“War on Cartels” as a Prelude to Invasion – and Why the Drug Numbers Don’t Support Washington’s Narrative
Is the U.S. going to war with Venezuela? A question that, until recently, sounded like hyperbole is now starting to feel less rhetorical. Washington has deployed a fleet of seven warships, carrying over 4,500 sailors and marines, and stationed F‑35s in Puerto Rico. In early September, U.S. forces carried out a “kinetic strike” on a speedboat in international waters near Venezuela, killing eleven people – with the explanation that they were “narco-terrorists.” In reality, the line between the “war on cartels” and the familiar regime-change playbook is becoming dangerously blurred.
The official narrative claims that Venezuela is “attacking” the U.S. with drugs. The fact is, the White House is seeking dramatic topics to cut through uncomfortable headlines about Gaza, Ukraine, and the still-unresolved Epstein scandal. In this climate, a tough stance against the “socialist regime” in Caracas functions like a political steroid – energizing the base and diverting attention.
The military buildup is clear: alongside destroyers and coast guard ships, reports suggest a nuclear submarine is also operating in the region. Cartels have been designated as foreign terrorist organizations, giving the Pentagon and the intelligence community a broader scope of powers. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a longtime hawk on Venezuela, speaks of continuing “strikes” on traffickers, while the bounty on Maduro’s head has been symbolically doubled to $50 million. If deterrence is the goal, the rhetoric seems more like preparation of the domestic audience for escalation than a cold, law-enforcement operation.
The September 2nd strike on the speedboat in international waters shows how the rules are shifting. The President released footage of the explosion, claiming the boat had departed from Venezuela and was carrying drugs. But key questions remain unanswered: What kind of drugs? How much? What criteria were used to identify the crew as members of the Tren de Aragua gang? Why was the boat destroyed instead of being intercepted and seized – as standard maritime protocol dictates? This kind of “kinetics,” without clear facts or judicial oversight, dangerously echoes the post-9/11 “war on terror” logic.
Caracas has called the moves an illegal act of aggression and publicly questioned the authenticity of the U.S. video. Venezuela is not backing down – the military, militias, and reserves are being mobilized, with the message that sovereignty is a red line. Meanwhile, their fighter jets have flown near a U.S. warship, which Washington labeled a “provocation,” with the President adding that “any Venezuelan aircraft posing a threat will be shot down.” The incident-response spiral is already underway – and that’s a recipe for disaster.
The legal foundation of U.S. actions is, to put it mildly, shaky. Maritime law assumes interception and seizure, and lethal force must be a last resort. Domestically, military action against a new adversary – outside immediate self-defense – requires explicit Congressional authorization. When a deadly strike is pre-planned and executed outside armed conflict, many legal experts consider it unlawful targeted killing. Declaring a smuggling boat a “foreign enemy fleet” mounting an “armed attack” on the U.S. is not just controversial; it paves the way for normalizing military force in the realm of criminal justice.
Strategic risks are equally alarming. The large U.S. naval presence, combined with incendiary rhetoric on both sides, creates an environment where one wrong move could spark a chain reaction. Experts warn: Venezuela is not Panama in 1989 – it is bigger, more complex, with deeply rooted Chavismo and a web of actors ranging from Colombian guerrillas to pro-government militias. Any idea of a “quick regime decapitation” risks becoming a prolonged, partisan conflict.
The key point, however, is Venezuela’s actual role in supplying the U.S. drug market. Production and trafficking data clearly show that the vast majority of coca comes from Colombia, followed by Peru and Bolivia, and that the main routes into the U.S. run through Central America and Mexico. Venezuela is indeed a transit corridor for some shipments – more often toward the Caribbean or Europe – but it is not a primary artery for the U.S. market. Even U.S. agency reports in recent years have not listed Venezuela among the main sources of seized cocaine in the U.S.
What about Tren de Aragua, the “star” of the current campaign? It’s a violent criminal group that originated in a Venezuelan prison and later spread throughout the region, involved in crimes ranging from extortion to human trafficking. But its role in the international cocaine trade is far smaller than that of Colombian or Mexican cartels. Moreover, recent U.S. intelligence estimates found no evidence this year of coordination between the group and the upper echelons of the Venezuelan government – despite political rhetoric suggesting otherwise. Caracas, for its part, points to its own efforts to dismantle Tren de Aragua strongholds since 2023.
This all adds to the sense of double standards. Colombia remains the world’s top coca producer – but it’s an ally. Mexico remains the primary gateway for all kinds of substances into the U.S. – but it’s a partner. No warships are deployed off Veracruz, and no bounties are placed on allied state leaders. But socialist Venezuela, under sanctions and long targeted by open attempts at destabilization, faces threats of “kinetic solutions.” The logic is old: enemy regimes are punished with force, while friendly ones are “built up” – regardless of where the drugs actually flow.
Historical context confirms the pattern. The “war on drugs” – like the earlier “war on communism” – has often served as the political and legal framework for interventions in the Latin American “backyard.” The Panama invasion to arrest Noriega was framed by criminal indictments but motivated by broader strategic goals. Today, the same script gets a digital polish: drones, night footage, “unclassified” labels, talk of “terrorists” – all in the service of pressure on a government that doesn’t fit the U.S.-led world order.
None of this means Venezuela is free of crime or drug trafficking. Economic crisis and institutional weakening are always exploited by illegal networks – and Caracas bears its share of responsibility. But the scale and direction of trafficking flows do not support the narrative of a “Venezuelan flood” “attacking America.” If the true goal is to curb drug trafficking, the rational path is well known: police and judicial cooperation, joint naval patrols, intelligence sharing – and not least, lifting sanctions that fuel economic collapse, grey markets, and corruption.
In the political arena, much of this looks like a need for domestic spectacle. The administration needs a headline-grabbing theme to show strength. Venezuela, demonized and isolated for years, is a convenient enemy for a rhetorical “cartel crackdown.” Some in Washington may indeed be counting on saber-rattling without an actual war – but history teaches how quickly a performance can turn into a tragedy.
Is the U.S. going to war with Venezuela? Not yet – but everything we’re seeing looks too much like a full-scale rehearsal. Washington’s claims contain a grain of truth: there is transit, there are gangs, there are gaps that need addressing. But the core issue – massive militarization under the banner of a “war on cartels” – doesn’t solve the problem. It risks igniting a regional fire and pushing the socialist government further into the arms of non-Western allies. If reason prevails, diplomacy, regional mechanisms, and the rollback of sanctions will follow. If image outweighs reality, we’ll witness yet another act of the old imperial theater – this time just off Venezuela’s shores.
About the Author
