The president’s calculus appears guided by the belief that the public will tolerate foreign operations as long as American casualties remain minimal. The success of a previous lightning strike operation, known as Operation Midnight Hammer in Iran, has reinforced confidence in high intensity but low footprint military action.

Analysis: 

The unfolding campaign represents a profound shift in American foreign and security policy. For decades, maritime drug interdiction was treated primarily as a matter for law enforcement and international policing partnerships. The current approach reframes narcotics trafficking as a theater of armed conflict, with implications that stretch well beyond counternarcotics efforts.

Several elements signal a long term change. The deployment of an aircraft carrier strike group, the renovation of military infrastructure in Puerto Rico, and the integration of special operations units suggest an operational presence that is more than temporary. The decision to apply counterterrorism tactics to criminal groups risks blurring the distinction between combatants and civilians, creating significant humanitarian and legal challenges. The conduct and legality of the strikes have already provoked controversy that could intensify if land targets in Venezuela are hit. 

A conventional ground invasion of Venezuela remains highly unlikely, as it would seem contradictory and optically inconsistent with the president’s “America First” messaging, which emphasizes avoiding prolonged foreign entanglements and maintaining an image of restraint and a broker of peace across the world. Instead, the administration seems to recognize and believe that, as long as American casualties are avoided, the public is willing to tolerate assertive displays of military power abroad.

At the geopolitical level, the administration’s embrace of a resurrected Monroe Doctrine marks a decisive return to sphere-of-influence thinking. This orientation prioritizes dominance in the Western Hemisphere as essential to American security and strategic identity. The intention appears to be the restoration of a regional order in which no adversarial powers can gain footholds. Whether such a doctrine is sustainable in a multipolar world is uncertain. It could also undermine existing alliances and create new vulnerabilities as attention shifts away from Europe and Asia.

Most significantly, the administration seems convinced that decisive action against Venezuela will demonstrate American resolve and deter rivals. Yet historical precedent suggests caution. Efforts to force political regime change from abroad often produce unpredictable outcomes, and the humanitarian and political cost to Venezuelans could be severe. While the administration argues that the present circumstances differ from past interventions, the long term consequences of covert operations and targeted strikes remain difficult to forecast. 

America now stands at a moment where tactical military success risks evolving into a far broader regional confrontation. Whether this strategy will reshape regional dynamics or unleash a cycle of escalation will depend on choices made in the coming weeks.