In the Name of God

An Analysis of the Situation in Venezuela

    At the outset, it must be emphasized that any military attack by the United States against Venezuela constitutes a clear violation of the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the basic rules of international law, particularly Article 2(4) of the Charter, which explicitly prohibits the use of force. Such an action represents a complete and unequivocal instance of an act of aggression and must be immediately and explicitly condemned by the United Nations and by all states that are committed to the rule of law, as well as to international peace and security.

    U.S. military aggression against an independent state that is a member of the United Nations constitutes a grave breach of regional and international peace and security. The consequences of such an act would affect the entire international system and would further expose the UN Charter-based international order to erosion and structural weakening.

Analysis of the Situation in Venezuela

    For a long time, the United States has threatened to attack Venezuela under the pretext of combating drug cartels. In 2001, one of the justifications advanced by the United States for its invasion of Afghanistan was the fight against poppy cultivation; however, following that invasion, not only was poppy cultivation not eliminated, but production increased severalfold. Today, the same claim is being raised with regard to Venezuela. Since the era of Hugo Chávez, Washington has imposed extensive sanctions on the country, which have thus far resulted in the deaths of approximately 40,000 Venezuelans. This is despite the fact that the official and declared positions of U.S. officials have consistently focused on targeting the Venezuelan government and pursuing its removal.

    Many observers regard the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Ms. Machado as a prelude to this course of action, describing it as part of a process aimed at replacing Nicolás Maduro. In this context, the United States has attacked numerous boats in the Caribbean Sea, claiming that these vessels were linked to drug cartels smuggling fentanyl into the United States. In response, Nicolás Maduro, the President of Venezuela, stated that any U.S. military attack on his country would be met with firm responses from Caracas. He declared that Venezuela, relying on thousands of Russian air-defense missiles, is prepared to confront any external threat, particularly from the United States.

Reasons Behind the United States’ Escalation of Threats Against Venezuela

    For decades, the United States has regarded South America as part of its sphere of influence and has sought to preserve this dominance through various political, economic, and military instruments. Today, once again under the pretext of combating drug cartels, the United States has carried out attacks against Venezuela. U.S. officials have explicitly stated that the deployment of military forces to the Caribbean is intended to counter drug cartels. Trump has also framed this action as part of a broader policy designed to curb migration and strengthen security along the southern borders of the United States.

    Such interventions are not without precedent. In 1989, the United States invaded Panama under a similar justification. In this context, Washington has designated several groups as terrorist organizations, including “Tren de Aragua” in Venezuela and the “Sinaloa” cartel in Mexico. However, these claims represent only the surface of the issue. In reality, the United States is pursuing objectives that extend beyond the stated fight against drug trafficking, which can be summarized as follows:

A) Increasing Pressure on Maduro

    The Trump administration intensified political and military pressure on Nicolás Maduro, including the announcement of a USD 50 million reward for information leading to his arrest. In this regard, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham stated that Trump had concluded that the time had come for Nicolás Maduro, the President of Venezuela, to step down from power.

B) Intensification of Military Presence

    To date, the United States has deployed seven warships and one nuclear-powered attack submarine to the region, along with approximately 4,500 military personnel, including 2,200 Marines. This deployment is widely interpreted as an escalation of the U.S. military posture and a potential step towards the initiation of armed conflict.

C) Regime Change in Venezuela

    These measures indicate that Washington is likely seeking to create the conditions for a change of government in Venezuela through increased pressure. Consequently, it is assumed that, in the short term, a high-intensity conflict may be avoided. Military experts emphasized that the number of U.S. forces currently deployed is insufficient to launch a large-scale assault against a country with Venezuela’s complex geography. This suggests that the primary objective is a demonstration of power and the exertion of psychological pressure on the Maduro government, as well as the preparation of the ground for potential land operations.

    In this regard, the United States faces serious doubts about initiating a large-scale and prolonged war for two principal reasons. First, Venezuela’s complex geography—characterized by mountainous terrain, dense forests, and major urban center's—poses significant operational challenges. Second, such a confrontation would dramatically increase the costs of a military campaign, raising concerns in Washington about a repetition of the Vietnam scenario, whereby Venezuela could become a new quagmire for the U.S. military.

D) Confrontation with Iran and Russia

    One of the most significant motivations behind U.S. efforts to attack Venezuela and change its government is the Maduro administration’s close alignment with Iran and Russia. Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State, has explicitly stated that the primary objective of a potential attack on Venezuela is to counter Russian and Iranian influence. This demonstrates that Washington is targeting countries with strong relations with Iran and Russia as part of a broader strategy of confrontation.

    Lindsey Graham’s claim that Venezuela is a partner of Lebanon’s Hezbollah further illustrates that U.S. actions against Venezuela are embedded within a wider framework of global rivalries, in which the fight against drug trafficking serves merely as a pretext. Some analysts argue that the United States is also using Venezuela as leverage against Russia, introducing the “Venezuela card” to pressure Moscow into ending the war in Ukraine and to extract concessions. In any case, a U.S. conflict or war with Venezuela would form part of a broader strategic campaign aimed at countering Iran and Russia.

E) Access to Venezuela’s Energy Resources

    Venezuela is among the world’s most energy-rich countries, possessing vast oil reserves. With approximately 300 billion barrels of proven reserves—nearly 22 percent of global oil reserves Venezuela ranks first in the world, ahead of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Despite these enormous reserves, Venezuela’s oil production remains limited, at approximately one million barrels per day, a relatively small amount compared with other major oil-holding countries. At an oil price of USD 60 per barrel, the value of Venezuela’s oil reserves exceeds USD 18 trillion. A country endowed with such immense oil wealth and extensive mineral resources inevitably becomes a target of strategic interest for a power such as the United States.

    China is one of the principal buyers of Venezuelan oil. In recent years, particularly following the imposition of oil sanctions on Venezuela, China has become the country’s largest oil customer, importing approximately 850,000 barrels per day. In response, Trump sought to apply maximum pressure on the Maduro government by imposing a 25 per cent tariff on buyers of Venezuelan oil, revoking licenses for operations in Venezuelan oil fields, and halting oil purchases. These measures, however, failed to achieve their intended objectives. As a result, another key factor behind the U.S. focus on Venezuela is its broader confrontation with China.

    Taken together, these developments demonstrate that the United States has concentrated on Venezuela as part of a wider strategy to counter Iran, China, and Russia. Washington appears to believe that an attack on Venezuela would serve a broader objective of eliminating one of the principal future threats to U.S. strategic interests.

    Considering the totality of events, U.S. plans to attack Venezuela should be understood as part of a comprehensive global strategy aimed at confronting Iran, Russia, and China. Venezuela’s extensive energy, economic, and military relations with these countries are perceived by Washington as an unacceptable and imminent threat. Neutralizing this threat is viewed by U.S. policymakers as a strategic opportunity to reshape regional and global power dynamics.

Understanding the four deep layers of geopolitical, geoeconomic, and ideological confrontation is a classic example of a declining hegemon’s attempt to preserve the unipolar order against a regional actor that has challenged this order:

1. Geoeconomic layer: The battle for “energy hegemony”.

Venezuela, with the world’s largest proven oil reserves, is a determining factor in the global energy market. The policy of nationalizing the oil industry under the Chavez government and cutting off access to these resources by American companies was the first and perhaps most important factor in the formation of this rivalry. From Washington’s perspective, control of this huge energy source is not only an economic advantage but also a strategic tool for exerting pressure on global competitors (such as China). Therefore, the existence of an independent government in Caracas that has taken this tool out of America’s hands is a direct threat to US energy hegemony.

2. Geopolitical layer: The collapse of the “Monroe Doctrine”.

Historically, US foreign policy has been defined by the Monroe Doctrine, which considers the entire American continent to be its “backyard” and exclusive sphere of influence. The emergence of an openly anti-American government in Venezuela and, more importantly, its strategic alliance with America’s global rivals (Iran, Russia, and China) means the practical collapse of this doctrine. The presence of these powers in America’s neighborhood is a strategic humiliation and a direct challenge to US national security that Washington cannot tolerate.

3. Ideological Layer: The Clash of Two “Paradigms.”

This conflict is also an ideological clash. Venezuela’s anti-arrogance, rooted in the discourse of “21st Century Socialism,” is in direct opposition to the US-led paradigm of “liberal capitalism.” This clash, beyond a political disagreement, is meant to present an alternative model for development and governance in Latin America.

4. Strategic Layer: Fear of the “Domino Effect.”

Ultimately, America’s greatest strategic concern is the potential “replication” of the Venezuelan model in other countries in the region. Venezuela’s success in resisting US pressure could inspire other independence movements in Latin America and set in motion an “anti-American domino.” Therefore, the United States is forced to use all the tools of combined warfare (sanctions, political pressure, psychological operations, and military threats) to turn Venezuela into a failed lesson in order to prevent this domino effect. These four layers have made Venezuela one of the key battlegrounds for defining the new world order.

Conclusion

    The primary objective of the United States in attacking Venezuela was a coup rather than a large-scale and prolonged war. Such a rapid operation would have been fundamentally impossible without betrayal or cooperation from internal elements.

    The Venezuelan people, together with Maduro’s social base and the supporters of Hugo Chávez, can play a decisive role in either changing or stabilizing the current situation. In the coming days, mass demonstrations involving millions of Venezuelans in support of Maduro are likely to take place.

The actions of Iran, China, and Russia in addressing this crisis could have significant geopolitical consequences for the future of Venezuela and the wider region.