The Game of Chess between the US and Venezuela Continues
In these final months of 2025, the tension between the United States and Venezuela has reached unprecedented levels, indicated by U.S. military deployment in the Caribbean and accusations of drug trafficking against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Led by Donald Trump’s administration, this clash has generated speculation about Washington’s true intentions: Is it an anti-drug operation or an excuse for regime change?
The escalation goes back to the directive signed by Trump in July 2025 that authorized the use of military force against Latin American cartels designated as “terrorist organizations,” including the Cartel of the Suns, directly linked by Washington to Maduro. Since then, the U.S. has deployed an impressive naval force in the Caribbean, with destroyers, a nuclear submarine, reconnaissance aircraft and a little less than 5,000 troops. Unprecedented in the last half century, this deployment has been interpreted by some analysts as a political pressure tactic or even as preparation for direct military action. In turn, Maduro has responded by mobilizing a militia of 4.5 million and declaring that Venezuela is ready for “armed combat” in case of an attack. Tensions were intensified by the publicized U.S. attack against the vessel (allegedly) linked to drug trafficking which left 11 dead, although Maduro avoided making direct reference to the incident.
Despite the belligerent rhetoric, several factors suggest that violent resolution, such as an invasion or large-scale armed conflict, is very unlikely. First, direct military intervention would have both significant political and human costs for the U.S. The political and humanitarian impact would be comparable to that of conflicts in the Middle East and could generate repudiation both domestically and internationally, particularly among regional allies who have expressed concern about the deployment. What’s more, even Trump’s electoral base has historically opposed prolonged military interventions overseas, thus limiting the viability of sustained conflict.
And the Trump strategy seems to combine military pressure with contradictory objectives, like Maduro’s cooperation in the repatriation of Venezuelan migrants and the continuity of Chevron oil operations in Venezuela. These priorities suggest naval deployment could be a coercive tactic to force political concessions such as Maduro’s exit, rather than a prelude to war. Mobilization in that order would seek more to encourage Venezuelan opposition and to pressure Chavism internally without resorting to a direct invasion.
On the other hand, Maduro’s response, although challenging, also reflects caution. His rhetoric avoids attacking Trump directly, focusing on figures like Marco Rubio, thus demonstrating willingness to negotiate. Plus, there is that lack of public evidence for the link between Maduro and the Cartel of the Suns that weakens the legal justification for military action under international law; the U.S. Congress hasn’t authorized use of force against Venezuela.
Although military escalation has raised tensions to historic levels, the likelihood of a violent resolution is low due to high political costs, legal restrictions and conflicts of interest in Washington. It’s more likely that Trump’s strategy is aimed at forcing a political transition through economic, military and diplomatic pressures, instead of direct armed conflict, even though some believe that media and military dialectics are based on the same logic.
The escalation goes back to the directive signed by Trump in July 2025 that authorized the use of military force against Latin American cartels designated as “terrorist organizations,” including the Cartel of the Suns, directly linked by Washington to Maduro. Since then, the U.S. has deployed an impressive naval force in the Caribbean, with destroyers, a nuclear submarine, reconnaissance aircraft and a little less than 5,000 troops. Unprecedented in the last half century, this deployment has been interpreted by some analysts as a political pressure tactic or even as preparation for direct military action. In turn, Maduro has responded by mobilizing a militia of 4.5 million and declaring that Venezuela is ready for “armed combat” in case of an attack. Tensions were intensified by the publicized U.S. attack against the vessel (allegedly) linked to drug trafficking which left 11 dead, although Maduro avoided making direct reference to the incident.
Despite the belligerent rhetoric, several factors suggest that violent resolution, such as an invasion or large-scale armed conflict, is very unlikely. First, direct military intervention would have both significant political and human costs for the U.S. The political and humanitarian impact would be comparable to that of conflicts in the Middle East and could generate repudiation both domestically and internationally, particularly among regional allies who have expressed concern about the deployment. What’s more, even Trump’s electoral base has historically opposed prolonged military interventions overseas, thus limiting the viability of sustained conflict.
And the Trump strategy seems to combine military pressure with contradictory objectives, like Maduro’s cooperation in the repatriation of Venezuelan migrants and the continuity of Chevron oil operations in Venezuela. These priorities suggest naval deployment could be a coercive tactic to force political concessions such as Maduro’s exit, rather than a prelude to war. Mobilization in that order would seek more to encourage Venezuelan opposition and to pressure Chavism internally without resorting to a direct invasion.
On the other hand, Maduro’s response, although challenging, also reflects caution. His rhetoric avoids attacking Trump directly, focusing on figures like Marco Rubio, thus demonstrating willingness to negotiate. Plus, there is that lack of public evidence for the link between Maduro and the Cartel of the Suns that weakens the legal justification for military action under international law; the U.S. Congress hasn’t authorized use of force against Venezuela.
Although military escalation has raised tensions to historic levels, the likelihood of a violent resolution is low due to high political costs, legal restrictions and conflicts of interest in Washington. It’s more likely that Trump’s strategy is aimed at forcing a political transition through economic, military and diplomatic pressures, instead of direct armed conflict, even though some believe that media and military dialectics are based on the same logic.
Previous article![]( "Donald Is Disappointed in Vladimir")
Next article![]( "Marek Kutarba: Donald Trump Makes Promises to Karol Nawrocki. But Did He Run Them by Putin?")
