Sunday, November 23, 2025

 


US operations against Maduro “within days”, say officials

US operations against Maduro “within days”, say officials
The prospective escalation follows months of steadily mounting tensions, with the Trump administration casting Maduro as an accomplice in supplying illicit narcotics responsible for American fatalities.
By bnl editorial staff November 23, 2025

Washington is set to launch some kind of intervention against Venezuela imminently, as the Trump administration escalates its drive against President Nicolás Maduro alongside an unprecedented Caribbean military deployment, Reuters reported on November 22.

Four US officials informed the news agency that covert activities would likely constitute the opening phase of fresh measures, although neither the precise schedule nor full extent have been established, and it remains unclear whether President Donald Trump has issued definitive approval.

The officials, speaking under anonymity, indicated Washington was evaluating multiple tactics, including attempts at forcing Maduro from power, the report said.

A senior administration official told Reuters that Trump stood "prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice".

The prospective escalation follows months of steadily mounting tensions, with the White House casting Maduro as an accomplice in supplying illicit narcotics responsible for American fatalities — claims the Venezuelan leader dismisses.

Maduro, who has ruled Venezuela since 2013 and claimed re-election in last year’s disputed vote, has consistently maintained that the US seeks his removal and vowed that Venezuelans and the armed forces will resist such attempts.

Washington intends to label the Cartel de Los Soles a foreign terrorist organisation on November 24 for its alleged role in importing illegal drugs, officials said. The Trump administration asserts Maduro leads the cartel, whose very existence remains disputed, and has offered a $50mn bounty for information leading to the president's capture.

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth stated last week that the terrorist label "brings a whole bunch of new options to the United States.” Trump has floated the idea that such designation would enable the US to strike Maduro's assets and facilities inside Venezuela, whilst also suggesting willingness for diplomatic talks, likely aimed at offering the leftist autocrat a last chance to stage a peaceful exit.

The USS Gerald R Ford, the world's largest warship, arrived in Caribbean waters on November 16 near Venezuelan territory. The carrier's more than 4,000 sailors joined an existing naval presence that began forming in late August, bringing total personnel to approximately 15,000 — the region's largest American military concentration since the 1989 Panama operation.

The strike group encompasses at least seven other warships, a nuclear submarine and F-35 aircraft, the report said. US forces have conducted at least 21 strikes on alleged drug-carrying vessels in Caribbean and Pacific waters since September, killing at least 83 people. Rights groups have denounced the strikes as illegal extrajudicial killings of civilians, and some US allies have voiced worries about potential international law breaches.

Meanwhile, several international airlines suspended flights to and from Venezuela on November 22 following the Federal Aviation Administration's warning of a "potentially hazardous situation" over the country, citing deteriorating security conditions and intensified military operations in the region.

Brazil's Gol, Colombia's Avianca and Portugal's TAP cancelled departures from Caracas, according to Flightradar24. Spain's flag carrier Iberia announced it would halt Caracas flights from November 24 until further notice, whilst a Latam Airlines service to Bogotá was also scrapped.

Colombia's civil aviation authority said in a statement there were "potential risks" of flying near Maiquetia "due to the deterioration of security conditions and increased military activity in the region."

The FAA notice referenced the "worsening security situation and heightened military activity in or around Venezuela" and warned that threats could pose risks for aircraft at all altitudes.

Last week, Defence Secretary Hegseth characterised the naval mission, dubbed "Southern Spear", as vital for homeland protection and removing "narco-terrorists" from the hemisphere. Yet the deployment's scale appears excessive for anti-trafficking operations alone and seems misaligned with the principal drug routes into the US.

US official data shows Venezuela accounts for just 8% of cocaine output, whilst having no involvement in fentanyl trafficking, the synthetic opioid responsible for most American overdose deaths.

Despite Washington's counter-narcotics rhetoric and repeated denials of military action plans, Trump has proclaimed Maduro's days "numbered". This, alongside his acknowledgement of authorising covert CIA operations inside Venezuela, indicates the naval build-up primarily serves as pressure tactics aimed at forcing Maduro out.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American and long-time foe of communist Latin American regimes, has steered Trump's Venezuela policy reversal, which initially involved diplomatic efforts towards engagement with Maduro. By presenting Venezuela as a national security threat tied to narcotics, Rubio has won support from key administration players and sidelined former envoy Richard Grenell, who had pursued dialogue with Caracas.

For now, most analysts believe a full-scale invasion is unlikely. An escalation would rather see targeted strikes on alleged drug-trafficking infrastructure inside Venezuela, sustained military demonstrations and concerted attempts to fracture unity between the regime and its military factions.

Venezuela's armed forces retain advanced weaponry such as Russian S-300VM air defence systems, but years of neglect have hollowed out their capabilities. Experts doubt they could withstand a US intervention, and neither Russia nor China, Caracas’ main backers on the international stage, appear willing or able to provide military support.

Maduro's government has considered fallback plans should the US invasion occur, including guerrilla-style resistance termed "prolonged resistance" to be carried out by what he calls a “civic-military unity.” Such an approach would utilise small military units across more than 280 locations for sabotage and guerrilla operations, Reuters said, citing planning documents.

The US People Don’t Want a War on Venezuela

Roughly two-thirds of American adults said they oppose an invasion of Venezuela and only 15% support one. But will this be enough to stop Trump?

This detail view shows a T-shirt depicting US President Donald Trump and the slogan “Yankee go home” worn by a supporter of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro during a rally against US military activity in the Caribbean, in Caracas on October 30, 2025.
(Photo by Federico Parra / AFP via Getty Images)
Catherine LutzAnne
Lutz Fernandez
Nov 23, 2025
Responsible Statecraft

The White House is ready for war.

As the Trump administration’s made-for-Hollywood strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats have dominated the news, the Pentagon has been positioning military assets in the Caribbean and Latin America and reactivating bases in the region. More recently, the Washington Post reported that high-level meetings were held about a possible imminent attack on Venezuela and the New York Times has learned that the president gave authorization for CIA operations there.


There is one problem: Americans don’t seem to be very enthusiastic.

While voters returned Donald Trump to office in 2024 based on a host of campaign promises, his faithful took his long-voiced complaints about spending on foreign aid and entanglement in overseas wars as vows to focus on the homeland. A range of Americans are in sync with his past statements about avoiding war; opposition to military intervention abroad is common for the left and right. Simply put, the public is not interested in going to war. Indeed, one recent poll found that just 15% of American adults support invading Venezuela.

A 2023 survey found a souring of views of military intervention more broadly, with growing numbers believing that intervention by the US tends to “worsen situations.”

Some see Trump’s Venezuela moves as an attempt to distract from domestic policy failures or the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, but his actions can’t be dismissed as wagging the dog. Trump has shown himself willing to engage with militarism. It’s not just “drug boats,” and it’s not just Venezuela. He has spent 2025 belying the myth, which has persisted over his three campaigns for president, that he is averse to war-making.
What Polls Say About Venezuela

The public has mixed views on some of the Trump administration’s specific actions toward Venezuela. Asked in a recent YouGov poll about the US Navy’s presence in Caribbean waters, for example, the percentage who approve (30%) was not much lower than the percentage who disapprove (37%).

Framing its actions against the South American nation as narcotics enforcement seems to have benefited the administration: A Harvard/CAPS poll in early October found 71% of registered voters in favor of “the US destroying boats bringing drugs into the United States from South America.” Different wording—and perhaps media coverage of the continued boat strikes raising issues of their necessity, legality, and effect—could help explain why a Reuters/Ipsos poll in mid-November found only 29% answered yes to the question, “Should the U.S. government kill suspected drug traffickers abroad without judicial process?”

Importantly, however, in YouGov’s survey, roughly two-thirds of American adults said they oppose an invasion of Venezuela and, as noted above, only 15% support one. Over half oppose the US using the military to overthrow the country’s president, Nicolás Maduro.

A 2023 survey found a souring of views of military intervention more broadly, with growing numbers believing that intervention by the US tends to “worsen situations.” Respondents seem to have based this on more recent examples, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Syrian and Yemeni civil wars. None of these interventions were seen by the majority of those polled as “successful” uses of US forces abroad.
A Cost-Benefit Analysis

Overall, Americans do not want to get, to use Trump’s own words, “bogged down” in foreign wars. Public opinion on intervention appears driven by a cost-benefit analysis as John Mueller, professor of political science emeritus at Ohio State University describes it. This may be why some Americans are more willing to accept action in the form of targeted strikes such as the boat bombings and limited displays of military might.

In the end, Trump may not attack Venezuela, but it likely won’t be because the people are against it.

Since the Cold War and especially the 9/11 attacks, the US has become increasingly militarized. One measure of this, of course, is government spending. The Costs of War project at The Watson School of International and Public Affairs estimates that the US has spent $8 trillion as a result of the post-9/11 wars. The $22 billion in support for Israel’s war in Gaza since October 7, 2023 is one of the latest and most egregious instances of the US’ support for a military first approach.

Unfortunately, the official end of the post-9/11 wars was not the end of their financial costs to ordinary Americans. The percent of the discretionary federal budget devoted to the military continues to rise and at the expense of domestic programs. Pentagon spending alone in 2026 will jump to well over $1 trillion. Though many of the economic costs of war are hidden or deferred to an indeterminate future—especially when they are funded through deficit spending—Americans still rightly worry about getting involved in costly conflicts like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Can Public Opinion Halt Trump’s Militarism?

Many have taken note of how Congress’ passage of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force has helped concentrate power in the executive, enabling swifter, unilateral military deployment by the commander-in-chief. With the AUMF, Congress relinquished its constitutionally assigned war powers and ceded to the president its duty to decide whether, when, and where to use the military to combat terrorism. Since then, the executive branch has conducted counterterrorism activities in an astounding 78 countries.

Despite Americans’ low trust in Congress, they nonetheless want the president to seek congressional approval before going to war. Feeding their mistrust, Congress has failed to respond to them on this crucial issue.

Look at how a compliant Congress has abdicated responsibility for oversight of the bombings in the Caribbean—which have now killed more than 83 people—as the Pentagon arrays warships, missiles, drones, and jet fighters in the region. Senate Republicans voted down legislation that would have required Trump to get their approval for any attacks on Venezuela, blatantly ignoring the disapproval of a public they are meant to represent.

So the bombings and the buildup continue, with Trump matter-of-factly telling a journalist, “We’re just going to kill people” without seeking congressional approval.

In the end, Trump may not attack Venezuela, but it likely won’t be because the people are against it. He is in the process of commandeering all armed capacities of the US government, military, and law enforcement to serve his purposes foreign and domestic. Reasserting the rights of the people, including the right to peace, requires Congress to aggressively reassert its constitutional duty and the citizenry to demand its will be met.
© 2023 Responsible Statecraft
Catherine Lutz
Catherine Lutz is an American anthropologist and Thomas J. Watson, Jr. Family Professor of Anthropology and International Studies at Brown University.
Full Bio >


Anne Lutz Fernandez
Anne Lutz Fernandez writes about education, politics, transportation, and culture. A former teacher, investment banker, and brand manager, she has coauthored two books of nonfiction, Carjacked and Schooled.
Full Bio >

Six airlines halt flights to Venezuela after US warns of 'heightened military activity'

Six major carriers suspended flights to Venezuela after the US aviation regulator warned of “heightened military activity” amid a growing American buildup in the region, deepening tensions with President Nicolas Maduro’s government.

Issued on: 23/11/2025 
By: FRANCE 24

File photo: A TAP Air Portugal plane takes off from Dublin Airport in Dublin, Ireland, on March 26, 2021. © Clodagh Kilcoyne, Reuters

Six airlines cancelled flights to Venezuela on Saturday, an industry group said, after the US aviation regulator warned of dangers from "heightened military activity" amid a major buildup of American forces in the region.

Spain's Iberia, Portugal's TAP, Chile's LATAM, Colombia's Avianca, Brazil's GOL and Trinidad and Tobago's Caribbean have suspended their flights to the country, said Marisela de Loaiza, president of the Venezuelan Airlines Association (ALAV).

She did not specify how long the flight suspensions would last.

Panama's Copa Airlines, Spain's Air Europa and PlusUltra, Turkish Airlines, and Venezuela's LASER are continuing to operate flights for now.

The US Federal Aviation Administration on Friday urged civilian aircraft in Venezuelan airspace to "exercise caution" due to the "worsening security situation and heightened military activity in or around Venezuela".

"Threats could pose a potential risk to aircraft at all altitudes, including during overflight, the arrival and departure phases of flight, and/or airports and aircraft on the ground," it said.

Maduro-linked ‘cartel’ added to US terror list

Washington has sent an aircraft carrier strike group, other Navy warships as well as stealth aircraft to the region – deployments it says are aimed at curbing drug trafficking but which have sparked fears in Caracas that regime change is the goal.

A US terrorism designation takes effect Monday for a drug cartel allegedly headed by leftist Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro – a move that some believe could presage military action against his government.


Washington's forces have carried out strikes against more than 20 alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean since early September, killing more than 80 people.

But the United States has yet to release concrete evidence that the vessels it targeted were used to smuggle drugs or posed a threat to the country, and regional tensions have flared as a result of the campaign and the accompanying military buildup.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

Wag the Dog in Venezuela

 November 21, 2025

Image by Planet Volumes.

Analysis of why countries go to war sometimes argues that leaders are motivated by problems at home. They attack another country to divert attention from an economic crisis, an unlawful act, or—as in the Robert De Niro movie, Wag the Dog—a sex scandal. In recent years, for example, Israel’s all-out response to the Hamas attack in October 2023 might be explained as having been prompted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political and legal troubles. India’s brief war with Pakistan in May may have occurred to release domestic political pressures in both countries. These explanations may be off the mark, but they appear regularly in speculation about why political leaders decide to fight rather than negotiate.

Trump’s Deep Troubles at Home

Now, as Pres. Trump considers what to do with his Caribbean armada and Venezuela’s “narco-terrorist” leader, Nicolas Maduro, we may be witness to another wag-the-dog event: US military pressure on Venezuela that could lead to a direct attack if Maduro doesn’t step down. The case for Trump to be highly motivated to act out of self-interest is strong. Consider:

His approval ratings are very low and declining by the week—around 36 percent in overall approval, with even lower ratings on his handling of the economy, tariffs, and the government shutdown.

His economic policies have led to food and health care inflation, declining consumer confidence, a very large population living from paycheck to paycheck, and considerable grumbling among corporate leaders. Trump is now flailing about for a response, such as $2,000 direct payments to families and lower tariffs on food imports, that will assuage people’s growing anger. It’s desperation time.

The Epstein case is about to explode in Trump’s face. Republicans are defecting in droves on a vote to demand the release of all government files on Epstein. It is already clear that Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and others in Trump’s circle have lied about the Trump-Epstein relationship. Trump’s order to Bondi to prosecute his political enemies and investigate Democrats who knew Epstein will probably do little to displace the Trump-Epstein story.

The stark corruption in and around the White House is a sharp contrast with rising economic inequality. Trump’s crypto currency ventures, the East Wing demolition, the glitzy White House parties, the Argentina bailout, the Middle East hotel projects—these are all bad optics, as the spin doctors would say.

A blue tide is emerging: the Democrats are getting traction on Epstein, “affordability,” and incompetence in Trump’s cabinet. 2026 doesn’t look promising.

Judges around the country are ruling against National Guard deployments to cities and brutal ICE tactics against immigrants and citizens.

Why Not Venezuela?

As Trump looks around for an off-ramp, preparing for an attack on Venezuela surely has come to mind. After all, he and Pete Hegseth have assembled an enormous force in the Caribbean that goes far beyond any counter-drug operation. Hegseth has reinforced the mission’s importance by giving it a name–Operation Southern Spear. What better way to showcase the war on drugs than to use all that firepower and score a dramatic win against a second-rate Venezuelan army? Trump has also lined up the legal argument, thanks to Bondi. As the New York Times has reported, the Justice Department’s legal counsel has given Trump precisely the justification he cites for attacking alleged drug boats, namely, that the US is engaged in armed conflict against the drug cartels and “narco-terrorism.” By that argument, taking the fight to its source must also be legal. And since the President has made a “determination” as to the national security implications, presumably there is no need to consult with or obtain the consent of Congress.

Trump’s way of dealing with foreign affairs further lends itself to the wag-the-dog possibility. Self-interest comes first, the consequences of aggressive actions last. What to do about Venezuela is above all a personal issue, just as the Gaza peace plan, the war in Ukraine, and the eight other wars Trump has resolved are personal triumphs. He may pretend to be consulting with military leaders about options in Venezuela, but does he really care what they say? They are interested in strategy and the national interest, not in protecting him and his regime. Only Trump can protect Trump.

To be clear, wag-the-dog explanations are alluring, but rarely persuasive. It is all too easy to assign domestic troubles as the reason for a foreign adventure, since all countries have economic, political, or social problems at a given moment. Authoritarian rule in Venezuela provides a convenient, well-used pretext for US action. Maduro’s regime is “illegitimate”; Venezuela’s oil wealth can be taken; drug cartels in Mexico, Colombia, and elsewhere can be put on notice. Yet in this instance, wag-the-dog can’t be dismissed. Not that Trump had the idea of targeting Venezuela as a diversion all along. It may only have occurred to him in the last few days as bad news piled up and began to seem insurmountable. We can speculate that the failure to bury the Epstein files is a tipping point: “I’ve got to do something that takes attention away from those files,” Trump may be thinking. “Otherwise, the 2026 elections are lost, not to mention my presidency.”

If nothing else, this might be a good time to take another look at Wag the Dog. Its relevance never seems to end.

Mel Gurtov is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University, Editor-in-Chief of Asian Perspective, an international affairs quarterly and blogs at In the Human Interest.

Report: US Destroyer Blocks Sanctioned Shadow Tanker’s Route to Venezuela

tanker at sea
Reports suggest a shadow tanker has three times attempted to approach Venezuela but found a US destroyer in its path (file photo)

Published Nov 21, 2025 12:26 PM by The Maritime Executive


It appears the Trump administration is further tightening its pressure on Venezuela, using one of the destroyers deployed to the Caribbean to spook a sanctioned shadow tanker from approaching Venezuela. Using tracking data, Bloomberg reports the sanctioned tanker Seahorse has attempted to approach Venezuela three times, and each time the U.S. destroyer USS Stockdale has “positioned itself in the path” of the tanker.

Bloomberg reports the situation began on November 13 when the Seahorse first approached Venezuela. It says the vessel made a U-turn, reversing course toward Cuba. The tanker, Bloomberg reports, has since tried two more times to approach Venezuela, but both times has turned back.  The vessel’s AIS signal places it north of Aruba, along with several other tankers that are all reporting they are “awaiting orders.”

The Seahorse is typical of the sanctioned shadow fleet, with Bloomberg reporting it has been used for transporting a lighter fuel distillate, naphtha, from Russian refineries to Venezuela. In the past, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) has also reported that the vessel was being used in the Iran to Venezuela trade, with both Russia and Iran supporting Venezuela’s need for distillate products to maintain its oil operations.

The 70,246-dwt tanker, which was built in 2004, has had eight names, three of which were in the last two years. It claims a flag of Comoros, which Equasis reports as false, after jumping between Liberia, Panama, and Barbados. The EU sanctioned the vessel in May 2025, and the UK followed in July 2025. Its last listed inspection is October 2024 in the Russian Black Sea, where it was cited for a dozen deficiencies. This included fire safety, lifeboats, steam and pressure pipes, and other operational and safety issues.

Bloomberg writes that the effort to spook the tanker is likely part of a “maximum pressure” policy launched by the Trump administration against Venezuela. The U.S. has moved to block the oil trade and disrupt the flow of narcotics in the Caribbean, which claims are coming from Venezuela-based terrorist organizations. The U.S. has built up its fleet of warships in the region in a show of force, and Donald Trump is reported to be considering military strikes in Venezuela to stop the drug trade and topple the regime of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The United States is also continuing its pressure campaign against Iran. It has launched further sanctions on tankers and companies enabling Iran’s energy trade, as well as the administration’s first sanctions on Russia related to the war in Ukraine.

The U.S. sanctions on both Russian companies Rosneft and Lukoil formally start on Friday, November 21. Analysts report they have already disrupted the flow of oil from Russia, especially to India, as well as to China. Bloomberg, using Kpler data, estimates that there are 50 tankers still heading toward China and India, while many others are holding at various points such as the Baltic. It speculates that nearly 48 million barrels of Russian crude could become stranded at sea.


Venezuela Doubles Down on Energy Alliance with Russia

Venezuela’s Parliament has approved a 15-year extension of the country’s oil-producing joint ventures with Russian companies, Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez said on Telegram as the South American country doubles down on its strategic alliance with Russia. 

The 15-year extension now allows the joint ventures established under the strategic energy alliance between the two countries to continue operations until 2041, Rodriguez said, adding it is a crucial step toward Venezuela’s energy development. 

“No illegitimate blockade can overcome our energy strengths,” the Venezuelan vice president said.  

Venezuela’s state-owned oil firm PDVSA has joint ventures with a unit of Russian firm Roszarubezhneft that develop two oilfields, Boqueron and Perija, in western Venezuela.   

Roszarubezhneft, owned by a unit of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, was incorporated in 2020. After the U.S. sanctioned two units of Rosneft for trading Venezuelan oil, Roszarubezhneft bought the Venezuelan assets of the Russian state-controlled oil giant Rosneft. 

The strengthening of the Venezuela-Russia energy alliance with the 15-year extension of the joint ventures comes as the two countries are under increased pressure from the United States. 

The Trump Administration has just sanctioned Rosneft and the second-biggest Russian producer, Lukoil, while U.S. aircraft carriers have moved to the Caribbean close to Venezuelan waters. 

In recent days, the U.S. has moved the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s most advanced aircraft carrier, close to Venezuela, and U.S. President Donald Trump earlier this week said he would not rule out sending U.S. troops to Venezuela. 

Hours after the President’s comments, Nicolas Maduro said that he is “ready” to hold face-to-face talks with representatives of the Trump Administration. 

Meanwhile, U.S. sanctions on the global operations of Russian oil heavyweights Rosneft and Lukoil come into effect today, with some 48 million barrels of Rosneft and Lukoil crude on tankers that will now have to look for new destinations.  

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com 

ANOTHER DEPT of WAR FAILURE

U.S. Coast Guard Sees No Drop in Cocaine Boat Traffic After Lethal Strikes

A drug boat stopped and destroyed by USCGC Stone, one of 15 the cutter has intercepted since September (USCG)
A drug boat stopped and destroyed by USCGC Stone, one of 15 the cutter has intercepted since September (USCG)

Published Nov 20, 2025 6:54 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

New drone strikes on drug smuggling boats have not been holding back the Coast Guard's performance in daily cocaine seizures, according to a top USCG commander for the region. If anything, the numbers have been going up, as demonstrated by the new record set by USCGC Stone's crew over the last few months. The volumes captured are better than ever; if smugglers are deterred by the threat of a lethal strike, it hasn't yet affected boat traffic, the service suggests.

"The drugs you see here on [USCGC] Stone — most have been seized in September, October and even early in the month of November" - all after the start of the drone strike campaign, Coast Guard Atlantic Area Commander Adm. Nathan Moore told CBS. "So business is good for us and we are continuing to enjoy success."

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency sees a different view. Whether because of the lethal strikes or the increased Coast Guard seizures, drug prices in Central American and Caribbean transshipment areas are on the rise, DEA Administrator Terry Cole told the network. In this region, where smuggling boats land and offload drugs for onward transport to the U.S. or to Europe, cocaine prices are going up, he said. Cole explained that smugglers are having to pay more for crewmember wages, boats and engines due to the intercepts, and have to increase prices accordingly. 

Concerns remain about the legality of the lethal strikes, and reports of isolated objections within the military command structure continue to percolate out. Multiple senior officials, including U.S. Southern Command's top officer, have announced their departure since the start of the campaign. NBC reports that the top lawyer for U.S. Southern Command, Marine Corps Col. Paul Meagher, previously warned commanders that the boat strikes would amount to unlawful extrajudicial killings, potentially exposing U.S. servicemembers to prosecution.

If delivered as reported, this opinion would align with the views of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who warned in October that the operation was equivalent to "extrajudicial killing of people aboard these boats." But the Pentagon denies that Southern Command's Col. Meagher made any such a conclusion, or that any other military lawyers have objected formally. Spokesman Sean Parnell said Thursday that NBC's story "is 100% fake news." 

The Trump administration believes that the individuals aboard the boats are "narco-terrorists" and may be killed without trial in international waters. While that definition is in use within U.S. Southern Command, the Coast Guard continues to arrest live suspects in the manner of a law enforcement agency, making smugglers' fates dependent upon which agency they encounter: elimination if intercepted by the U.S. Air Force, or detention if intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard.

DEA director Cole suggested that the two approaches are compatible. "We're going to apply every single tool to stop the narcotics from coming into the United States and killing American citizens," Cole told CBS. 

Colombian Navy Seizes 200 Kilos of Cocaine From a Ship's Sea Chest

Colombian Navy
Courtesy Armada de Colombia

Published Nov 19, 2025 10:00 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

Colombian Navy forces have seized more than 200 kilos of cocaine in a dive inspection of a merchant ship at the port of Buenaventura, the largest port complex on the nation's Pacific coast. 

An underwater inspection by divers from the Buenaventura Coast Guard Station revealed seven large black bags in the ship's sea chest. They were pulled up to the surface, and sealed bricks were found inside. A rapid test revealed that the bricks were cocaine. 

"With this seizure, the [navy] prevented the commercialization of more than 521,000 doses of narcotics . . . [and] affected the entry of more than $10 million into the criminal finances of drug trafficking organizations," the service said in a statement. 

Courtesy Armada de Colombia

Colombia is the world's leading producer of cocaine, and a long series of political developments have contributed to soaring drug production and falling prices. The drug is exported in ever-increasing volumes to consumers in Europe, North America and Australia, the highest-earning destination markets. Europe may become an increasingly desirable export market because of the U.S. airstrike campaign against northbound drug boats in the Pacific and the Caribbean. 

The Colombian Navy is the closest maritime force to the source of the drug flow, and plays a leading role in interdiction, often with outsize, multi-tonne busts. In the latest example, on November 13, the service announced the seizure of 7,000 kilos aboard two go-fast boats and a semisubmersible. The service also participates in operations to target the upstream and midstream cocaine supply chain, taking down coca production labs on land in cooperation with Colombia's army and police forces. In September and October alone, it joined raids on 34 illegal labs. 


USCG Cutter Stone Sets New Record for Cocaine Busts in One Deployment

Stone
A captured smuggling boat burns after an interdiction. The suspected smugglers were removed before its destruction (Courtesy USCG)

Published Nov 19, 2025 6:55 PM by The Maritime Executive


The U.S. Coast Guard cutter USCGC Stone has made Coast Guard history by catching 49,000 pounds of cocaine in a single deployment, more than any other cutter ever. 

The seized contraband came from 15 interdictions in the busy smuggling corridor of the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The intercept count exceeds the number of military airstrikes on drug boats in the same region. That Stone found so many cocaine boats suggests that cocaine trafficking continues at pace in the region, despite the threat of a lethal response from U.S. forces. 

 

Crew of the Stone destroying a smuggling boat after an interdiction (USCG)

Stone offloaded her cargo of cocaine on a pier at Port Everglades on Wednesday. The total haul was worth $362 million, according to the service. 

“I am extremely proud of the crew’s incredible performance during this deployment,” said Capt. Anne O’Connell, commanding officer, Coast Guard Cutter Stone. “This offload demonstrates our increased posture and continued success in the fight against narco-terrorism and transnational criminal organizations. The Coast Guard, in conjunction with our inter-agency and international partners, continues to patrol areas commonly associated with drug trafficking in the Eastern Pacific, denying smugglers access to maritime routes by which they move illicit drugs to our U.S. land and sea borders.” 

Image courtesy USCG

 Trump's obsession with Saudi Arabia 'backfiring' on US oil companies: report



U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman during a welcoming ceremony in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, May 13, 2025. Bandar Algaloud/Courtesy of Saudi Royal Court/Handout via REUTERS

November 22, 2025
ALTERNET

New York Times reporter Noah Shachtman says Trump made a “corrosive pact” with the U.S. oil industry, and today that pact is “wiping out jobs at home and strangling what little hope was left of avoiding a climate disaster.”

“Trump promised them he would do them so many favors that a billion dollars in donations would feel like a ‘deal.’ The executives gave him only a fraction of the money he sought. Mr. Trump, on the other hand, has given them more than they asked for,” said Shachtman.

As predicted, Trump scaled back regulations and encouraged more drilling. He’s also worked to crush the industry’s green competition, pulling the plug on the largest solar project in North America, which was on track to supply enough power for nearly two million homes. Trump also put a $5 billion wind farm project in New York temporarily on hold, threatening thousands of jobs until the state approved a new gas pipeline. And he’s killed incentives for electric vehicles, sales of which had more than doubled since his first term.

It's all outdated political instinct from the 1970s, said Shachtman, back when Saudi Arabia and the rest of the OPEC cartel cut production and brought the world economy to its knees. For decades afterward, Trump expressed a mixture of admiration and resentment of the kingdom’s resource wealth.

But now, Trump is taking on damaging OPEC-like maneuvers, trying to dominate the international market, warning the world to buy more fossil fuels — or else. Now America is the planet’s leading producer of oil and natural gas, but his America First energy goals have their contradictions.

“In his total commitment to a hydrocarbon-heavy world, he has pushed not only domestic producers but also Saudi Arabia and the rest of the OPEC nations to keep pumping out more, more, more cheap oil,” said Shachtman. “That might be good news for consumers, offsetting some of these high electric rates. But with oil prices down to around $60 per barrel, American companies say they can’t afford to open up new wells, especially now that [Trump’s] tariffs have made drilling equipment so expensive. The total number of active rigs is down year over year.”

Meanwhile the combo of more data centers and fewer renewables is spiking average Americans’ electric bills. Natural gas prices are up, thanks to Trump’s export deals.

“If you gave me a piece of paper and asked me to think about the most creative way, the most effective way, to raise electricity prices in the United States, it would look a lot like what they’ve done,” said Ethan Zindler, a former climate counselor in the Biden Treasury Department who works on policy at Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

The U.S. oil and gas business would probably be thrilled were Trump’s “capricious attacks on renewables and the big swings in energy policy” not also a liability for an industry forced by the nature of its complex engineering projects to plan years, or even decades, ahead.

“Ever-changing policy, particularly as administrations change, is not good for business. It’s not good for the economy and ultimately, it’s not good for people,” said Exxon Mobil’s chief executive, Darren Woods.

Energy executives are unhappy, but they can’t be surprised, said Shachtman. Trump’s favor was always transactional and he wanted to use his oil industry favor to make their energy a tool to leverage his own personal power.

“If they drill themselves out of business, I don’t give a damn,” Trump told voters at a rally last year.

Read the New York Times report at this link.



U.S. and Saudi Arabia Rebuild a Strategic Alliance

  • Saudi Arabia pledged up to $1 trillion in U.S. investments, strengthening ties with Washington across energy, defense, and technology.

  • Aramco signed $30 billion in new deals with U.S. firms, including major LNG investments in Energy Transfer’s Lake Charles and Commonwealth LNG projects.

  • The partnership also includes nuclear technology sharing and critical minerals projects, such as a rare earth processing plant by MP Materials and Ma’aden.




Saudi Arabia made investment commitments of as much as $1 trillion during the visit of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the United States. The sum is a substantial increase on an original pledge of $600 billion, but it is also a sign that the relationship between two of the world’s largest oil producers is back on track.

The relationship, dating back to the early 20th century, was rather damaged during the Biden administration, in part due to its focus on the energy transition, which put it at odds with Saudi Arabia as an economy heavily dependent on oil revenues. Another part of the reason for the worsened bilateral relations was the issue of human rights and the murder of a dissident Saudi journalist, which included President Biden at one point calling the kingdom a pariah state. On top of those complications, President Biden at one point threatened to punish Saudi Arabia if Riyadh did not ramp up oil production to lower prices. In short, the Biden administration did not play well with the Saudis.

President Trump changed all that, bringing relations back to the friend zone and extracting massive investment commitments across industries, but notably in LNG, defense, and critical minerals. The two also made progress on nuclear energy, with the U.S. agreeing to share its nuclear power technology with the Saudis on the condition that it would not be used for weapons-grade uranium enrichment.

The latter had been a thorny issue for years, ever since talks about nuclear tech sharing began during the first Trump administration. At the time, the Saudis refused to sign off on the non-enrichment clause, which delayed the deal. Now, Chris Wright and Abdulaziz bin Salman signed a preliminary deal for the tech sharing, with specific steps forward presumably to follow.

Aramco, meanwhile, announced preliminary agreements with U.S. companies worth a total $30 billion, noting the prospective deals build on earlier investment commitments made this year, with a value of up to $90 billion. The areas that the deals cover span from LNG to advanced materials manufacturing and financial services, the company said.

In liquefied gas specifically, Aramco is looking into an investment in the Lake Charles project led by Energy Transfer, and an offtake deal for Commonwealth LNG.

The Lake Charles LNG project is fully permitted, uses existing infrastructure, and benefits from an abundant natural gas supply through existing connections to the Henry Hub and connectivity to Energy Transfer’s vast network of natural gas pipelines. It will have an annual capacity of some 15 million tons of liquefied natural gas once completed. Finding equity partners for 80% of the facility is the condition Energy Transfer has set for making the final investment decision for the project.

The Commonwealth LNG facility in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, will have an annual capacity of 9.5 million tons of liquefied gas. The construction of the first phase will cost $11 billion, according to Commonwealth LNG, and generate annual export revenues of some $3.5 billion. However, the company has yet to make the final investment decision on the project, just like Energy Transfer, after revising the timeline for the project’s completion, with commissioning moved from 2027 to 2031.

Critical minerals and metals were another area of interest for both. Saudi Arabia has considerable deposits of some of these minerals and metals. The United States needs them. That one was really a no-brainer, and only a matter of time. During the Saudi visit, U.S. MP Materials announced a deal with Saudi Maaden and the U.S. federal government for the construction of a rare earths processing plant in Saudi Arabia.

Nuclear, LNG, and critical minerals—this is more or less all the priority boxes ticked, plus weapons and military equipment supply deals to cement the mended fences. Now, the only question is how many of the preliminary commitments will progress to full deals.

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com









The Saudi F-35 Gambit: A High-End Arms Sale Meets Middle Eastern Geopolitics – Analysis
Hudson Institute
By Can Kasapoğlu


President Donald Trump’s announcement that the United States will sell F-35 combat aircraft to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a turning point for airpower dynamics in the Middle East, with broad geopolitical implications.

The Lockheed Martin F-35, a fifth-generation, multirole stealth aircraft with unrivaled information superiority features, represents the leading edge of American tactical military aviation. Its high-end capabilities, from providing deep battlespace awareness to enabling distributed, networked precision strikes in nonpermissive airspace, make it one of the rare assets that can single-handedly alter the outcome of a conflict.

The announcement that Saudi Arabia will be the first Arab nation to procure this system has severe implications for three key pillars of American engagement in the Middle East:Outcompeting China in the quest for long-term influence over the region’s militaries and weapons markets.
Boosting the capabilities of Washington’s Gulf Arab partners to counter Iran.
Preserving Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME) in a worsening threat landscape.
Geopolitical Importance: Preventing the Saudis from Hedging toward China

President Trump’s announcement, made on the eve of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s White House visit, is an important step for preventing Saudi Arabia from drifting further into China’s military orbit. The sale likely cleared a Pentagon review in advance of the president’s meeting with the de facto Saudi monarch. If it goes through, Saudi Arabia will acquire 48 F-35s, making it the first Arab nation to operate a fifth-generation combat aircraft.

The United States Defense Intelligence Agency reportedly warned Trump administration officials that, because of Riyadh’s defense partnership with Beijing, selling the F-35 to Saudi Arabia might give China access to the aircraft’s critical technologies. Nonetheless, Saudi Arabia’s increasing ties with China were likely a key reason why President Trump decided to go through with the sale. Riyadh has signaled that it will not depend solely on the United States for its security—and that if Washington hesitates, the kingdom will pursue other avenues. Moreover, Riyadh’s recent strategic mutual defense agreement with Pakistan—a China-aligned Muslim-majority nation with a capable military and nuclear assets—sent an unmistakable message to the US about the House of Saud’s leverage.



Beijing has been deeply involved in supplying the kingdom with armaments, especially missile and drone warfare assets, for at least a decade. Geospatial analysis shows that Saudi Arabia has significantly expanded the Royal Saudi Strategic Missile Force in recent years while also seeking to expand its indigenous defense industrial base. The crown prince has also pressed for local production agreements as a condition of major defense acquisitions—especially missile programs. Saudi Arabia now has a solid-propellant motorproduction line at the al-Watah ballistic missile base, and US intelligence assesses that Riyadh is manufacturing an undisclosed slate of ballistic missiles with direct Chinese assistance.

For many countries, ballistic missile cooperation with China would end any hope of close military ties with the US—let alone an F-35 acquisition. But whenever Washington withholds a capability that Riyadh views as vital, the kingdom hedges further toward Beijing. When America withheld Pershing ballistic missiles from Riyadh in the 1980s, the Saudis sought DF-3 missiles from China. The eventual $3.5 billion deal between Riyadh and Beijing was the start of a pattern that endures today. It is therefore likely that the Trump administration believed that the crown prince’s major ask was more than mere posturing.

Beijing has publicly signaled that its ostensible fifth-generation competitor to the F-35, the J-20 stealth fighter, remains under strict export restrictions. But the strategic situation is fluid. If China’s leadership sees a chance to score a strategic victory over the United States, those export barriers could quickly fall. The United Arab Emirates—another Gulf state that Washington has thus far shut out from F-35 procurement over concerns about Chinese defense technology espionage through local Huawei 5G infrastructure—has reportedly shown interest in the J-20. If the right opportunity to erode US aerospace dominance in the Gulf presents itself, Beijing may decide to seize it.

Fortunately for the White House, providing Riyadh with the F-35 might serve multiple US strategic interests—if the political-military perspective holds and the diplomatic stars line up. As mentioned, it boosts America’s position as it competes with China for regional influence. F-35s would be an effective but American-dependent asset for the Saudis to operate. Second, Washington needs capable Gulf partners that can plug seamlessly into the US military’s regional architecture to help counter Iran. This architecture became even more critical when the US officially moved Israel from the European Command (EUCOM) area of responsibility to Central Command (CENTCOM) in 2021. Having an allied F-35 detachment in the Gulf would allow CENTCOM to respond even more forcefully to future Iranian aggression, enhancing deterrence. Finally, Saudi Arabia, sitting at the nexus of the Red Sea and the Gulf, is a valuable geopolitical partner. Its critical role in global energy markets and its fast-growing portfolio of high-tech and defense industrial investments under its Vision 2030 further increase its importance. Militarily, the kingdom remains one of the few states capable of hosting large-scale US detachments to anchor American deterrence against Iran.

The Trump administration’s decision to sell the F-35 to Saudi Arabia reveals the strategic trust Washington is willing to extend to its longtime ally—and reinforces the alignment it expects from Riyadh in return. In the White House’s calculus, this deal benefits the US and its Saudi allies while harming China.
Stealth in the Gulf: The Potential Military Transformation behind Fifth-Gen Air Superiority

Saudi Arabia, thanks to its considerable wealth, is already one of the world’s top defense spenders. Between 2020 and 2024, the kingdom ranked fourth among the world’s arms importers and was the primary Middle Eastern recipient of US-made munitions. But Riyadh has, for years, viewed the acquisition of a fifth-generation combat aircraft as the capstone of its Vision 2030 defense transformation agenda—an ambitious program to rapidly advance its military capabilities.

The stealth-equipped F-35 is the backbone of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s tactical aviation deterrent. According to Lockheed Martin, more than 600 F-35s will be stationed across NATO air bases in Europe by the 2030s. For reference, the French military has ordered just 234 of its indigenous Dassault Rafale combat aircraft as of November 2025. Beyond Europe, the F-35I has given the Israeli Air Force operational freedom in hostile Middle Eastern skies.

The F-35’s stealth and information superiority capabilities would dramatically shift the Saudi-Iranian balance of power. The aircraft’s ability to operate deep in nonpermissive airspace and overcome layered air defense architectures would allow Saudi Arabia to threaten the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ missile sites, drone nests, command hubs, and other critical infrastructure.

Moreover, the F-35 would serve as a force multiplier, enhancing the effectiveness of the rest of the kingdom’s air warfare posture. Fifth-generation platforms like the F-35 operate within smart battle networks, or systems of systems. In Israel’s recent 12-day war with Iran, F-35Is played a central role in the Israeli Air Force’s strike packages. The fifth-generation aircraft’s advanced computational systems and data fusion capabilities enhanced Israeli forces’ real-time awareness. Its high-end sensors, including the AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System and the AN/APG-81 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, fed continuous targeting and threat information to fourth-generation F-15Is and F-16Is, supercharging their lethality and survivability. The F-35 would offer a similar boost to the Saudi Royal Air Force’s F-15s, giving Riyadh access to a realm of operational concepts that is unique among Arab militaries.
The Shifting Regional Balance: Saudi Ambitions Encroach on Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge

No Arab state has ever operated a platform that rivals, let alone matches, Israel’s prime air warfare asset. This is no accident. Israel has long insisted on maintaining its QME, undergirded by a US policy commitment to ensure the Israeli military’s regional superiority.

The Israeli strategic community is now wondering whether Washington will end Israel’s long-standing regional monopoly on stealth technology, or whether the Trump administration will give the Israeli Defense Forces a new, decisive warfighting advantage.

Israeli planners have seen this dynamic play out before. When Washington agreed to transfer F-15s and airborne early warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the 1980s, Israeli diplomatic efforts convinced the Reagan administration to restrict the supplies Riyadh received. Washington thus withheld its most advanced jamming configurations and forbade Saudi AWACS aircraft from flying outside the nation’s borders. The Trump administration could place similar technical and operational limits on the F-35s it sells to Riyadh.

Yet even if Saudi Arabia receives fully capable F-35s, Israel’s advantage would not disappear overnight. Israel’s unmatched combat experience flying F-35s in hostile airspace and the modifications unique to the Israeli F-35I Adir, including its indigenous electronic warfare suite, would help the Israeli Air Force retain its edge.

Nonetheless, a strategic calculus will likely inform Israel’s response to the Saudi F-35 acquisition. Rather than citing the QME policy to oppose Riyadh’s fifth-generation airpower ambitions, the Israeli government will likely press Washington to make a normalization of Saudi-Israeli diplomatic relations a precondition of the F-35 sale.
Conclusion

The Trump administration’s decision to supply Saudi Arabia with F-35s could reshape airpower in the Middle East for a generation. A fifth-generation fleet in the kingdom could enhance deterrence against Iran, strengthen the US-led regional coalition, and anchor the US—rather than China—as Saudi Arabia’s main defense industrial partner.

Yet the move also challenges Israel’s long-standing stealth exclusivity and the long-standing QME framework. Israel’s position on the Saudi acquisition of the F-35—conditional openness tied to normalization of relations—reflects a recognition that outright rejection is no longer politically or militarily sustainable. But the Israeli defense establishment nonetheless realizes that safeguards, restrictions, and political reciprocity will best serve its qualitative edge privileges and strategic interests.

For the United States, the choice is clear. Anchoring Riyadh in the US-led security architecture by delivering a carefully designed F-35 deal that preserves Israel’s QME advances US military and economic interests and regional stability. On the other hand, if the White House balks at the deal, it risks ceding strategic ground to Beijing in the Gulf’s most strategically vital market.

How the Trump administration navigates this deal will be a key test of US statecraft in the Middle East, with major implications for great power competition against China. The sale of F-35s to Saudi Arabia is fraught with risks—but charged with massive upside.About the author: Can Kasapoğlu is a nonresident senior fellow at Hudson Institute. His work at Hudson focuses on political-military affairs in the Middle East, North Africa, and former Soviet regions. He specializes in open-source defense intelligence, geopolitical assessments, international weapons market trends, as well as emerging defense technologies and related concepts of operations.


Source: This article was published by the Hudson Institute

Hudson Institute is a nonpartisan policy research organization dedicated to innovative research and analysis that promotes global security, prosperity, and freedom.