In an act that can only be described as “aerial bullying” that defies all diplomatic norms and international law, US President Donald Trump announced via his platform “Truth Social” the closure of Venezuela’s airspace “entirely”. This declaration, reminiscent of the decrees of imperial powers in colonial eras, comes amid unprecedented military escalation in the Caribbean and Washington’s classification of Venezuelan state institutions as foreign terrorist organisations under the rubric of the “war on narco” (the drug trade). It appears to be preparation for a campaign aimed at strangling Caracas and toppling its government, a move that could set the entire Latin American continent ablaze.
The rising level of arrogance prompted Trump to issue a message to “all airlines and pilots” that Venezuela’s skies were closed. Although the US president has no legal authority over the sovereign airspace of an independent state, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued security warnings concerning civilian flights over Venezuelan territory. This pushed global airlines to comply out of fear of sanctions. Caracas, however, did not remain passive. The Venezuelan Foreign Ministry described Trump’s statements as a “colonial threat” and an “unjustified act of aggression” that violates the UN Charter. As a sovereign reciprocal measure, Venezuela revoked operating rights for six major airlines that aligned with US warnings, and it announced a unilateral suspension of deportation flights that Washington relied upon, delivering a blow to Trump’s mass deportation programme.
In parallel with the air blockade, the United States is carrying out what it calls “Operation Southern Spear”, which resembles orchestrated maritime piracy. Field reports indicate that US naval forces, having mobilised a massive fleet that includes the world’s largest aircraft carrier, destroyers and a nuclear submarine, have conducted more than twenty-one raids in the Caribbean, resulting in the killing of more than eighty-three people thus far. While the administration claims that these boats belonged to “drug traffickers”, reports, including those from Western institutions, describe what is happening as “extrajudicial killings”. Newspapers have quoted intelligence sources saying that US War Secretary Pete Hegseth issued verbal orders to kill “everyone on board” the vessels, followed by subsequent strikes to kill survivors in the water.
Trump placed the US military, the Venezuelan right-wing opposition, and himself in a “strategic impasse”
In a bid to justify its bullying, Washington resorted to its traditional tactic of demonising the adversary. The Trump administration designated President Nicolás Maduro and senior state officials as leaders of what it calls the “Cartel of the Suns”, in order to legitimise targeting the head of the Venezuelan state and possibly justify assassination or kidnapping operations. This comes alongside a fifty-million-dollar bounty for Maduro’s capture and another twenty five million dollars for his interior minister. All the while, Washington feigns ignorance of the fact that cocaine comes primarily from Colombia (its close ally until recently) and that the fentanyl “killing Americans” comes from Mexico and China.
Comments by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bissett, in which he hinted that “something happening in Venezuela” could lead to lower oil prices, exposed the true nature of the campaign as a classic colonial attempt to seize the world’s largest proven oil reserves, along with Venezuela’s other natural resources, for the benefit of the US economy.
Amid this escalation, news leaked of a phone call last week between Trump and Maduro, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio present. Although some analysts considered the call a gesture toward de-escalation or an attempt to offer a face-saving “final warning”, the broader context points to Trump’s preferred “dual track” tactic: negotiating under fire. The ongoing threats of “very soon” ground operations render the diplomacy little more than a cover for buying time or misleading public opinion, especially as polls show a wide American public rejection (70 per cent) of any new war.
Experts on Latin American affairs say that Trump has placed the US military, the Venezuelan right-wing opposition, and himself in a “strategic dilemma”. The strategy of “escalating pressure” since last September has not led to the collapse of the Venezuelan armed forces as Washington had hoped. Instead, it pushed Caracas to reinforce its fortifications, including deploying anti-tank traps along coastal roads, and mobilising popular militias. Two main scenarios now appear, both representing losses for Washington and its allies.
The first scenario is that the United States confines itself to military posturing and limited airstrikes at sea without a full ground invasion, then gradually withdraws its forces. This would leave Maduro emerging from the crisis stronger than before, undermining Washington’s credibility as a dominant power in its “backyard”, and inflicting a heavy political price on the right-wing opposition led by María Corina Machado, which staked all its cards on foreign military intervention and would find itself internally isolated.
In the second scenario, Trump, driven by his hawks (Rubio and Hegseth) and by the oil and gas lobby in Washington, decides to turn the threats into an actual invasion, whether through extensive airstrikes inside Venezuelan territory or a limited ground landing to seize oil fields. Yet such an invasion would not be a walk in the park, especially since the Venezuelan army and popular militias have prepared for a prolonged guerrilla war.
