beyond the media; What is the Trump administration seeking from a military attack on Venezuela? – Mehr news agency RCO News Agency

Mehr news agency, group international: In recent weeks, America has seen a significant turn in its foreign policy; A development that many analysts see as a return to the era of Washington’s direct interventions in Latin America. The U.S. military has launched a series of airstrikes against what the Trump administration calls “drug boats” in the Caribbean and Pacific.

The result of this operation was the death of dozens of people and the beginning of a new political and legal crisis. The Trump administration described these attacks as part of a “preemptive war against the merchants of death”; Groups that, according to the president, kill more than 25,000 Americans every year. But the American media, including Foreign Policy and the New York Times, have presented another narrative by publishing analyzes from prominent experts: Trump’s war against drugs is perhaps more of a security measure than a political tool to consolidate power at home and expand influence abroad.

From Caracas to the Caribbean

John Haltfanger, a professor of economics at the University of Maryland, wrote in an article in Foreign Policy that this military operation was carried out without the authorization of Congress and without informing the allies, and as a result, it is considered a violation of Trump’s election promise to “not start new wars”. According to him, the real purpose of these attacks is not the fight against drug trafficking, but a covert attempt to overthrow the Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro.

From Washington’s point of view, the Caracas government is a cause of instability in the region and a symbol of resistance to American influence in the Western Hemisphere. Haltfanger adds that these attacks took place at a critical time; When the Trump administration was facing internal pressures caused by economic recession and corruption cases. In such a situation, the display of military power abroad can divert public opinion from internal crises and present the president as a “decisive and anti-crime leader”.

However, this strategy immediately sparked political controversy in Washington. Democrats in the Senate tried to vote to stop the operation by invoking the War Powers Act, but narrowly failed. At the same time, several human rights organizations and a group of UN experts considered the airstrikes as examples of “extra-legal executions”.

Behind the mask of the law and invoking the powers of the president

In defense of its actions, the Trump administration cited the second article of the US Constitution, which gives the president the authority to protect national security. From the point of view of the White House, drug cartels in Latin America are “terrorist organizations” that are a direct threat to the United States. But critics say that this interpretation of the law is baseless and dangerous. According to Haltfanger, Congress has never declared war against these groups, and in international law, the drug trade is not an example of an “armed attack” that can be responded with lethal force.

He notes that Venezuela isn’t even the main source of fentanyl, the leading cause of drug-related deaths in the US, and thus bombing suspicious boats in the Caribbean has no real impact on the drug crisis. Additionally, destroying the boats from the air destroys all possible evidence, rather than having them impounded by the Coast Guard; This reinforces the suspicion of concealment and geopolitical goals.

According to Wanda Felbab-Brown, a researcher at the Brookings Institution, this “legal loophole” may pave the way for a wider use of military power under the guise of counter-narcotics even on US soil. In this regard, Kenneth Roberts, political science professor at Cornell University, warns that by merging the concepts of “terrorism” and “drugs,” Trump has practically transferred the logic of the war on terror to the war on drugs and has given himself extraordinary powers; Powers that Congress and the judiciary have virtually no control over.

Back to extensive interventions

In the continuation of his analysis, Haltfanger brings up a wider geopolitical dimension and notes that the history of Latin America is full of examples of direct military intervention by Washington under the pretext of fighting communism, terrorism or drug trafficking. He believes that the tone of Trump and his advisers is reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine, a 19th century doctrine that considered the Western Hemisphere to be the “exclusive sphere of American influence.” Such a way of thinking, rooted in the mentality of the Cold War, can create new tensions with the countries of the region and open a new gate for the influence of rivals such as China.

Haltfanger points to an incident in September 2025 when a Colombian fisherman was killed during one of these airstrikes. The incident was accompanied by a sharp reaction from the president of Colombia, but Trump called him “the head of an illegal drug gang” in response. According to the foreign policy analyst, this diplomatic crisis shows the growing gap in the traditional relations of the United States with its allies in South America.

According to him, such an approach not only weakens Washington’s international legitimacy, but also makes America look like a “law breaker” instead of a “defender of the law”.

Legal veiling and the risk of concentration of power

Jameel Jafar, a prominent lawyer and the executive director of the “Knight” Institute at Columbia University, has reviewed the legal aspect of this operation in an article in the New York Times. According to him, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has issued a confidential memo that deems raids on drug boats “legal,” but the details have never been made public. Jafar warns that this cover-up is reminiscent of the post-9/11 era; When George W. Bush’s administration cited similar classified memos to justify torture, mass wiretapping, and targeted assassination. The same office that then authorized the president to use torture in CIA prisons now legitimizes deadly naval strikes.

According to Jaafar, even the administration of Barack Obama used the same path to justify the killing of American citizens suspected of being connected to terrorism without trial and judicial supervision. He writes: “The main danger is not in the military attacks themselves, but in the accumulation of power in the hands of the president; The power that hides behind the title of national security. “When the president can order killings without transparency, without oversight and without providing evidence, democracy loses its true meaning.” Jafar is asking the federal courts to compel the Justice Department to release the classified memo immediately so that it does not become a tool of historical justification. “Continuing this process will erode American democracy from within and put the president above the law,” he warns.

Undeclared war, borderless law

Both authors Haltfanger and Jafar believe that what is happening in the Caribbean goes beyond anti-trafficking operations; This is a fundamental shift in the logic of American politics: war without formal declaration, justice without trial, and law written not to limit power but to justify it. Wanda Felbab-Brown of the Brookings Institution also emphasizes that such operations will not only reduce the drug trade, but also change the definition of “war”. According to him, the Caribbean Sea has now become a stage for political strife, hidden under the moral cover of the war on drugs. Although Trump and his advisers refer to this operation as a step in “defense of the nation”, the consequences show that America is once again moving towards the same old pattern: military expansionism in the name of security and expansion of influence under the guise of law.

the result

The current crisis between America and Venezuela can be seen as a reflection of the structural transformation in the geopolitical order of the Western Hemisphere; A crisis that has turned beyond a temporary conflict over drug trafficking into a fundamental competition over influence, energy and political legitimacy. US naval attacks in the Caribbean are not simply an action in the framework of “preemptive defense”, but part of a larger strategy of Washington to regain its control over its historical “backyard”.

Domestically, Trump is trying to take advantage of the drug crisis to rebuild an authoritarian face and legitimize his aggressive foreign policy, while from a legal perspective, this operation is in conflict with the principles of the UN Charter and the War Powers Act. The regional response to this crisis is also a sign of the gradual multipolarization of Latin America; Where governments like Brazil and Mexico are no longer willing to obey Washington without question.