Military Skirmishes in the Caribbean: Is Venezuela Starting an ‘Armed Struggle’ Against the U.S.?

Is war looming between the United States and Venezuela? The question has gained traction following a sharp escalation, with the United States deploying warships, a nuclear submarine, and fighter jets to the Caribbean, citing anti-drug trafficking operations, alongside skirmishes with Venezuelan aircraft.

Earlier, the administration of President Donald Trump accused Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of involvement in drug trafficking as a form of political pressure, after a previous U.S. decision to offer a fifty-million-dollar reward for his capture as a leader of drug cartels.

Tensions intensified when President Maduro, in a meeting with military leaders, warned that Venezuela would enter a stage of “armed struggle” if attacked by the United States, responding to explicit threats from President Trump.

This coincided with Trump signing an executive order on September 5, 2025, renaming the Department of Defense as the Department of War, as it had been known in the 1940s, aimed at demonstrating “strength and resolve,” according to the presidential order.

Analyses published by the Washington Post, PBS, and other outlets have suggested that the United States is acting within anti-drug frameworks and encircling Venezuela without intending war.

Other analyses, however, argue that while there is no official declaration or clear plan for a ground invasion, the military tension is real, and Washington appears to be engaging in a form of symbolic aggression or a mix of military and political coercion.

Where Is the Escalation Heading?

Tensions began in August 2025 when the Trump administration deployed warships and a nuclear submarine near Venezuela under the banner of “fighting cartels.”

This followed an increase in the U.S. reward for the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro to fifty million dollars, on charges of drug trafficking and corruption, widely seen as a politically motivated effort to oppose his rule.

In early September 2025, Trump sent ten F-35 stealth fighters to Puerto Rico to increase pressure on Venezuela after claiming that two Venezuelan aircraft had harassed the warships he deployed.

Trump warned that Venezuelan military planes would be shot down if they threatened U.S. forces.

The following day, the United States claimed to have carried out a missile strike on a drug-carrying vessel near Venezuela, killing eleven people, further heightening tensions, according to the Associated Press.

“The strike occurred while the terrorists were at sea in International waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States,” Trump said on Truth Social. 

“No U.S. Forces were harmed in this strike. Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America.”

A current Pentagon official and military law experts told The Intercept on September 5 that Trump’s lethal strike on a boat in the Caribbean was a criminal attack on civilians and violated international law. They said that under international law, the action could in no way be considered a legitimate use of force.

Venezuela responded with full mobilization, with President Maduro announcing the call-up of more than 4.5 million members of the popular forces, alongside the regular military, and promising full armed defense in the event of any attack.

President Nicolas Maduro said on state television there is “no way” for them to enter Venezuela, emphasizing that his country is ready to defend peace, its sovereignty, and the unity of its territory.

He added that Venezuela is “a nation of peace,” but also a nation of fighters. “No one will come to enslave or colonize us, neither today nor ever.” 

“The government of the United States should abandon its plan of violent regime change in Venezuela and in all of Latin America and respect sovereignty, the right to peace, to independence,” he added.

Venezuela operates fifteen F-16 fighters purchased from the United States in the 1980s, along with several Russian-made jets and helicopters.

However, on September 5, Maduro said that disagreements with the United States should not lead to military conflict. He also stated that the intelligence reports provided to Trump are inaccurate. Today, Venezuela produces no coca or cocaine and actively fights drug trafficking, according to Maduro.

CNN reported on September 5 that Trump is considering military strikes inside Venezuelan territory targeting “cartel networks linked to Maduro.” Sources familiar with the administration’s plans said such strikes would be part of a broader strategy aimed at weakening or possibly removing President Maduro from power.

The network cited sources indicating that the Trump administration is deliberately keeping plans ambiguous. So far, there is no indication that Trump has decided to proceed with military strikes inside Venezuela, but it remains a possibility.

When asked by a journalist on September 5 whether he wanted to see a regime change in Venezuela, Trump said, “We’re not talking about that, but we are talking about the fact that you had an election which was a very strange election, to put it mildly,” referring to the contested 2024 election the Venezuelan government says President Nicolas Maduro won—an election the previous Biden administration did not recognize.

“President Trump has been very clear and consistent. He’s prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on August 19, 2025.

When asked by reporters late last month about the possibility of sending U.S. troops to Venezuela, Leavitt said, “The Maduro regime is not the legitimate government of Venezuela.”

“It is a narco-terror cartel, and Maduro, it is the view of this administration, is not a legitimate president. He is a fugitive head of this cartel who has been indicted in the United States for trafficking drugs into the country.”

Maduro has consistently warned that the United States seeks to invade Venezuela to overthrow him and change the government.

Vice President of the United States JD Vance called for killing “cartel leaders” who poison Americans with drugs, describing it as a military priority. When a journalist on X pointed out that killing civilians would constitute a war crime, Vance responded dismissively, saying he does not care at all, using inappropriate language.

Earlier, U.S. Secretary of State Mark Rubio tweeted an image showing the fifty million dollar reward for Maduro’s capture in the United States, drawing criticism for targeting a democratically elected head of state.

During Trump’s first term in office (2017–2020), he increased sanctions and political pressure, but in his second term in 2025, the escalation moved to direct military action in the Caribbean, raising the risk of a regional war.

When the leftist President Nicolas Maduro won a third term in the July 28, 2024 election, the country faced a major political crisis. Opposition protests erupted, and the United States announced it did not recognize him as president, according to a previous report by Al-Estiklal.

A striking paradox emerged as calls from the “democratic” United States openly encouraged Venezuelan military officers to stage a coup against Maduro.

An American military leader even incited a coup, noting that Venezuela has the largest oil reserves and significant mineral resources, prompting American analysts to ridicule the calls for U.S.-backed military intervention.

“Let me get this straight: we are calling to respect the will of the people in Venezuela while we orchestrate a military coup that overthrew an elected president in Egypt and a prime minister in Pakistan. Is this really about democracy or something else?” they said.

On August 2, 2024, the Venezuelan government officially accused the United States of orchestrating what it described as “a coup attempt,” after Washington and some regional governments recognized the opposition candidate as the winner of the disputed presidential election.

What Is the Connection to the Department of War?

The U.S.-Venezuela escalation coincided with President Trump’s decision on September 5, 2025, to rename the Department of Defense to its original title, the Department of War, reflecting what American analysts interpret as an embrace of a “theory of attack and confrontation.”

American newspapers described the change as part of a broader effort by Trump to project strength and influence both domestically and internationally as part of his “Make America Great Again” policy. Analysts, however, warned that it could signal the start of a more interventionist era, potentially beginning with Venezuela.

They noted that the renaming goes beyond semantics. Adopting the title “Department of War” suggests a confrontational approach, favoring preemptive action over defense and restraint, which could pave the way for new conflicts.

The decision also conflicts with Trump’s campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize, which he claimed was awarded for ending six or seven wars.

The Department of War name had been in use for more than 150 years, from 1789, after independence from Britain, until 1947, following the end of World War II.

Trump cannot officially change the department’s name without congressional approval, but the executive order allows the use of the new title as an alternative. Republican Senator Mike Lee has already introduced a bill to formalize the name change.

An Interventionist Era

One of the paradoxes of U.S. foreign policy is its recurring cycle of intense global intervention followed by periods of isolationism. Another irony is that the Republican Party has historically been the loudest voice calling for withdrawal from world affairs and a focus on domestic priorities, a stance Trump himself embraced upon winning the presidency. 

Yet in practice, Republican presidents who preached isolationism often became the very leaders who launched wars abroad and ushered in some of the most forceful interventionist eras in U.S. history, including outright invasions of foreign states.

This pattern applies to President Trump, who pledged to prioritize domestic issues and avoid foreign wars under his “Make America Great Again” agenda, yet became entangled in conflicts with Iran and Yemen while supporting the Israeli Occupation war in Gaza and Lebanon.

These historical swings in U.S. foreign policy between interventionism and isolationism have prompted American scholars to propose what is known as the “Pendulum Theory.”

In brief, the theory suggests that U.S. foreign policy moves like a pendulum between two primary phases: interventionism, characterized by active engagement in global affairs through wars, alliances, and military bases; and isolationism, defined by turning inward and focusing on domestic priorities while minimizing direct involvement abroad.

The term is not codified in law or official government documents. It is an analytical concept used by historians and international relations experts to describe historical cycles in American foreign policy.

Isolationist periods in U.S. history include the era from George Washington to World War I. Washington, in his 1796 farewell address, warned against “entangling foreign alliances.” The principle was reinforced by the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which proclaimed “America for Americans,” rejecting European intervention in the Western Hemisphere while avoiding U.S. involvement in European affairs, keeping the United States out of Europe’s major conflicts until 1917.

U.S. interventionist phases in global affairs gained momentum during the World Wars. President Woodrow Wilson led the United States into World War I in 1917 under the banner of “the world must be made safe for democracy.” After the war, he pushed for the League of Nations, but Congress rejected the plan, swinging the pendulum back toward isolation.

Isolation persisted between the world wars (1920–1941). Neutrality laws in the 1930s limited U.S. involvement in wars, while domestic focus centered on addressing the effects of the Great Depression.

The major interventionist era began in 1941 with U.S. entry into World War II, reshaping American foreign policy. After 1945, the U.S. participated in establishing the United Nations, the Marshall Plan, and NATO, and engaged in the Korean and Vietnam wars. This period marked the peak of interventionism. During the Cold War (1991–2001), the United States, as the sole superpower, intervened in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq.

President Ronald Reagan’s administration (1981–1989) saw extensive engagement in global conflicts, including sending troops to Lebanon in 1983, supporting anti-Soviet movements in Afghanistan, and launching the Strategic Defense Initiative, known as “Star Wars,” to counter nuclear threats.

Interventionism reached its extreme after the September 11, 2001, events under President George W. Bush, continuing through 2016 with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the broader “War on Terror” and “Greater Middle East” strategy.

Democratic President Barack Obama attempted a relative shift toward isolationism, seeking to withdraw U.S. forces and restore balance, followed by President Joe Biden. However, this relative isolation was disrupted by Trump’s populist interventionism (2017–2020) during his first term.

In his second term, Trump’s slogans “America First” and “Make America Great Again,” which would suggest isolationism, were transformed into an aggressive interventionist agenda, including strikes on Iran and Yemen, military support for the Israeli genocide in Gaza, and clashes with Russia, China, and Europe over tariffs and global policy.