Leopoldo Puchi is an analyst and former political leader.
Guacamaya, August 31, 2025. The recent military deployment by the US in the Caribbean has triggered significant concerns and left many questions unanswered. This operation is not typical; it includes destroyers, amphibious ships, a guided-missile cruiser, submarines, and a contingent of marines—a force whose scale and capability exceed those necessary for mere counter-narcotics efforts.
Most experts concur that the objective here is not just about intercepting drug shipments but rather has a more political edge. Instead of merely pursuing cocaine shipments, the goal of this military mobilization seems to be altering the Venezuelan government and reintegrating the nation into Washington’s geopolitical sphere.
The Unknown
The primary uncertainty isn’t the reason behind the deployment but what the plan entails. What does the United States aim to accomplish with this force? A US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, remarked that deploying such a fleet for anti-drug operations is “like bringing a cannon to a knife fight.” This suggests a clear disproportion between the stated purpose and the deployed means.
The Pentagon showcases its military strength but does so without clarifying how far it intends to proceed. This ambiguity serves as a weapon in itself, creating unease among the populace, damaging the Venezuelan economy, and inducing anxiety throughout the region.
“Peace Through Strength”
Moreover, this naval deployment must be understood within the framework of Donald Trump’s approach, often summarized as “peace through strength.” This strategy operates on the principle that outright war is not required to enforce Washington’s will. Simply projecting power and employing it selectively should suffice to compel adversaries to capitulate.
Trump has previously utilized this tactic through sudden, precise actions aimed not at igniting full-scale conflicts but at demonstrating power—a sort of emperor’s fist on the table meant to intimidate. In this framework, the threat of force proves as critical as the force itself.
The Response
This isn’t primarily about an invasion—an unlikely scenario that could create an uncontrollable situation clashing with the pragmatic logic of MAGA Trumpism. Additionally, Venezuela is not an easy target; it has displayed a strong capacity to defend its sovereignty and has actively confronted military threats without reservation, employing defensive strategies and mobilizing its forces.
Thus, rather than landing troops, the aim appears to be maintaining constant tension in Venezuela, possibly involving the blockade of oil tankers. The intent is to undermine internal confidence by conspicuously showcasing power asymmetry, with the objective of forcing a surrender at the political negotiating table before any threats come to fruition.
False Flags
Up till now, US “gunboat diplomacy” has largely remained within the scope of psychological warfare, but could potentially evolve into something more aggressive. Should it fail to achieve its objectives or instigate a social implosion, Washington might consider escalating actions against Venezuela.
There could arise scenarios in which more radical factions within US politics intentionally provoke an incident to justify direct military intervention. It is no accident that a recent New York Times piece recalled the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, where alleged North Vietnamese attacks on US destroyers were utilized as a pretext for escalating the war.
Whirlwind
Trump’s strategy seems to depend on the threat of naval deployment yielding the desired outcomes. However, Latin American history teaches that gunboats, when they approach too closely to the shore, often create a whirlwind. The uncertainty remains: is this fleet merely a show of strength to intimidate, or a precursor to war? The answer will not only shape the future of Venezuela but also that of the entire continent.