The United States Continues Its Attempt to Overthrow Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution
With rapid military escalation and a redeployed ‘War on Drugs’ narrative, the Trump administration appears to be laying the groundwork for an attack on the Venezuelan people.
Children play on the beach during a security deployment in Anzoátegui, Venezuela, 19 September 2025. Credit: Rosana Silva R.
Since early September, the United States has given every indication that it could be preparing for a military assault on Venezuela. Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research partnered with ALBA Movimientos, the International Peoples’ Assembly, No Cold War, and the Simón Bolívar Institute to produce red alert no. 20, ‘The Empire’s Dogs Are Barking at Venezuela’, on the potential scenarios and implications of US intervention.
In February 2006, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez travelled to Havana to receive the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s José Martí Prize from Fidel Castro. In his speech, he likened Washington’s threats against Venezuela to dogs barking, saying, ‘Let the dogs bark, because it is a sign that we are on the move. ’ Chávez added, ‘Let the dogs of the empire bark. That is their role: to bark. Our role is to fight to achieve in this century – now, at last – the true liberation of our people.’ Almost two decades later, the empire’s dogs continue to bark. But will they bite? That is the question that this red alert seeks to answer.
The Sound of Barking
In February 2025, the US State Department designated a criminal network called Tren de Aragua (Aragua Train) as a ‘foreign terrorist organisation’. Then, in July, the US Treasury Department added the so-called Cartel de los Soles (Cartel of the Suns) to the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s sanctions list as a ‘transnational terrorist group’. No previous US government report, either from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) or the State Department, had identified these organisations as a threat, and no publicly verifiable evidence has been offered to substantiate the claimed scale or coordination of either group. There is no evidence that Tren de Aragua is a coherent international operation. As for the Cartel de los Soles, the first time the name appeared was in 1993 in Venezuelan reporting on investigations of two National Guard generals – a reference to the ‘sun’ insignia on their uniforms – years before Hugo Chávez’s 1998 presidential victory. The Trump administration has alleged that these groups, working with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s government, are the primary traffickers of drugs into the US – while providing zero evidence for the connection. Moreover, reports from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the DEA itself have consistently found Venezuelan groups to be marginal in global drug trafficking. Even so, the US State Department has offered a $50 million reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest – the largest in the programme’s history.
Members of the first cohort of the Tactical Method of Revolutionary Resistance (Método Táctico de Resistencia Revolucionaria, MTRR) course smile after completing training at the Commando Actions Group in Caracas, Venezuela, October 2025—credit: Miguel Ángel García Ojeda.
The US has revived the blunt instrument of the ‘War on Drugs’ to pressure countries that are not yielding to its threats or that stubbornly refuse to elect right-wing governments. Recently, Trump has targeted Mexico and Colombia and has invoked their difficulties with the narcotics trade to attack their presidents. Though Venezuela does not have a significant domestic drug problem, that has not stopped Trump from attacking Maduro’s government with much more venom. In October 2025, the Venezuelan politician María Corina Machado of the Vente Venezuela (Come Venezuela) movement won the Nobel Peace Prize. Machado was ineligible to run for president in 2024 largely because she had made a series of treasonous statements, accepted a diplomatic post from another country in order to plead for intervention in Venezuela (in violation of Article 149 of the Constitution), and supported guarimbas (violent street actions in which people were beaten, burned alive, and beheaded). She has also championed unilateral US sanctions that have devastated the economy. The Nobel Prize was secured through the work of the Inspire America Foundation (based in Miami, Florida, and led by Cuban American lawyer Marcell Felipe) and by the intervention of four US politicians, three of whom are Cuban Americans (Marco Rubio, María Elvira Salazar, and Mario Díaz-Balart). The Cuban American connection is key, showing how this political network that is focused on the overthrow by any means of the Cuban Revolution now sees a US military intervention in Venezuela as a way to advance regime change in Cuba. This is, therefore, not just an intervention against Venezuela, but one against all those governments that the US would like to overthrow.
A woman holds a rifle during a security deployment in the Petare neighbourhood of Caracas, Venezuela, 15 October 2025. Credit: Rosana Silva R.
The Bite
In August 2025, the US military began to amass naval forces in the southern Caribbean, including Aegis-class destroyers and nuclear-powered attack submarines. In September, it began a campaign of extrajudicial strikes on small motorboats in Caribbean waters, bombing at least thirteen vessels and killing at least fifty-seven people – without offering evidence of any drug trafficking links. By mid-October, the US had deployed more than four thousand troops off Venezuela’s coast and five thousand on standby in Puerto Rico (including F-35 fighter jets and MQ-9 Reaper drones), authorised covert operations inside the country, and flown B-52 ‘demonstration missions’ over Caracas. In late October, the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group was deployed to the region. Meanwhile, Venezuela’s government has mobilised the population to defend the country.
A woman from the Peasant Militia (Milicia Campesina) holds a machete during her graduation as a combatant from the MTRR course, October 2025. Credit: Rosana Silva R.
Five Scenarios for US Intervention
Scenario no. 1: the Brother Sam option. In 1964, the US deployed several warships off the coast of Brazil. Their presence emboldened General Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco, chief of the Army General Staff, and his allies to stage a coup that ushered in a twenty-one-year dictatorship. But Venezuela is a different terrain. In his first term, Chávez strengthened political education in the military academies and anchored officer training in defence of the 1999 Constitution. A Castelo Branco figure is therefore unlikely to save the day for Washington.
Scenario no. 2: the Panama option. In 1989, the US bombed Panama City and sent in special operations troops to capture Manuel Noriega, Panama’s military leader, and bring him to a US prison while US-backed politicians took over the country. Such an operation would be harder to replicate in Venezuela: its military is far stronger, trained for protracted, asymmetric conflicts, and the country boasts sophisticated air defence systems (notably the Russian S-300VM and Buk-M2E surface-to-air systems). Any US air campaign would face sustained defence, making the prospect of downed aircraft – a major loss of face – one Washington is unlikely to risk.
Scenario no. 3: the Iraq option. A ‘Shock and Awe’ bombing campaign against Caracas and other cities to rattle the population and demoralise the state and military, followed by attempts to assassinate senior Venezuelan leadership and seize key infrastructure. After such an assault, Nobel Peace Prize winner Machado would likely declare herself ready to take charge and align Venezuela closely with the US. The inadequacy of this manoeuvre is that the Bolivarian leadership runs deep: the roots of the defence of the Bolivarian project run through working-class barrios, and the military would not be immediately demoralised – unlike in Iraq. As the interior minister of Venezuela, Diosdado Cabello, recently noted, ‘Anyone who wants to can remember Vietnam… when a small but united people with an iron will were able to teach US imperialism a lesson’.
The commander general of the Bolivarian National Police, Brigadier General Rubén Santiago, holds a rifle with a sticker of Chávez’s eyes during a security deployment in Petare. Credit: Rosana Silva R.
Scenario no. 4: the Gulf of Tonkin option. In 1964, the US escalated its military engagement in the Vietnam War after an incident framed as an unprovoked attack on US destroyers off the country’s coast. Later disclosures revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) fabricated intelligence to manufacture a pretext for escalation. The US claims it is now conducting naval and air ‘training exercises’ near Venezuelan territorial waters and airspace. On 26 October, the Venezuelan government said it had received information about a covert CIA plan to stage a false-flag attack on US vessels near Trinidad and Tobago to elicit a US response. Venezuelan authorities warned of US manoeuvres and said they will not give in to provocations or intimidation.
Scenario no. 5: the Qasem Soleimani option. In January 2020, a US drone strike ordered by Trump killed Major General Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran’s Quds Force. Soleimani was one of Iran’s most senior officials and was responsible for its regional defence strategy across Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan. In an interview on 60 Minutes, former US chargé d’affaires for Venezuela James Story said, ‘The assets are there to do everything up to and including decapitation of [the] government’ – a plain statement of intent to assassinate the president. After the death of President Hugo Chávez in 2013, US officials predicted that the project would collapse. Twelve years have now passed, and Venezuela continues along the path set forth under Chávez, advancing its communal model whose resilience rests not only on the revolution’s collective leadership but also on strong popular organisation. The Bolivarian project has never been a one-person show.
China and Russia are unlikely to permit a strike on Venezuela without pressing for immediate UN Security Council resolutions, and both routinely operate in the Caribbean, including joint exercises with Cuba and global missions such as China’s Mission Harmony 2025.
A member of the Juventud Socialista de Venezuela (Socialist Youth of Venezuela) shows a coin given to graduates of the MTRR course during a security deployment in La Guaira, Venezuela, October 2025. Based on the methods of Vietnamese General Võ Nguyên Giáp, the MTRR course is designed to train people with no prior military experience for possible guerrilla warfare. Credit: Rosana Silva R.
We hope that none of these scenarios come to pass and that the United States takes its military options off the table. But hope alone is not enough – we must work to expand the camp of peace.
- Originally published on Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research.
Congressional Republicans Must Stand Up to the President on Venezuela!
I recall when then-President Barack Obama was planning to send troops to enforce his “Assad must go” policy in Syria, many Republican US Senators passionately argued that the US President must come to Congress for approval before sending US troops into combat overseas. At the time, they portrayed themselves as brave defenders of the US Constitution.
Last week, when the Senate held a vote to remind President Trump that he is required to seek approval from the Legislative Branch before launching an attack on Venezuela, only two Republican Senators stood up to defend the Constitution. Why? Perhaps because a Republican President was now in office.
According to Politico, war-enthusiast Senator Lindsey Graham went so far as to say that Congress can’t “substitute our judgment” for the president’s when it comes to the decision to attack Venezuela.
The Senator needs a refresher course in high school civics. The US Constitution requires Congress, as the branch most directly accountable to the people, to substitute its judgement for the president’s when it comes to warmaking!
We fought a war against George III to negate the ability of a king to take the people to war on his whim. Now, Congress scrambles to abrogate that hard-fought achievement in the name of political expediency.
While the DC foreign policy blob – made up of both parties – is always pro-war, with each election we get a charade that one party or the other is standing up for the Constitution by challenging a president of the other party on war powers.
Why not stand up for the Constitution regardless of who the President may be?
The truth is, these days most Members of the House and Senate hold their heads down, follow their leadership, and enjoy that 97 percent incumbency reelection rate. After all, making waves by standing up for the Constitution can cost you your seat. You might even find yourself in a position where a President from your own party raises millions of dollars to try and get you ousted.
In an excellent recent essay in The American Conservative, George O’Neill Jr. recounts the current round of pro-war lies being bandied about to gin up support for a war on Venezuela. There are “narco-terrorists” threatening the US! Hezbollah is training in the Venezuelan jungles! Maduro is in league with Hamas!
We’ve heard it all before. The sinking of the USS Maine. The “domino theory.” Babies ripped from Kuwaiti incubators by Saddam’s stormtroopers. WMDs. Assad’s gas attacks. And so on.
All lies, and as O’Neill writes, the interventions they spawned have all turned out to be devastating, expensive failures. We’ve gone from six trillion dollars in debt at the beginning of the war on terror to 38 trillion dollars today. The global US military empire cannot continue if we want to keep our country.
Benjamin Franklin famously said “a republic if you can keep it” when asked what kind of government the Framers of our Constitution had created. But the Republic cannot be held together by magic or good luck. “If you can keep it,” means representation by men and women of good moral character who put the interests of their constituents and their country before their political party or the President. And it requires a population willing to stand up to propaganda and politics to elect such good people and hold them to account.
Ron Paul is a former Republican congressman from Texas. He was the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for president.
U.S. Military Kills Six More Drug Smuggling Suspects in Two Boat Strikes
The U.S. military has carried out two more strikes on suspected drug boats in the Eastern Pacific, according to the Pentagon.
In a statement, the department said that two boats were eliminated, each carrying three male suspects. All were killed in airstrikes in international waters, at no risk to U.S. servicemembers.
The military has now conducted a total of 19 strikes on suspected drug boats, bringing the total number of deceased suspects to 76 people. Two survivors were rescued after a strike in mid-October and returned to Colombia and Ecuador, their respective nations.
The Trump administration describes the targets as "narco-terrorists" or "cartel terrorists," and claims that the boats are "known to our intelligence" to be involved in narcotics smuggling. Anecdotally, reporters who have interviewed relatives and acquaintances of the deceased boat operators have found that most are low-income individuals with limited economic options. Among the dead are commercial drivers, fishermen, laborers, petty criminals, and at least one local crime boss, according to the AP.
The Pentagon has not disclosed the identities of those eliminated in the strikes, if any are known. The majority of the deceased remain unidentified, according to MSNBC, consistent with the secretive nature of smuggling enterprises and the remoteness of the waters where they were killed.
The legality of the strike program has been questioned by political critics, legal experts and even the United Nations' top human rights official. Even if these matters are set aside, there is the more practical matter of efficacy: some smuggling experts question whether the flow of drugs can be stopped with airstrikes on low-level "mules." Even if the attacks make the established boat routes too risky, the loosely-organized South American crime networks have a long history of developing alternatives, like complex container freight strategies and foot traffic.
"I don’t think it’s going to cause the [Jalisco New Generation Cartel] or Sinaloa cartel to say, ‘Wait, this is too dangerous,'" one congressional official told MSNBC. "These guys feed their rivals to tigers. They are not easily intimidated."
