The pretext of combating drugs has not convinced many, even within the United States. American military officials stated that no “fentanyl” was found on the boats that were targeted, despite the fact that Donald Trump accuses Venezuela of trafficking this substance into his country. Maduro argued that the United States is not targeting Venezuela alone but “all of Latin America, and therefore humanity as a whole,” warning that any direct military intervention could expose his country to the kind of devastation “the Gaza Strip endured at the hands of the Israeli army, including genocide.”
Analysts argue that the primary drivers behind this escalation are structural and rooted in decades of US doctrine in the region, yet President Nicolás Maduro’s vocal support for Gaza and Palestine has added a new political irritant that amplifies tensions.
Latin American affairs specialist Ali Farhat explains that any US military move “has political and military objectives,” underscoring Washington’s intent to reassert control over a region it has historically treated as its sphere of influence. He notes that the US aims to remove “fierce US adversaries, particularly the Venezuelan regime, hostile to the US with strong ties to China and Russia,” framing Venezuela as “a gateway for Russian, Chinese, and Iranian influence in Latin America.”
Farhat stresses that resource competition is a fundamental motive. Venezuela holds the world’s largest oil reserves and significant mineral wealth, and he argues that “discussions about drugs and other issues often mask these political and economic goals.” Washington’s narrative on security and narcotics therefore functions as a policy instrument rather than a true cause of escalation.
The Gaza war has further complicated US–Latin American relations. Several governments, including Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela, publicly condemned Israel’s actions, with leaders such as Gustavo Petro and Lula da Silva describing them as genocide. Farhat argues that these positions “contradict the US project and foreign policy,” pushing Washington to intensify its efforts to reshape political alignments in the region. His assessment implies that “Gaza conflict acted as a stress test for US influence, countries that openly challenged Washington’s stance revealed a growing regional autonomy that the US sees as strategically unacceptable”.
While Venezuela’s support for Gaza does not pose a direct security threat to Washington, it undermines US messaging and soft power. As Farhat puts it, “These positions harm the US image, but do not pose a real threat… however, in the bigger picture, yes.” In practice, the bigger picture refers to the erosion of US authority in a region critical to its geopolitical architecture. If countries like Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela continue asserting independent positions on global conflicts, it signals a broader realignment Washington is determined to contain.
Farhat also warns that Venezuela is only the first domino. Brazil, the largest economy in Latin America, is next on the American radar if Washington succeeds in weakening Caracas, “This is not merely geopolitical analysis; it reflects a broader anxiety in the hemisphere about the return of old interventionist patterns”. Farhat believes that diplomacy is disappearing as an option, explaining that “what the Americans are asking for is something the Venezuelan leadership will not agree to.” His words suggest a hardening of positions, not just in Washington, but also in Caracas, where “leaders feel they are defending national dignity, not merely negotiating political terms”.
Palestinian-Venezuelan writer and analyst, Jehad Yousef, places all of this in a longer historical context. For him, the present moment is a continuation of decades in which the United States treated Latin America as its “backyard.” He points to the list of leaders Washington helped remove: Allende, Morales, Chávez, Castro, and now pressure on Maduro, as evidence that any government choosing its own path outside US influence faces consequences. Yousef emphasizes that “Venezuela’s alliances with Cuba, Iran, Russia, and China are not tactical decisions but part of a political identity rooted in sovereignty and resistance”. This identity, he argues, “annoys the United States” because it challenges a hierarchy fixed since the Cold War.
Yousef is equally sharp when addressing the drug-trafficking narrative, “Drugs are not produced in Venezuela… the United States is the largest consumer.” His comments underline the frustration Latin American governments feel when accused of problems they did not create and cannot control. For many in the region, such accusations are seen as “moral hypocrisy rather than legitimate policy concerns.
Yousef argues that Maduro’s support for Gaza, Iran, and Lebanese resistance movements feeds directly into this wider confrontation and these positions deepen American hostility because they signal Venezuela’s willingness to take moral and political stances that openly contradict US priorities. They also resonate deeply with populations across Latin America who see parallels between their own histories and the Palestinian struggle. “This emotional connection makes Venezuela’s foreign policy harder for Washington to ignore—or counter”, Yousef adds.
Whether the United States can ultimately achieve its objectives in Venezuela remains an open question. Washington might be able to topple the government or trigger internal instability, but what is never guaranteed is that the post-conflict state would fall neatly under US control. Can the opposition, backed by Washington, impose security, build stability, and convince Venezuelans that a new political era has begun? And what is the future of support for the Palestinian cause within Venezuela and across Latin American countries? These are central uncertainties.
Latin American affairs specialist Ali Farhat thinks that “Military strikes might succeed in collapsing the system, though even that is not certain. But what is equally uncertain is whether such an outcome would serve US interest”.
As the pressure mounts, Venezuela faces a difficult road ahead, and in this heightened geopolitical climate, the Venezuelan president may indeed be paying a steep price for standing publicly and unapologetically with Gaza.
No comments:
Post a Comment