Implications of U.S. Military Actions in Venezuela

After months filled with military posturing and threats against Venezuela, former U.S. Ambassador John Feeley reveals that Donald Trump “needs to strike some targets” in the South American nation to avoid appearing weak. In a detailed conversation with BBC News Brasil, Feeley articulated the complexities facing Trump as he navigates both international pressures and domestic electoral politics.

Military Options and Political Context

Feeley, who is recognized as one of the leading experts on Latin America from the State Department, expressed that for Trump, the current situation is increasingly precarious. “At this moment, Trump needs to strike some targets in Venezuela,” he stated. However, he acknowledged, “he is constrained by internal electoral politics in the U.S., which caution against initiating a new war in an election year.” Furthermore, he pointed out that pressures from Secretary of State Marco Rubio contribute to Trump’s need to assert military strength, as “Trump detests weakness.”

Potential Ground Assault

If the reported land attack on Venezuela, which Trump announced recently, is confirmed, it would mark a significant escalation of hostilities between the two nations. Feeley cautioned that Trump’s “confusing and contradictory revelations” regarding the alleged covert operation might undermine its effectiveness. On December 29, Trump claimed that the U.S. destroyed drug storage facilities in Venezuela days earlier, which would be the first U.S. ground intervention in the country since military operations began in the Caribbean.

Details Remain Vague

Despite Trump’s assertion of a significant explosion in an area where drugs are loaded onto vessels, details of the operation remain sparse. Reports from U.S. sources like The New York Times and CNN indicated that the explosion could have resulted from a CIA drone strike. Neither the U.S. Armed Forces, the CIA, nor the White House has commented on the matter, and the Venezuelan government also refrained from acknowledging any U.S. attack within its borders.

The Cost of Confusion

Feeley expressed concerns regarding the disclosure of sensitive operational details. “If the aim is to show Maduro that CIA agents operate freely and sabotage unspecified Venezuelan infrastructure, revealing where and when attacks occurred is not the best way to protect these agents from retaliatory actions,” he noted. Additionally, he cautioned that if the attack didn’t take place, Trump could come across as an older individual out of touch and making nonsensical claims.

Escalating Tensions in the Caribbean

In recent months, the U.S. has targeted numerous vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, allegedly carrying drugs, yet without presenting substantial evidence. Over 100 individuals are reported to have died in actions described by numerous legal experts as illegal, while Trump’s critics label them as extrajudicial executions. The U.S. has also deployed significant naval forces, including the USS Gerald R. Ford, as part of what is referred to as Operation Southern Shield.

Should the U.S. Declare Clear Intentions?

In a recent interview, Feeley highlighted the lack of clarity in the U.S. strategy regarding Venezuela as a significant problem. “I don’t believe this is a policy based on a well-crafted strategy. A strategy should start with a clear end goal. If the Trump administration’s ultimate objective in Venezuela is regime change, why not state it openly?” he queried. He pointed to the significant expense and loss of life associated with the current operations and the questionable outcomes they might yield.

Future Outcomes and Military Efficacy

Despite Trump’s show of military might, Feeley asserts that mere displays of power will not be enough to instigate regime change. “A show of force by the U.S., which is undoubtedly the most powerful military in the Western Hemisphere, is insufficient to topple Nicolás Maduro,” he cautioned. When addressing the possibility of escalating tensions evolving into direct conflict, he noted that the Maduro government lacks the capacity for a direct confrontation with the U.S. “As often stated by Trump in relation to the Ukrainian president, his administration has all the advantages here,” he remarked.

On Opposition Leadership

Feeley discussed María Corina Machado, a Venezuelan opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, describing her as a “democrat with a lowercase d.” While he praised her recognition, he regretted that she dedicated her award to Trump. He also drew parallels between Machado’s current efforts and those of Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi politician who played a role in justifying the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, emphasizing that Machado’s use of the fentanyl crisis as a pretext seems reminiscent of past tactics used to spur military intervention.

Conclusion

The ongoing situation in Venezuela remains complex and fraught with geopolitical implications. As the U.S. navigates its military posture and international relations, the questions surrounding strategy and clarity will have lasting effects on both American and Venezuelan futures.

Key Takeaways

• John Feeley believes Trump must demonstrate military strength in Venezuela to avoid appearing weak.
• Recent statements and actions have led to concerns about the clarity and effectiveness of U.S. strategy in the region.
• The potential for further military intervention raises questions about the cost and justification of such actions.
• Leaders like María Corina Machado play crucial roles in shaping the narrative, albeit with parallels to past controversial figures.