Venezuela: Why the US Wants to Attack Maduro Under the Pretext of Drug Trafficking

When the United States declares its intention to "strike drug trafficking in Venezuela," the real objective does not appear to be the fight against drug production—which , according to official UN data ( World Drug Report 2025 , UNODC) does not exist in the country—but the delegitimization and, if possible, removal of the political leadership in Caracas. It is no coincidence that a record $50 million bounty hangs over Nicolás Maduro ( Reuters, August 8, 2025 ), a clear sign that Washington considers him an enemy to be neutralized, rather than a negotiator.

From this perspective, Maduro appears like a "walking dead man": a formally elected president, yet already condemned by the American political-media machine, which, thanks to its military might, operates above the UN and any international court. This dynamic echoes Israel's: the logic of selective impunity, provided each operation is framed by an appropriate media narrative, capable of presenting the action as "just" and necessary in the eyes of public opinion.

Let's not forget that this is not the first attempt at regime change in Venezuela: already in 2019 , the United States, together with several allied countries, attempted to impose Juan Guaidó as interim president, unilaterally recognizing him as the legitimate head of state in place of Maduro ( BBC, January 23, 2019 ). The operation failed, but it made it clear that for Washington, Caracas represents much more than an occasional adversary.

Since the days of Hugo Chávez (1999-2013) , Venezuela has been a thorn in the side of the United States: a country rich in energy resources, which has chosen an autonomous path, in open opposition to the political and economic model desired by Washington for Latin America. Caracas' independent stance—combined with alliances with Russia, China, Iran, and progressive governments in the region—contradicts the traditional "Monroe Doctrine," according to which Latin America must remain under the direct influence of the United States, treated as its own backyard .

What appears most unbearable for the US is not only Venezuelan independence, but the fact that other Latin American countries have followed suit : Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua and, more recently, sectors of Brazil and Mexico have adopted positions of increasing autonomy, undermining US control over a continent historically perceived as an area of ​​exclusive dominion.

UN data: Venezuela is not a narco-state

The key point, too often obscured by the dominant narrative, is that Venezuela is neither a cocaine producing country nor a primary distribution hub . The UNODC (UN Office on Drugs and Crime) World Drug Report 2025 clearly states this: global production is concentrated in Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia , while the main transit routes pass through Brazil, West Africa, and the Caribbean.

Venezuela may be marginally affected as a transit territory, due to its geographical location, but it has no systemic role in the global drug trafficking chain.

This data dismantles the US narrative of the “Venezuelan narco-state”, which reveals itself for what it is: a political and media construct functional to justify undeclared war measures .

The bounty on Maduro: a political war

The offer of $50 million for Maduro's capture, announced in August 2025 ( Reuters ), represents a quantum leap. Washington had already set a $15 million bounty in 2020, accusing the Venezuelan president of "narco-terrorism." Today, the more than tripled figure is not just an incentive, but a geopolitical message: the United States no longer recognizes Maduro as head of state, but as an international criminal worthy of "beheading."

Such a measure is exceptional: no other sitting president in the world has been subjected to an international bounty of this kind . It is an extreme form of political warfare aimed at destabilizing the country and delegitimizing any form of diplomatic mediation.

Selective Impunity: Parallels with Israel

The US strategy toward Venezuela is similar to that adopted by Israel toward the Palestinian territories: unilateral actions cloaked in narratives of self-defense . When Israel bombs Gaza or carries out targeted assassinations, it does so by invoking the fight against terrorism. Similarly, Washington justifies its operations against Caracas by citing the fight against drug trafficking.

The mechanism is identical: the use of force is presented as inevitable, while any international institution that attempts to challenge it is delegitimized or neutralized. It is no coincidence that, faced with the International Criminal Court's investigation into Netanyahu's war crimes, the United States responded by sanctioning the judges involved. The logic is clear: international law is only valid when it does not impede the superpower.

The Double Standard: Venezuela vs. Ukraine

This raises a crucial question: why was the Russian special operation in Ukraine immediately branded as "illegitimate aggression," resulting in condemnations, sanctions, and mobilized international tribunals, while the multi-million dollar bounty on an elected president and the open threat to a sovereign state fail to provoke the same outrage? The explanation lies in the geopolitical double standards that govern international relations.

On the one hand, there is political geography : Ukraine is Europe, perceived as part of "our world," while Venezuela is treated as a mere backyard of the United States, within the historical logic of the Monroe Doctrine . Added to this is narrative control : Western media constantly portray Kiev as a victim and Caracas as a narco-dictatorship, thus priming public opinion for selective condemnation. Finally, power relations play a role: no international institution truly has the means to impose sanctions or indictments against the United States, while Russia remains a "legitimate" target because it is external to the Western bloc. The result is a distorted world order , in which the rules apply only to geopolitical enemies, not to allies or the hegemon.

US Navy off Venezuela

In recent months, there have been numerous moves and rumors confirming the escalation of the Venezuelan crisis . The United States has sent eight warships to the Caribbean , officially to fight the cartels, but with a clear message to Caracas ( Washington Post ). Maduro responded by announcing the mobilization of the Bolivarian militia , declaring that millions of volunteers are ready to defend national sovereignty ( Al Jazeera ).

In early September 2025, the United States also claimed responsibility for the sinking of a drug-laden vessel , which resulted in 11 deaths: Washington views it as an international police operation, while Caracas views it as a disguised act of war . Meanwhile, intelligence rumors indicate US preparations for possible "targeted beheading" actions against the leadership, with the use of special forces. There is no official confirmation, but the rumor is circulating persistently. At the same time, rumors are emerging of international support for Maduro : Russia and China have reportedly intensified cooperation in logistics and intelligence, while Cuba and Mexico are acting as mediators to avoid an irreversible escalation.

Conclusion: a world order with variable geometry

The Venezuela case clearly demonstrates the contradictions of the current world order: on the one hand, formal respect for sovereignty and international law, on the other, the practice of unilateral force that ignores or circumvents every limit.

The United States can proclaim itself the defender of the rule of law when it suits it, and openly violate it when its interests require it. The bounty on Maduro and the militarization of the Caribbean are proof of this: an elected president is treated like a cartel leader, despite UN data certifying that Venezuela is not a narco-state .

In this scenario, the selective condemnation of Russia in Ukraine and the silence over the aggression in Caracas appear as two sides of the same coin: an international system distorted by power, where truth is what propaganda manages to make credible.

I'm not pro-Maduro and I'm not anti-Trump; in fact, Trump has merit in opposing globalist and progressive Europe. Anything that serves to disorganize the forces determined to continue down the path our continent is taking is fine, even if Trump's actions were driven by US self-interest and not by a deliberate act of good. But we find ourselves at such an impasse that bottom-up change, without any external help, is highly unlikely.

The consideration at the bottom of this article on US pressure on Venezuela, however, is this:

If we want to build a better world, this is not the way.