Continued attacks on claimed drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean and mixed messages about legalities have sparked questions about escalated U.S. military intervention against Venezuela and what such warfare could look like—and whether regime change is the ultimate goal.
On Monday, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced[1] attacks on two vessels in the Pacific Ocean and in proximity to Venezuela, saying on social media that six people in total aboard were killed for alleged trafficking of narcotics. It follows a trend of similar killings by the U.S. military on Venezuelan vessels that began in September, with 19 attacks as of Nov. 10 that have killed at least 75 people, according to the Associated Press.
The claims of narco-trafficking on behalf of Hegseth and administration officials has been met with skepticism from lawmakers, including Republicans who have questioned[2] the consistency and reasoning for attacks that have never been congressionally approved.
The White House previously told Military.com[3] that legislators have been privy to what’s happening regarding Venezuela and been part of a series of meetings; however, lawmakers like Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) told Military.com[4] that the administration has “counted the same briefing multiple times.”
'Show of Force'
Tensions have certainly risen in the region since late summer, Ret. Marine Col. Mark Cancian, currently a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Defense and Security Department, told Military.com[5].
He said the Defense Department’s operations were initially focused on counter-drug trafficking, which he acknowledged as a “strong theme” through the administration's public remarks on the matter. But bringing in aircraft carriers, for example, could be viewed as escalation for strikes against Venezuela that could lead to land-based warfare.
As of now, he said U.S. forces in place are not adequate for a land invasion; however, they are equipped with Tomahawk missiles for example that could be “plenty adequate” for long-range air strikes.
“The character seems to have changed,” Cancian said. “Now, it's possible that those strikes would only go against cartel targets on the ground in Venezuela. But it could easily also focus on the regime, and separating cartels and the regime isn't always that easy.”
John Erath, senior policy director for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, told Military.com[6] that the presence of the U.S. aircraft carrier stationed near Trinidad and Tobago carries with it no military justification.
“You're not talking about taking on an opposing Navy or anything spectacular like that,” Erath said. “You're not talking about a major natural disaster or any of the things that aircraft carriers are designed for. So, it's just a show of force.
“And it's a little bit ironic,” he added, “Because Venezuela has used the same sort of show of force strategy with its neighbors, with Guyana and Colombia in the past. This is just showing that there's a bigger bully on the block.”
'Intimidation' and Regime Change
Last month, President Donald Trump suggested that land warfare could be the next iteration due to the U.S. “almost totally stopping” drug trafficking by sea.
There was a second failed vote last week in the U.S. Senate (49-51) to require congressional approval for continued strikes in the Caribbean and possibly in other capacities, with all but two Republican senators against the measure arguing that Trump has the authority to prevent drugs from entering the U.S.
Both Cancian and Erath cited an “intimidation” factor at the heart of the United States’ aggression, with the former mentioning reports of how the Trump administration authorized the CIA to covertly inspect Venezuela as a method of his eventual removal.
“I've heard the theory that the administration is hoping for the regime to disintegrate so that we could come in and pick up the pieces, bring in the opposition, and have them form a new government,” Cancian said. “I don't know if that's their plan, but what they're doing is consistent with that.”
Potential Perils
There are two potential perils that could threaten the U.S. if warfare escalates, according to Cancian. One is a failed state that could ultimately fall into deeper societal chaos and potentially open the door for new cartel actors propped by remnants of the former Chavez regime.
The other is the risk that the opposition party can control Caracas but not the whole country, he added.
“And the United States might have to help them do that,” Cancian said. “The third risk is that the cartels strike back. So far, they've kept their heads down and tried to stay out of the way.
“But you can imagine them striking at U.S. service members or government officials? … And you could imagine that if there were an incident where three or four DEA agents were gunned down by cartel hitmen? That would change the complexion of the operation. And, of course, the president is vengeful so you could imagine that he might go after them.”
Erath questioned the broader operation of how it’s being subsidized, if it violates international laws, and the purpose of putting all of these military assets in the region.
“The amount of force that's being deployed to the region is well in excess of anything reasonable for the stated purpose,” Erath said. “Maybe if you are concerned about the Venezuelan Navy, you need to have a destroyer. But really, I don't see a case for much more than that.
“If you're talking about interdicting the drug trade, then that's what the Coast Guard does, so you'd be tasking the Coast Guard to do that. … But like I keep saying, the whole thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense.”
© Copyright 2025 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[7].
