The humanitarian crisis and institutional collapse under Nicolás Maduro’s authoritarian regime in Venezuela are undeniable, demanding a robust international response. However, the prospect of external military intervention to combat drug trafficking to the United States and restore democracy and economic revival — a policy periodically floated by the Trump administration — represents not only an unviable solution, but a monumental act of geopolitical folly.
Far from being a quick fix for the country’s woes, invading Venezuela is an absurd proposition rooted in a disregard for international law, a fundamental misunderstanding of the conflict’s complexity and a dangerous underestimation of the resulting human and regional catastrophe.
Besides, if Trump really were serious about cracking down on drug lords from south of our border, he would not have handed a pardon to Honduras’ former president, Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was convicted in the United States and sentenced to 45 years in prison for sending over 400 tons of cocaine to our country. Nor would he focus on Venezuela, which is responsible for a small fraction of illegal drugs reaching our shores.
This administration has already seized the narrative for invasion by killing up to 80 alleged seafaring drug runners from Venezuela since September, according to the BBC. Each announcement from U.S. officials is usually accompanied by grainy video of missile attacks, but no evidence is offered of alleged drug trafficking and few details are released on who or what was on board each vessel.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has further muddied the waters by explaining that “presidentially designated narco-terrorists are subject to lethal targeting.” As is the case with this administration throughout its tenure, much is spoken, but less is given.
Meanwhile, the finger-pointing about who ordered the attack on defenseless citizens who survived the first missile strikes and were left clinging to wreckage misses the big picture — which is why these attacks are really taking place. One hint is the Defense Department’s installation of radar detection units in Trinidad along with a company of 100 U.S. Marines. With this deployment, Trump is now stoking fears in Caribbean nations that they will be dragged into the crisis in Venezuela.
Two things stand out about this looming conflict: The Epstein files and the Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.
The Department of Justice is required to release the full cache of files related to the deceased sex trafficker by Friday, Dec. 19. This comes 30 days after the president signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Donald Trump is prominently mentioned in a number of released documents to date. The additional paperwork may shed new light on the Trump-Epstein relationship and have a deleterious effect on his presidency. This would warrant him trying to divert attention from his association with the disgraced financier.
Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world at an estimated 303 billion barrels. In fact, it has five times the amount of U.S. reserves but exports under one million barrels a day due to mismanagement of its extraction infrastructure and sanctions by the United States. Most of the oil exports flow to China to repay past debts. Trump and his fossil fuel cronies salivate at the thought of getting their hands on that petroleum wealth.
But there’s a problem with using a Venezuelan invasion under the pretext of an anti-narcotics strategy to divert attention from Trump’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and getting a hand on Venezuela’s oil. The United Nations Charter explicitly prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except for self-defense or U.N. Security Council authorization. Such an act would provide a damaging precedent for unilateral military action globally, eroding norms of sovereignty, just like the Russia-Ukraine conflict we are trying to resolve.
Furthermore, military action would trigger near-universal condemnation across Latin America, reviving historical anti-imperialist sentiments and isolating the United States from key regional allies like Brazil, Colombia and Mexico, thereby achieving the exact opposite of regional cooperation.
Beyond the legal and diplomatic costs, the logistical requirements and operational risks associated with a ground invasion render the idea ridiculous. Venezuela is a nation roughly twice the size of the state of California, featuring challenging terrain, from dense jungles to sprawling urban areas. The assumption that the operation would resemble the swift, decisive invasion of Panama in 1989 is critically flawed. Analysts estimate that a successful regime-change invasion would require a minimum of 50,000 ground troops, a massive deployment that would face resistance not only from the 100,000 active Venezuelan soldiers but also from heavily armed, government-aligned civilian militias (colectivos) and guerrilla-style fighters. The notion that such an operation would be quick, low-cost or result in anything other than a protracted counter-insurgency nightmare is an act of historical negligence. Is this what we want in regime change? We only have to look at Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan to get answers.
The true absurdity, however, lies in the certainty of catastrophic unintended consequences. The primary stated goals of intervention — ending the humanitarian crisis, restoring democracy and disrupting drug trafficking — would all be severely compromised, if not reversed, by the ensuing conflict. Firstly, military strikes and ground warfare would instantly exacerbate the humanitarian crisis.
Models suggest that a U.S. invasion could trigger an additional surge of millions of refugees and internally displaced persons, pushing neighboring nations like Colombia and Peru past their breaking point and creating the largest migration surge in hemispheric history. Organized criminal enterprises, including drug cartels and illegal mining syndicates, which currently operate under the regime’s corrupt patronage, would be unshackled, escalating a regional drug war and guaranteeing long-term instability.
The invasion of Venezuela is a strategic fantasy masquerading as a foreign policy option. It is illegal, logistically impractical, overwhelmingly costly and guaranteed to accelerate the very humanitarian and criminal crises it aims to solve. Even by Trump’s low standards, this wag-the-dog diversionary tactic doesn’t pass the smell test.
André Stark
Associate Publisher, Bay State Banner
