Tag: regime change

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said the U.S. military carried out another lethal kinetic strike on a vessel in the Caribbean that was transporting illegal drugs to the United States on Nov. 6.

Hegseth stated on social media that the strike targeted a vessel run by a “designated terrorist organization,” killing three people on board whom he described as “narco-terrorists.”

“The vessel was trafficking narcotics in the Caribbean and was struck in international waters,” he stated on X, noting that the strike was conducted under President Donald Trump’s direction.

No U.S. armed forces were harmed in the operation, according to the Pentagon chief.

This was the 17th reported U.S. military strike on drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific since September, as the Trump administration intensifies efforts to combat drug trafficking. More than 60 suspected drug traffickers have been killed in these strikes.

Hegseth warned that U.S. military operations against drug smuggling vessels will not stop until the illegal drug flow into the United States ends.

Keep reading

ALERT MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY (VIPS)

SUBJECT: What Wider War in Venezuela Would Bring

Dear President Trump:

We are deeply concerned about where the United States seems to be headed in its Venezuela policy and urge you to demand that the Intelligence Community give you clear, unfiltered, “truth-to-power” analysis, as well as covert action options in Venezuela.

Flying blind into an unprovoked war against a Latin American government, even one weakened by years of U.S. “maximum-pressure” sanctions, risks a conflagration that could draw Russia into the conflict and offers zero probability of establishing a legitimate, pro-U.S. successor government.

We see a classic storm of politicization brewing in the Intelligence Community, to which we devoted our careers, as a result of blatant pressures that it give you the “right” answer – fabricating or exaggerating a pretext for direct military intervention in Venezuela.

The State Department’s cancelation of views that don’t coincide with its own, and the intelligence community leadership’s firing of senior analysts whose classified, honest analysis contradicted unfounded Administration allegations that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro controls the Tren de Aragua gang and is using it to attack the United States have chilled collectors’ and analysts’ willingness to provide you unbiased, neutral, accurate intelligence.

We have seen this before – during numerous intelligence and foreign policy debacles, including the fake allegations about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And we remember the disastrous consequences for the country and its leaders.

There is room for some debate on the rationale for some sanctions on Venezuela. Maduro’s management of elections has been correctly questioned, for example. But U.S. opposition to the changes ushered in by the late President Chávez’s election in 1999 has been, for most of these 26 years, implacable.

The U.S. government, under Presidents from both parties, has imposed sanctions to paralyze the country’s economy; identified, trained, and funded opponents, including some who have resorted to violence similar to that we accuse the government of; and – even more important – has supported several failed attempts to overthrow the Chávez and Maduro Governments (with varying levels of involvement), including a blatant attempt to assassinate Maduro in plain daylight.

Keep reading

After another week of extra-judicial strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, the U.S. is now reportedly preparing to hit military targets in Venezuela.

International condemnation of the strikes has been widespread. For example, Jean-Noël Barrot, French Minister of Foreign Affairs and Europe, accused the U.S. of ignoring international and maritime law in an interview on Thursday.

But the neoconservative lobby inside the Trump administration is unmoved.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the lead proponent of regime change in Venezuela, has pushed for these actions — allegedly as part of an effort to get tough on drug cartels, framing the Latin American nation through a “narco-terrorism” lens.

Washington’s “narco-terrorism” frame has pedigree; the DOJ indicted Maduro on narco-terrorism charges in 2020, but today’s drug threat picture looks different from that narrative.

Strategically, the label misaligns ends and means: it invites military solutions to problems that the DEA and Coast Guard still characterize primarily as law-enforcement interdiction.

It also simplifies a complex geopolitical picture, all the while increasing the risk of entangling the U.S. in an open-ended conflict in the Western Hemisphere.

The DEA’s 2024–2025 threat assessments identify fentanyl as the top U.S. drug danger, synthesized mainly in Mexico with precursors from China. Meanwhile, UNODC data show record coca cultivation and cocaine output centered in Colombia, with Venezuela functioning primarily as a transit route.

Yet, Washington’s “counternarcotics” rhetoric has already translated into military escalation, and with it come significant diplomatic, economic, and political risks.

Escalation might threaten U.S. energy interests, particularly Chevron’s limited license to import Venezuelan crude, a lifeline for U.S. Gulf Coast refineries that remain reliant on the country’s uniquely heavy oil.

Escalation could also bolster Maduro rather than undermine him. For a leader whose “anti-imperialist rhetoric” enhances domestic legitimacy, U.S. aggression is politically beneficial.

Caracas has already surged troops and naval deployments along key coastal routes and encouraged auxiliary mobilization, explicitly linking the moves to U.S. buildups in the Caribbean.

Keep reading

The Trump administration has developed a series of options for launching attacks on Venezuela, The New York Times reported on Tuesday, as the US continues its military buildup in the region.

The report said that one option would involve bombing Venezuelan military facilities with the goal of collapsing military support for Maduro in hopes that it would get the Venezuelan leader to flee. But critics of the approach argue that it would likely have the opposite effect, rallying the military around its embattled leader.

The second option would be to send special operations forces, such as Navy SEALs or the Army’s Delta Force, into Venezuela to kill or capture Maduro. Such an operation would put the US troops involved in the attack at serious risk since Maduro has the support of his military and a civilian militia that the Venezuelan government says has millions of members.

The third option would involve sending a much larger force into Venezuela to capture airfields and some of Venezuela’s infrastructure and oil fields. The Washington Examiner has reported that US military planners believe the forces in the region are now sufficient to seize and hold key strategic facilities such as ports and airfields on Venezuelan territory.

The Times report said that President Trump is reluctant to back an operation that would put US troops at risk or come with the chance of failure, and for that reason, other plans are being developed that would involve naval drones and long-range weapons. A decision isn’t expected until the aircraft carrier USS Gerald Ford, which just left the Mediterranean, arrives near Venezuela.

If Trump orders an attack on Venezuela, it would almost certainly lead to a full-blown war or a quick decapitation of the government, which would likely plunge the country into chaos. The Times report cited Trump aides who said far more planning has gone into striking at the Maduro government than on what it would take to govern Venezuela should the operation succeed.

Trump aides said that the president has expressed reservations about attacking Venezuela and that he’s asking what the US could get out of it, with a focus on Venezuela’s vast oil resources. The push to launch a war in Venezuela is being led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as Trump’s national security advisor, and Stephen Miller, the president’s chief domestic policy advisor.

Keep reading

“A top Justice Department lawyer,” the Washington Post reports, “has told lawmakers that the Trump administration can continue its lethal strikes against alleged drug traffickers in Latin America — and is not bound by a decades-old law requiring Congress to give approval for ongoing hostilities.”

That law is the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of commencing military hostilities, and to cease those operations within 60 days unless Congress authorizes their continuation.

The first admitted US military strike on a boat in the Caribbean occurred on September 4; under the War Powers Resolution those strikes (which have killed dozens) would necessarily end on November 4 unless Congress says “sure, keep on going.”

But it’s more complicated than that, and not just because White House Office of Legal Counsel chief T. Elliot Gaiser claims the War Powers Resolution only applies when US troops are “in harm’s way,” and that the drone strikes  in question pose no such danger.

The big issue with the War Powers Resolution is that it’s unconstitutional. Not for the reason most administrations claim — that it limits an imagined presidential power to wage war at will and on whim — but in the other direction.

The US Constitution assigns the power to declare war exclusively to Congress. Not after the president has done whatever he wants for 60 days, but from the very beginning. Aside from immediate defense against direct attack, a president waging war prior to or outside of a congressional declaration is an impeachable “high crime.”

Some argue that the passage of time and advancement of technology imply a necessary expansion of presidential war powers: He must be able to act in the moment and not wait around on a dawdling Congress. It’s actually the other way around.

In 1941, it took 29 hours and 30 minutes from the first explosions at Pearl Harbor for Congress to declare war on Japan. That was before members of Congress could hop on planes to return to Washington — or, for that matter, boot up their laptops for Zoom meetings.

Since Congress has used remote and proxy technology before (during COVID), the infrastructure is already there for Congress to act quickly if its members believe a war is called for. Absent something on the level of a nuclear holocaust, the president could receive full war authority within single-digit hours.

But let’s take Gaiser at his word for a moment: If the drone strike campaign in the Caribbean isn’t war, what is it?

Keep reading

The US has bombed another alleged drug-running boat in the waters of Latin America, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said on Saturday.

Hegseth said the vessel was targeted in the Caribbean and, as usual, he provided no evidence to back up his claims about what the boat was carrying. He said the bombing killed three “narco-terrorists,” a term the Trump administration is using to justify extra-judicial executions at sea for an alleged crime that doesn’t receive the death penalty in the US.

The attack brings the total number of boats the US has bombed since September 2 to 16, and the total number of people killed in the campaign to 64, according to numbers released by the Trump administration. Nine boats have been hit in the Caribbean, and seven were targeted in the Eastern Pacific.

While the Trump administration has claimed the boats that have been targeted were attempting to bring drugs to the US, a US official has told Drop Site News that many of the vessels that have been struck “do not even have the requisite gasoline or motor capacity to reach US waters.”

Trump officials have also framed the bombing campaign as a response to fentanyl-related deaths in the US, but the US official speaking to Drop Site also noted that little to no of the fentanyl in the US comes from Venezuela, where most of the boats targeted in the Caribbean have come from.

Keep reading

The Miami Herald reports that the president has decided to order attacks inside Venezuela:

The Trump Administration has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment, sources with knowledge of the situation told the Miami Herald, as the U.S. prepares to initiate the next stage of its campaign against the Soles drug cartel.

An attack on Venezuela is completely unjustified and illegal. The president has no authority to start a war with Venezuela. An American attack will be a flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter and international law. The U.S. will be committing criminal aggression against a neighbor on the dubious pretext of combating drug trafficking, but we all know the real goal is to attempt forcible regime change.

No one can be surprised by this news. We know that the administration has been preparing for an attack for months. There were already signs of a new illegal war on the horizon in August when the president ordered the military to use force against cartels. The subsequent military buildup in the Caribbean and the ensuing murder spree at sea confirmed that the U.S. was getting ready to strike. The deployment of the USS Gerald Ford to the region was further confirmation that they intended to escalate with attacks inside other countries.

The administration will probably restrict its intervention to a bombing campaign, but that is hardly good news. If the murder spree at sea is any indication of what to expect, attacks inside Venezuela will kill many civilians on purpose. Given Hegseth’s enthusiasm for “lethality” and war crimes, we should assume that the rules of engagement will be extremely loose. The coming war with Venezuela will likely get a lot of innocent Venezuelans killed.

The administration may hope that intervention will lead to a coup against Maduro, but that seems like a long shot. Venezuelan military leaders have had several opportunities to ditch Maduro before, and they have not done so. Maduro might try to ride out the bombing campaign. It is possible that he could even try turning the attack to his advantage if most Venezuelans respond to the attack on their country as people normally do by rallying behind their government.

Keep reading