Blue Press Journal

Tag: Venezuela

  • Why Venezuela is No Panama: U.S. Intervention Risks

    Blue Press Journal – When American policymakers reflect on the past century of interventions in Latin America, one case remains prominent in Washington’s historical narrative: Operation Just Cause, the 1989 invasion of Panama. It exemplified what many would categorize as a “successful” U.S. intervention—swift, decisive, and ostensibly judicious. Within a span of less than two weeks, the United States effectively removed General Manuel Noriega, established a compliant government led by Guillermo Endara, and largely withdrew its military presence. There was no protracted insurgency, nor any humiliating deadlock. For numerous officials in Washington, this operation represented an uncommon occasion where military force achieved the precise objectives sought by the White House.

    But Venezuela is not Panama, and any attempt to treat it as such risks a catastrophic misreading of history and geography alike.

    A Different Battlefield

    When George H.W. Bush ordered troops into Panama, the United States already had a military footprint deeply embedded in the country. The U.S. Southern Command was headquartered there. More than 10,000 American troops were stationed on the ground, with full logistical networks, airfields, and intelligence infrastructure ready to act. The operation didn’t need to project power across oceans—it was already in place. American forces quickly dismantled the Panama Defense Forces, captured Noriega, and oversaw a relatively orderly transfer of power.

    None of these conditions exist in Venezuela.

    Today, U.S. forces sit offshore—aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford and the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, impressive symbols of U.S. power, but still distant from the realities of governing a nation of nearly 28 million people. A lightning strike might remove a head of state, but it cannot occupy, stabilize, or rebuild a country with deep institutional and social fissures. The challenge is not the operation itself—it’s “the day after.”

    The Problem of What Comes Next

    In Panama, the United States could install Endara because Panama’s political elite were, by and large, aligned with Washington’s interests. The country had long functioned under U.S. influence, its economy tied to the Canal Zone, its military modest and dependent.

    Venezuela, however, has evolved under an entirely different model. The Bolivarian Armed Forces (FANB)remain cohesive and loyal to the state, not fractured and demoralized like Noriega’s forces were in 1989. Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López has already called for “massive deployment” to resist foreign troops, and Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has vowed that the government “will not yield.” Even if Nicolás Maduro is removed, the apparatus that sustains his regime will not vanish overnight. 

    The Trump Administration faced this reality as early as 2019, when it backed opposition figure Juan Guaidó. Washington assumed that diplomatic pressure, sanctions, and a show of resolve would fracture the regime. It didn’t. The military held firm. The same dynamic is likely to repeat if the U.S. attempts to enforce regime change by force.

    Geopolitics Beyond Caracas

    There’s also the matter of global reaction. Panama’s invasion occurred at the tail end of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union was collapsing and China was not yet a global power. The world’s geopolitical center of gravity allowed the U.S. to act with relative impunity.

    Venezuela, by contrast, is a strategic partner to China, which has invested billions in its oil sector, infrastructure, and digital networks. Beijing will not view an American intervention as a regional policing operation—it will see it as a direct challenge to its influence. Russia, too, has military advisers and energy interests in Venezuela. The consequences of unilateral U.S. action ripple far beyond the Caribbean.

    Regionally, the response has been equally fraught. Mexico’s government has condemned the operation, warning that any foreign military action “seriously jeopardizes regional stability.” Other Latin American nations, still wary of U.S. interventionism, are divided or outright hostile. The vision of a hemispheric coalition supporting American leadership has not materialized.

    Legitimacy and the Law

    The Trump Administration’s refusal to clarify whether it sought congressional authorization speaks volumes. The War Powers Resolution exists precisely to prevent unilateral executive military adventures, yet Washington has seen a steady erosion of those constraints. Declaring victory from the podium is easy; governing a fractured post-conflict society is not. 

    And here lies the uncomfortable truth: whatever one thinks of Maduro’s legitimacy—and few would argue he won the July 2024 election fairly—toppling an autocrat is not the same as creating a democracy. Without a credible plan for governance, reconstruction, and reconciliation, military action risks deepening chaos rather than resolving it.

    The Mirage of “Just Cause 2.0”

    Every generation of U.S. policymakers seems to search for its own “Just Cause”—the operation that proves American power can still reshape the world for the better. But history rarely repeats so neatly. Panama was small, strategically contained, and already under Washington’s thumb. Venezuela is large, complex, and enmeshed in global rivalries that make any intervention far more perilous.

    If history offers any lesson, it is this: a quick victory on the battlefield can mask a long defeat in the years that follow. Without legitimacy, without local support, and without a plan for the day after, even the most “successful” operation risks becoming another cautionary tale.

    In the end, the question is not whether Maduro deserves to stay—by most accounts, he does not—but whether the United States, acting alone and without a clear mandate, can deliver something better. Panama’s ghost still haunts Washington, whispering promises of easy triumph. But Venezuela, in all its complexity and resistance, is poised to remind America that history is a poor template for wishful thinking.

  • A Dangerous Precedent: The U.S. Strike on Venezuela and the Capture of Nicolás Maduro

    BLUE PRESS JOURNAL (DC) – In an extraordinary and deeply troubling escalation, the United States launched a series of strikes on Venezuela last night, culminating in the capture and removal of President Nicolás Maduro. According to administration statements, Maduro was flown out of the country in what U.S. officials described as a “decisive operation.” But behind the dramatic headlines lies a disturbing question about legality, precedent, and the moral cost of such unilateral actions.

    The Trump administration’s decision to forcibly remove a sitting foreign leader without congressional authorization or clear international mandate marks one of the most audacious U.S. interventions in Latin America in decades. Not since the 1989 invasion of Panama — which ended with the seizure of Manuel Noriega — has Washington so overtly used military force to change a government in the Western Hemisphere. Then, as now, the justification was murky and the fallout unpredictable.

    The legal authority for this attack remains unclear. Reports indicate that neither the Armed Services Committees nor the broader Congress were notified in advance, an omission that starkly violates the principles of civilian oversight of the military. The War Powers Resolution exists precisely to prevent presidents from waging undeclared wars, and yet it seems to have been ignored once again.

    Beyond legalities, the moral and geopolitical implications are staggering. By unilaterally abducting a sitting president, the U.S. risks reigniting a long and painful history of interventionism in Latin America — a history that has often bred instability, resentment, and violence rather than democracy. The Venezuelan government has already called the attack an “imperialist assault,” urging citizens into the streets. Civilian and military casualties have been reported, deepening the country’s suffering at a moment when its economy and institutions are already fragile.

    President Trump’s comment that the U.S. will be “very much involved” in Venezuela’s future only compounds the concern. What does “involvement” mean in this context — occupation, trusteeship, regime installation? Whatever the answer, the precedent is perilous. If the world’s leading democracy can seize foreign leaders at will, the international order built on sovereignty and law begins to crack.

    Democrats rip Trump administration for ‘illegal’ strikes on Venezuela

  • US Seizes Oil Tanker Off Venezuelan Coast: A Breach of International Law?

    Blue Press Journal – In a bold and unprecedented move, the United States has seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, according to President Donald Trump. The incident has sparked controversy and raised questions about the legality of the action under international law. As tensions between the US and Venezuela continue to escalate, the move has been met with scrutiny from lawmakers and legal experts.

    The seizure, which was carried out by US forces, is seen as the Trump administration’s latest effort to pressure Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who has been charged with narcoterrorism in the US. The US has been building up its military presence in the region, and has launched a series of deadly strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.

    But was the seizure of the oil tanker a legitimate act, or does it constitute piracy on the high seas? The International Maritime Organization (IMO) defines piracy as “any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft” against a ship or aircraft on the high seas.

    In this case, the US Navy’s seizure of the oil tanker appears to be a state-sponsored act, rather than a private act of piracy. However, the question remains as to whether the action was lawful under international law. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) governs the use of force at sea, and permits the use of naval force in certain circumstances, such as self-defense or with the consent of the flag state.

    In this instance, it is unclear whether the US had the consent of the flag state or whether the seizure was justified as an act of self-defense. Trump’s comment that “we keep it, I guess” when asked what would happen to the oil aboard the tanker, has raised further questions about the motivations behind the seizure.

    Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has expressed concerns that the seizure casts doubt on the administration’s stated reasons for the military buildup and boat strikes in the region. “This action raises more questions than answers,” Van Hollen said.

    Some legal experts have also questioned the legality of the seizure, arguing that it may have violated the laws governing the use of deadly military force. The use of force at sea is subject to strict rules and regulations, and any action that is deemed to be unlawful could have serious consequences under international law.

    The seizure of the oil tanker is a significant escalation of the US’s campaign to pressure Maduro’s government, and has raised the stakes in the region. Venezuela is a major oil producer, and the state-owned oil company sells most of its output to refiners in China. The US sanctions have locked the country out of global oil markets, and the seizure of the tanker is likely to exacerbate the situation.

    As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen if the US will face consequences under international law. The seizure of the oil tanker has added complexity to US-Venezuela relations and raised important questions about state power on the high seas.

  • Legal Lines Crossed? New Details Emerge as Lawmakers Scrutinize U.S. Boat Strikes near Venezuela

    The U.S. military’s intensified campaign against alleged drug smuggling vessels in international waters near Venezuela is now facing rigorous congressional demand for transparency and legal justification. While touted as a crucial counter-narcotics effort, new information revealed to lawmakers this week concerning a specific boat strikes incident—and the broader rules of engagement—has pushed the controversy into urgent national security discussions.

    Lawmakers on key oversight committees learned chilling new operational details about the highly scrutinized September 2 strikes, particularly surrounding the fates of the victims.

    The Revelation: Firing on Survivors

    The military campaign, which began as the first time the U.S. military actively sought to destroy vessels allegedly carrying drugs, but no evidence give, has so far resulted in the destruction of over 20 boats and the deaths of more than 80 people. However, the September 2 incident stands out because of the alarming confirmation that the U.S. military opened fire on individuals who had already survived the initial assault.

    Members of Congress were briefed that after the first strike disabled the vessel, the U.S. military conducted a follow-up action, firing upon two individuals who were reportedly clinging to the wreckage. This revelation immediately complicates the narrative of operational necessity and raises severe questions regarding the standing rules of engagement in non-declared conflict environments.

    The legal underpinnings of President Donald Trump’s military campaign in international waters are now under intense scrutiny and the international community. Democratic lawmakers argue that the lack of clear legal precedent for escalating force in areas where the U.S. has no official combat mandate demands a thorough accounting of the rationale and authorization chain. Clearly congress is the only authority that can declare war, not the president.

    The Admiral’s Testimony

    The key figure in the initial decision-making process, Navy Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who ordered the controversial strikes, testified this past week before national security committees. His testimony was central to understanding the operational intelligence that underpinned the decision to use deadly force.

    Crucially, lawmakers were provided with details about the alleged destination and purpose of the targeted vessel. According to sources familiar with the classified briefings, the naval forces believed the boat was not merely carrying narcotics, but was:

    “Heading toward a scheduled link-up with another vessel bound for Suriname.”

    Other reports suggested simply that the vessel was heading south when it was engaged. Regardless of the slight variation in the directional details, these briefings attempted to confirm the high-value nature of the target and the intelligence driving the escalation.

    Seeking Legal Clarity and Accountability

    Lawmakers overseeing the national security apparatus are demanding answers on several fronts: the proportionality of force used, the legal authority governing operations in international drug interdiction, and the adherence to conventions regarding the treatment of survivors and non-combatants.

    The fundamental legal debate centers on whether the expansive counter-narcotics campaign, which involves destroying vessels and resulting in high casualty rates, operates within or beyond accepted maritime enforcement limits.

    The campaign’s destruction of over two dozen vessels and loss of lives heightens the inquiry’s seriousness. The congressional investigation targets not just the tactical error of the September 2 strike but questions the military’s entire posture in this region’s legality and morality.