Is the US about to Attack Venezuela? Naval Buildup, Legal Fires, and the Echoes of Empire

As of October 21, 2025, the Western Hemisphere is experiencing a level of military tension not seen in decades, centered on the escalating confrontation between the United States and the government of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. A massive, ongoing U.S. military deployment in the Caribbean, coupled with a series of lethal kinetic strikes against vessels allegedly linked to Venezuelan interests, has propelled geopolitical speculation far beyond routine counter-narcotics enforcement. Analysts and regional leaders are actively debating whether these actions represent an advanced stage of pressure designed for regime change or the precipice of an outright military attack on Venezuelan territory.

This article examines the historical doctrines invoked by the current crisis and the complex strategic calculus driving Washington’s overt projection of naval and air power near South America’s northern coast, set against the backdrop of renewed great power competition.

Historical and Theoretical Underpinnings of Western Hemisphere Policy

Re-examining the Enduring Relevance of Nineteenth Century Geopolitical Doctrine

The current military buildup and the forceful rhetoric surrounding it have compelled analysts to revisit the foundational concepts of American foreign policy, chiefly the enduring, if often dormant, application of the Monroe Doctrine. This nineteenth-century declaration, issued in 1823, explicitly rejected the intrusion of European powers into the Western Hemisphere. In contemporary analysis, it is being cited as the historical and theoretical precursor to the current administration’s actions.

The doctrine has, for nearly two centuries, served as a powerful justification for unilateral U.S. intervention in South and Central America, frequently dismissing the principle of national self-determination whenever perceived core U.S. security interests were deemed at stake—a principle evident in past interventions dating back to the Cold War era. Many critics argue that the current actions represent a neocolonial revival of this doctrine, designed to shatter Venezuelan sovereignty and install a compliant regime. Venezuela’s UN Ambassador, Samuel Moncada, has explicitly argued that the U.S. deployment is a remnant of colonialism, asserting that “The United States believes that the Caribbean belongs to it because it has been using the expansionist Monroe Doctrine for over 100 years”.

The doctrine’s evolution saw it applied not just against Europe but also against internal threats perceived through the lens of rivalry—most notably against the Soviet presence in Cuba during the Missile Crisis and in funding the Contras in Nicaragua during the 1980s. The current crisis, analysts suggest, continues this tradition by framing regional actors as proxies or tools for external—specifically Russian—intrusion, thus invoking the doctrine’s original imperative to bar outside powers from the hemisphere.

The Geopolitical Context of Military Coercion

The escalation observed since August 2025—which included the deployment of warships ostensibly to combat drug cartels—is widely interpreted by observers as an overt use of gunboat diplomacy, updated for the 21st century. This strategy involves the application of limited, credible maritime power to coerce the behavior of another state.

Key elements signaling a move beyond mere law enforcement include:

• Escalated Rhetoric and Authorization: President Trump has publicly accused Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro of leading the Cartel de los Soles, offering a $50 million reward for his arrest. Furthermore, in mid-October 2025, the President confirmed he had authorized the CIA to conduct lethal ground operations inside Venezuela.
• Force Posture: The deployment is significant, involving approximately 10,000 U.S. troops, eight Navy warships (including guided-missile destroyers), an attack submarine, F-35 fighters stationed in Puerto Rico, and B-52 bombers conducting “show of force missions”. Experts note this force level is “too big for just hitting a few speedboats, though it is not big enough for an invasion of Venezuela,” suggesting a sustained pressure campaign or limited strikes are the current scope.
• Command Tension: The unexpected early retirement of Admiral Alvin Holsey, the commander of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), has been linked to reported tensions with the administration over the pace and legality of the Venezuela operations.

Venezuela’s response has been one of high-alert defiance. President Maduro has accused the U.S. of seeking regime change through military threat, declaring a state of external emergency and activating a claimed militia of over 8 million members for territorial defense. Caracas has also conducted its own “Caribe Soberano 200” military exercises.

The Strategic Calculus of Hemispheric Security in an Era of Great Power Competition

Insulating the Approaches: The Russian Factor and Cuba

The actions against Venezuela are increasingly placed by observers within the broader context of strategic competition with nations like Russia and China, rather than solely concerning transnational crime. The narrative suggests that the fight against drug cartels, while a present concern, is being strategically utilized as the immediate pretext for asserting long-term hegemonic security control over the American hemisphere.

Renewed concerns over Cuba are suggested as a key driver for the overt U.S. naval presence in the Caribbean. This perspective posits that by projecting overwhelming naval and air power near Venezuela, the United States achieves a dual purpose:

• It applies direct, coercive pressure on the Maduro regime to force political change.
• It simultaneously creates a credible deterrent force capable of countering any potential Russian naval maneuver or influence projection emanating from the Caribbean basin, thereby insulating the vital U.S. maritime approaches, such as the Florida Straits.

This is significant because, despite the decline of the Soviet Union, geopolitical analysts point to the recent comprehensive strategic partnership treaty signed between Maduro and Vladimir Putin in May 2025, and ratified in September, as a re-legitimization of external great power influence in the region—a direct challenge to the Monroe Doctrine’s core principle. The deployment, therefore, is viewed as a preemptive measure to limit Russia’s strategic depth in a decade defined by global realignment.

The Kinetic Component: A Campaign of Targeted Strikes

The most visible and controversial aspect of the U.S. posture has been the kinetic operations against suspected trafficking vessels. The campaign began on September 1 or 2, 2025, with a strike that killed 11 people aboard a vessel allegedly operated by the Tren de Aragua gang. By October 19, 2025, reports indicated at least six more vessels had been struck in a series of kinetic engagements. The total death toll reached at least 32 people as of mid-October.

A critical turning point occurred with the strike on October 16 or 17, which reportedly involved survivors—two of whom were detained on a Navy ship before being repatriated to Colombia and Ecuador. This contrasts sharply with the initial strikes, which were announced by President Trump as summary executions, often without evidence of narcotics being present or presented publicly. Legal experts and critics have vehemently condemned these actions as extrajudicial killings, arguing that the label of “narcoterrorist” does not legally authorize a president to execute criminal suspects without arrest or due process.

The declared objective of “counter-narcotics” is increasingly being superseded by the goal of regime change. While the U.S. frames the strikes as targeting criminal organizations exploiting the state, high-level officials and Venezuelan opposition sources suggest the underlying aim is to force the departure of Maduro and his inner circle. This strategy blends covert action, economic strangulation via sanctions, and overt naval might to reshape the political landscape of the South American periphery.

Regional Repercussions and the Future of Hemispheric Control

The aggressive posture has generated significant fallout across Latin America. Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro has strongly denounced the U.S. strikes, calling for a “criminal process” against President Trump at the UN, while simultaneously convening regional bodies to express “deep concern” over foreign intervention. Neighboring nations, like Brazil and Mexico, have urged diplomacy over confrontation, wary of an escalation that could spill over in the form of refugee surges or regional instability.

Russia and China have used the platform of the UN Security Council to condemn the U.S. military activity as a direct threat to regional peace and security, rejecting the “trumped-up pretexts” and labeling the strikes as violations of international law.

Whether this escalation results in a full-scale attack remains a matter of intense speculation. While the deployed force is massive, some military observers suggest it is optimized for sustained strikes and coercion rather than a full-scale ground invasion of Venezuela. However, the authorization of CIA ground operations and the continued projection of overwhelming, standoff offensive power—such as Tomahawk-capable ships and B-52 bombers—demonstrate an administration willing to test the limits of sovereignty and international norms in a bid to reassert American primacy in the hemisphere.

The current situation is a high-stakes geopolitical demonstration. The strategy blends the historical precedent of nineteenth-century doctrine with twenty-first-century capabilities, making the Caribbean a volatile, live-fire preview of great power contestation in the post-Cold War order. The coming weeks will determine if this pressure campaign forces a political outcome or inadvertently triggers the wider conflict that regional leaders fear.