Rising Tension between the US and Venezuela Bring an Increased Risk of Short-Term Escalation

The US has been deploying a steadily growing military force in the southern Caribbean since mid-August, a move that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has characterized as a great threat to regional stability. The US naval task force’s stated mission is to interdict narcotics trafficking; however, the firepower these assets possess appears to far exceed that which would typically be deployed for such operations. In response, the Maduro administration ordered the nationwide activation of the Bolivarian militia, although it remains unclear how many militia members may have been deployed.  

On Sept. 1 US military destroyed a small boat in the southern Caribbean; 11 persons were reportedly killed in the strike. President Donald Trump’s administration asserted that the vessel had departed Venezuela to smuggle drugs to the US. Three days later, two Venezuelan F-16 fighter jets overflew one of the US Navy’s destroyers in international waters, in an apparent reaction to the incident. The US then deployed 10 F-35 stealth fighters to Puerto Rico, likely in response. Washington has subsequently continued to build its forces in the region, nearly doubling troop numbers since mid-September.  White House officials have indicated that the incident is an example of how the US will deal with suspected Venezuelan narcotics traffickers in the future, raising concern across the region of a broader confrontation. 

While none of the incidents similar to the strike on Sept. 1  have ultimately escalated to the point of the two sides directly exchanging fire, the fact that the Trump administration has chosen to release very few details about the strikes or the rules of engagement used to conduct them has fueled concerns regarding the legality of the actions and the legitimacy of the targets. While there would be legitimate operational security justifications for withholding details related to intent, justification, or location, doing so can still leave the public with questions about the true nature and purpose of the incident.  

Each subsequent strike by the US will test regional tolerance for unilateral US military intervention in a region that has a contentious history with such actions and is consequently predisposed to view them negatively. Still, it remains in Venezuela’s strong self-interest to avoid a direct confrontation with the US. President Trump recently ordered his special envoy to Venezuela to cease all negotiations with the country, though it remains unclear if this is itself a negotiating tactic or an indication that Washington has lost interest in resolving the situation diplomatically.  

Although increased tensions between the US and Venezuela will continue to pose a risk of further military strikes against targets detected in the southern Caribbean, any such action that may occur will almost certainly remain limited in scope, falling far short of sustained direct hostilities, such as an invasion. However, if talks between the two countries continue to stall and the US military build-up in the region continues, a series of limited strikes on Venezuelan territory could become a distinct possibility. As with any military action, the risk of miscalculation is ever-present and only grows as more strikes take place. Depending on the circumstances, certain incidents could cause a deterioration in regional public sentiment toward the US and its interests, although major unrest in the region is unlikely. Ripple effects could also extend to US-Mexico relations, as Mexico remains wary of the US executing unilateral action against the cartels operating within its territory. 

Learn more about leveraging intelligence to stay ahead of risks to your people and operations.