As U.S. naval deployments in the Caribbean intensify and rhetoric intensifies, the possibility of a U.S. attack on Venezuela feels ever closer.
Since early September, the United States has carried out military attacks on at least 21 Venezuelan fishing vessels it says are involved in drug trafficking in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean, killing at least 87 people. The Trump administration has justified the attacks by saying the flow of drugs into the United States threatens national security. However, no evidence of drug trafficking has been shown, and experts say Venezuela is not the main source of cocaine and other drugs smuggled into the United States.
US President Donald Trump has issued conflicting messages about whether he plans ground operations inside Venezuela. he is not at the same time ruled it However, he also denied that he was considering a domestic strike. However, he has allowed the CIA to operate in the country.
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has insisted that Trump’s real aim is to remove him from power and force regime change, warning that his country will resist such efforts.
Here’s what we know:
How could the US attack Venezuela?
Analysts say the United States has several military options to attack Venezuela, most of which leverage air and sea power rather than ground forces.
In recent months, the United States has deployed significant air and naval forces to the Caribbean Sea near the coast of Venezuela, including the world’s largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford.
Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel and senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Al Jazeera: “We are ready for an air attack and a missile attack.”
“Venezuela has relatively strong air defenses, so the first attack is likely to be long-range missiles launched from the air and sea,” he said.
The Trump administration’s rhetoric has increasingly focused on the Maduro government, which it claims has ties to Venezuelan drug cartels, but analysts say targeting infrastructure allegedly linked to cartels is easier to justify internationally and reach faster conclusions.
Almost all experts deny the possibility of a ground invasion.
“At this stage, I don’t think there is any possibility of an attack,” said Elias Ferrer, founder of Orinoco Research and chief editor of the Venezuelan media organization Guacamaya.
“The U.S. ground forces in the region are not strong enough to invade, so there will be no boots on the ground,” Cancian said.
Furthermore, large-scale land operations are expected to be deeply unpopular in the United States and would face significant obstacles domestically.
Political scientist Salvador Santino Legirme, head of the international relations program at Leiden University in the Netherlands, told Al Jazeera: “Any move towards an overt ground operation would be met with significant legal obstacles, parliamentary opposition and the shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan. All of this makes a full occupation highly unlikely.”
“Analytically, we should consider the scope of a limited but potentially escalatory use of force, rather than a binary choice between ‘no attack’ or an Iraq-style invasion,” he added.
An “Iraq-style invasion” refers to a large-scale ground war followed by a U.S.-led occupation, dismantling of state institutions, and unrestrained nation-building efforts; this type of intervention would require hundreds of thousands of troops, years of counterinsurgency operations, and massive political and financial investments.
What does the US attack mean for Venezuela?
While some policymakers in Washington hope a military strike will trigger a political transition in government, analysts warn that it is far more likely to destabilize the country.
Ferrer described the idea of the attack as like opening “Pandora’s Box.”
“Because armed groups are empowered in conflicts, both the military itself and militias can seek to take over certain areas of the country, whether politically motivated or simply through organized crime. That’s not the only outcome, but it opens up all those possibilities.”
In such an environment, political opposition parties will be among those least likely to benefit, Ferrer warned.
“The Venezuelan rebels are the most likely losers in this situation, simply because they do not have armed forces and do not have strong ties to the military or security forces,” he said.
Indeed, some analysts argue that even a limited attack by the United States would likely strengthen Maduro’s regime in the short term.
“External invasions tend to create a rallying effect around the flag, giving incumbents a powerful excuse to criminalize dissent as treason,” Santino Legirme told Al Jazeera.
“An already fractured and socially unequal opposition is likely to split further into those who welcome U.S. pressure and those who fear being permanently discredited as a foreign agent,” he added.
“Comparative experience in Iraq, Libya, and other cases of externally initiated regime change suggests that forced intervention rarely produces stable democracies,” Santino Legirme explained.
Despite rising tensions, Venezuelan officials have taken an openly defiant stance. While publicly calling for peace, they view any potential U.S. action as an attack on national sovereignty.
“They (the US) think they will end everything with bombing. Here, in this country?” Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello mocked on state television in early November.
President Maduro expressed a similar tone earlier this month.
“We want peace, but a peace with sovereignty, equality and freedom,” he said. “We want neither slave peace nor colonial peace.”
What is the main strategy of the United States?
Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel at CSIS, said the United States is working through the CIA to undermine the loyalty of the Venezuelan military to the Maduro regime.
“The U.S. could tell these troops that if they remain in their garrisons during combat, leave them alone,” Cancian explained.
“The United States did something like this during Desert Storm,” he said. It was the 1991 Gulf War operation in which the US-led coalition expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
In this conflict, U.S. officials secretly signaled to some Iraqi troops that they had to stay in their barracks and resist or they would not be targeted, which helped limit resistance during ground attacks.
But Cancian said the Venezuelan government has wiped out military opposition.
“Therefore, there is likely to be an engagement between the military and security forces,” he added.
So how can the Venezuelan military respond to an attack?
Ferrer said this all depends on what signals the US sends before an attack. “What’s actually more interesting is what kind of deals the United States is trying to strike. How is it going to involve or marginalize the military and security forces?”
He outlined the dilemma facing Washington: “Are we saying to them, ‘Hey, guys, you can continue to control these companies and these ministries, and the generals can keep their posts,’ or are you going to do something like de-Baathization in Iraq, where you fire all the officers and fire all the soldiers to purge the military of pro-Maduro elements?”
Marginalizing the military could lead to more violence, not less, Ferrer warned.
“It’s not necessarily a coup d’état or a civil war that involves the whole country, but there is a possibility of conflict breaking out across the country. If the military is marginalized, that’s definitely a possibility,” he added.
How will ordinary Venezuelans react?
Analysts say the situation is complex. “Ordinary Venezuelans have already experienced a prolonged socio-economic collapse, hyperinflation, widespread shortages, international sanctions and one of the world’s largest displacement crises,” said Santino Legirme.
According to recent estimates, approximately 7.9 million Venezuelans, or approximately 28 to 30 percent of the population, will need humanitarian assistance in 2025.
“Against this backdrop, the US attack is likely to be experienced not as a moment of ‘liberation’ but as an additional layer of insecurity, with access to food, medicine, electricity and basic services threatened.”
“Public opinion polls show deep distrust of both the government and foreign military intervention, and suggest that public reactions are uneven, ambiguous, and largely determined by class, geography, and political identity,” Santino Legirme added.
How will Venezuela’s international partners react?
Regional and global actors are likely to respond in ways that reflect their existing strategic relationships with Caracas.
Analysts say China, currently one of Venezuela’s biggest creditors and economic partners, is expected to maintain resolute diplomatic support for Mr. Maduro, but China’s ability to shape events on the ground will be limited if open conflict breaks out.
“We understand that if there is an armed conflict between Venezuela and the United States, China’s influence will be reduced,” Carlos Pina, a Venezuelan political analyst, told Al Jazeera.
In contrast, Russia has more direct military ties with Venezuela. Moscow has supplied advanced weapons systems, trained Venezuelan personnel, and maintained intelligence cooperation for years.
According to Pina, “Moscow’s (role) will be associated with possible military recommendations regarding the use of military equipment sold to Caracas by this Eurasian country.”
Under any scenario, both countries will continue to be politically aligned with Mr. Maduro. As the expert noted, “the diplomatic support of these countries to Nicolas Maduro is indisputable.”
Could the US target other countries?
Analysts have warned that a US invasion of Venezuela could have regional implications.
At a Cabinet meeting this Tuesday, President Trump warned that any country that produces drugs is a potential target, and singled out Colombia as a producer of cocaine that ends up in the United States.
Experts therefore say they fear that what is currently happening in Venezuela could become a broader template for reframing internal political crises across the region as a “narco-terrorism” threat, a label that could justify military action under the banner of counter-terrorism and law enforcement.
Santino Legirme told Al Jazeera: “What is being tested around Venezuela is a broader template rather than a single-state policy, in which a complex domestic crisis is reframed as a ‘narco-terrorism’ threat that justifies the use of extraterritorial force under the banner of law enforcement and counter-terrorism.”
He warned that if the model were applied to other countries in the region, it could “further erode the already weak constraints on the use of force in international law and undermine regional mechanisms for seeking negotiated political solutions.”
Santino Legirme added that such an approach would also deepen the tendency to manage transnational issues such as drug trafficking and migration through militarization rather than social, economic and public health interventions.
