It’s the oil, stupid: Trump, Maduro and the threat of a Caribbean war

II. Operation Southern Spear: The Militarization of the Caribbean Sea

The visible manifestation of this deep-seated resource contest is the massive, unprecedented deployment of US military assets into the Caribbean region under the banner of Operation Southern Spear. This is not a routine naval exercise; it represents the largest American military concentration in the area in decades, signalling a profound shift in risk assessment and strategic intent from the White House. Operation Southern Spear was formally unveiled on November 13, 2025, by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on orders from President Donald Trump, with the stated goal of “removing narco-terrorists from our Hemisphere”.

The Deployment Profile: Carrier Groups, Amphibious Readiness, and Air Superiority Assets

The hardware deployed speaks volumes about the potential objectives. The presence of the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, is the ultimate projection of naval supremacy, capable of sustaining high-intensity operations far from home bases. It entered the Caribbean Sea on November 16, 2025, accompanied by its full strike group, including destroyers and cruisers. This is paired with the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, suggesting readiness not just for maritime defense or air strikes, but for the potential insertion of ground forces or sustained logistical support for a wider regional effort. Furthermore, the inclusion of advanced air assets, such as the F-35 stealth jets, at nearby US territory in Puerto Rico, and the reported presence of B-52 and B-1B bombers flying near Venezuela’s coast, signals an overwhelming capability to control the airspace over any potential conflict zone in the immediate vicinity of the Venezuelan coast or its Caribbean approaches.

The Escalation Ladder: From Naval Buildup to Direct Lethal Action

The operation has followed a chillingly linear escalation path. Beginning in August 2025 with the initial deployment of the USS Iwo Jima group, the operation crossed a critical threshold in September with the first sinking of a vessel on September 2, which allegedly involved illicit transit and resulted in eleven fatalities. This was followed by a sustained campaign of maritime strikes, documented to have accounted for at least eighty-three deaths across twenty-one separate incidents by late November. The confirmation by President Trump in mid-October that he had authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to conduct lethal ground operations inside Venezuelan territory further confirmed that the mission parameters extend beyond interdiction and into active engagement, raising the very real prospect of a kinetic exchange with Venezuelan state forces.

The Calculated Ambiguity: Justification Under the Guise of Counternarcotics Interdiction

The official rationale, the “War on Cartels,” provides a necessary, if thin, veneer of legality and moral justification for such a massive show of force adjacent to a sovereign nation. By targeting vessels allegedly linked to groups like the Tren de Aragua—a criminal organization recently designated by Washington as a “terrorist organization”—the administration attempts to frame the conflict as a policing action rather than an act of interstate aggression. However, the sheer scale of the military response, the geographic focus, and the high number of non-combatant or peripheral casualties render this justification suspect to much of the international community and regional bodies. This calculated ambiguity allows for the military buildup to proceed under the cover of an anti-drug mandate while serving the deeper strategic objective of pressuring the Maduro government.

The Immediate Cost: Documented Fatalities and the Human Toll of Maritime Strikes

The human cost of the campaign is a stark indicator of the crisis’s severity. As of mid-November 2025, reports indicate that eighty-three individuals have been killed across twenty-one US strikes since early September. While the US military has characterized these deceased as “alleged narcoterrorists,” the Venezuelan government has vehemently condemned the strikes as violations of international law and human rights, pointing to its own extensive domestic efforts against crime. This discrepancy in casualty reporting and justification fuels regional fear that the “drug war” is merely the opening salvo in a much larger, politically motivated confrontation with potentially unimaginable instability.

III. The Caribbean Fault Lines: A Region Divided and Coerced

The rising military tension has not been met with unified regional consensus; instead, it has exposed deep, painful divisions within the Caribbean Community, transforming what was largely a diplomatic bloc into a fractured geopolitical arena.

The CARICOM Concord Shattered: The Zone of Peace Under Threat

The Caribbean Community, or CARICOM, has historically championed the region as a “zone of peace,” a principle vigorously reaffirmed in the face of the latest crisis. The organization issued forceful statements insisting that disputes must be settled exclusively through peaceful, negotiated means, warning that the region must never become a mere pawn in the rivalries of external powers. This collective voice represents the traditional, non-aligned stance of many smaller island nations wary of superpower intervention.

Trinidad and Tobago’s Breakaway: Endorsement of Western Military Posture

A significant fissure in this regional solidarity has been created by the government of Trinidad and Tobago. The nation’s Prime Minister, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, has publicly endorsed the United States’ hardline approach, a stance that has provoked intense domestic political criticism. This endorsement is strategically significant given Trinidad and Tobago’s close proximity to Venezuela, situated just across the Paria Gulf. Further cementing this alignment were joint military exercises with the US Marine Corps between November sixteenth and twenty-first, shortly before visits from senior US defense officials. This move effectively splits the regional consensus, granting Washington a critical, albeit controversial, foothold for operational support in the immediate vicinity of the Venezuelan theatre.

The Diplomatic Backlash: Open Letters and Warnings from Former Regional Leaders

The perceived capitulation or alignment of one member state has galvanized opposition from respected former officials across the archipelago. Ten former heads of government signed an open letter expressing profound alarm over the militarization, emphasizing the historical imperative to maintain regional autonomy from external conflicts. Statements from figures like former Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Stuart Young underscore the gravity of this moment, recalling past regional commitments to peace, such as the principle of non-intervention upheld by his government. This internal resistance highlights the moral and political struggle within the Caribbean against being drawn into a conflict predicated on external interests, irrespective of the official drug-war pretext.

The Guyana Factor: Unspoken Implications of Border Disputes in a War Scenario

While not explicitly stated as the sole cause for the military buildup, the simmering, historically fraught border dispute between Venezuela and Guyana cannot be entirely divorced from the current volatile environment. The US deployments are seen by analysts as a hedge, partly to deter a Venezuelan fait accompli regarding the oil-rich Essequibo region, which Venezuela claims. In a scenario of open conflict or regime collapse in Caracas, the stability of the Essequibo region—and by extension, Guyana and its significant recent offshore oil discoveries—would be immediately jeopardized, potentially pulling Guyana into the direct line of regional instability stemming from the US-Venezuela confrontation.

IV. The Havana Hurdle: Cuba’s Re-Emergence as a Diplomatic Counterweight

Cuba, often marginalized in recent years following the passing of its former long-time leader, has forcefully inserted itself back into the Caribbean security debate, viewing the US escalation against Venezuela as an existential threat to its own political survival and regional influence.

Havana’s Stance: Full Support for the Bolivarian Government

The Cuban government, through its Foreign Minister, has issued robust condemnations of the US military buildup, extending what it terms “full support to the Bolivarian Government”. This is more than mere solidarity; it is a pragmatic alignment, as the political stability of the Venezuelan administration under Maduro is viewed as crucial to the survival and ideological positioning of the Cuban political elites in Havana. The military action is perceived in Havana as a direct challenge to the entire leftist political project in Latin America that began decades ago.

The State Department Feud: Exchanges Between Cuban Officials and US Congressional Figures

The diplomatic rhetoric has devolved into deeply personal and pointed exchanges, most notably between Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla and influential US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. When the Cuban official denounced the State Department’s justifications as “false pretexts” for invasion, the response from the Secretary was a public dismissal accompanied by a clown emoji, effectively labeling Cuban diplomacy as a farce. This public sparring symbolizes the deep ideological chasm separating Washington and Havana over the legitimacy of the military campaign, further polarizing the diplomatic landscape.

Refuting the Fentanyl Pretext: Cuba’s Assertion of a War Crime Justification

Havana has aggressively countered the official US narrative by labeling the entire military escalation a potential “first-order international crime” and an “untenable lie” masquerading as a fight against fentanyl. The Cuban Foreign Minister has publicly questioned the commitment of US officials, challenging whether they would personally accompany soldiers into harm’s way for a conflict they claim is not theirs, an accusation that taps into historical grievances regarding US military adventurism in the hemisphere.

The Enduring Narrative: Cuba’s Role in the Broader Anti-Interventionist Bloc

The crisis has provided Cuba with an opportunity to reassert its historical role as a key protagonist in regional political conflicts, a role it had arguably ceded after the death of its previous iconic leader. The mobilization within Cuba itself—with reports of massive public demonstrations in Havana and the collection of signatures in support of the Venezuelan cause—serves to project an image of regional solidarity against perceived US hegemony, reinforcing its position as the ideological anchor for an anti-interventionist bloc in the Caribbean, even as military assets are deployed mere miles from its own shores.

V. Broader Implications and Future Trajectories for Regional Stability

The current trajectory suggests that the stakes extend far beyond the immediate bilateral relationship between Caracas and Washington. The events of 2025 are setting precedents that will shape hemispheric security and energy policy for the foreseeable future.

Economic Contagion: Impacts on Energy Markets and Regional Trade Relations

Any kinetic escalation or prolonged blockade would send immediate shockwaves through global energy markets, regardless of the specific oil flowing to the US. The uncertainty alone has destabilized smaller Caribbean economies, many of which rely on trade with or remittances from Venezuela. Furthermore, the suspension of the gas accord between Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago, triggered by the deployment of US warships, shows how quickly economic agreements are becoming collateral damage in the geopolitical maneuvering, threatening wider regional economic integration and energy projects.

The Precedent Set: Normalization of Transnational Military Operations in Latin America

Perhaps the most enduring impact of Operation Southern Spear is the precedent it establishes for future US action in the region. By deploying such overwhelming force, authorizing covert ground operations, and engaging in lethal maritime strikes under the justification of counter-narcotics operations, the administration risks normalizing a doctrine where US military might can be rapidly projected into Latin American waters and territories based on unilateral executive decisions. This challenges long-held principles of non-intervention and regional sovereignty, setting a dangerous template for future administrations dealing with other regional challenges.

Navigating the Immediate Future: The Necessity of Diplomatic Off-Ramps

Despite the bellicose posturing and military mobilization, the danger of miscalculation remains paramount. The continued high-stakes rhetoric, coupled with the deployment of tactical assets, leaves very little margin for error. Reports suggest that the prospect of a telephone conversation between Trump and Maduro to explore a diplomatic off-ramp remains open, despite the focus on the military option. The immediate future demands that regional and international actors forcefully push for a diplomatic off-ramp, even one that avoids the core issues of regime change, simply to de-escalate the military ladder before an unintended incident triggers the very war everyone claims to be avoiding.

Long-Term Security Architecture: The Future of Sovereignty in the Americas

Ultimately, the crisis forces a fundamental re-examination of the security architecture of the Americas. If resources like oil can serve as a sufficient pretext for such a massive, unilateral military buildup and for lethal engagement on the periphery of a sovereign state, the concept of inviolable national sovereignty is severely weakened across the entire continent. The outcome of the current standoff—whether it settles into a prolonged frozen conflict, a decisive regime change, or a de-escalation—will define the acceptable parameters of external influence in the hemisphere for the next generation, with the ghost of the original “oil, stupid” motivation casting a long shadow over every future geopolitical move.