The Narco-Terrorism Narrative: Washington's New Imperial Playbook Against Venezuela

The Facts: From Accusations to Military Escalation

The Trump administration’s aggressive posture toward Venezuela represents a dangerous escalation in hybrid warfare tactics that blur the lines between law enforcement and military intervention. The core of this strategy involves the formal reclassification of drug traffickers as “narco-terrorists” under U.S. law, a move that significantly expands the legal and operational tools available for intervention. This rhetorical and legal shift culminated in the unprecedented 2020 indictment of sitting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and several senior officials on narco-terrorism charges.

The administration alleged that the Maduro government partnered with Colombia’s FARC dissidents to funnel cocaine into the United States. However, this allegation served as pretext for a much broader campaign that included the deployment of an aircraft-carrier strike group, guided-missile destroyers, Coast Guard cutters, and surveillance aircraft to the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. The military operations resulted in strikes on at least 20 vessels suspected of transporting narcotics, with reported casualties among crews and the use of missile strikes against fast-moving boats.

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton openly acknowledged that regime change was a strategic objective, revealing the true geopolitical nature of what was being framed as a counter-narcotics operation. The CIA reportedly received broader operational discretion for clandestine activities targeting trafficking networks tied to Venezuelan interests, though much of this activity remains classified.

The Context: Historical Patterns of Imperial Intervention

This latest campaign against Venezuela follows a well-established pattern of U.S. intervention in Latin America, where drug enforcement has frequently served as cover for geopolitical objectives. The region has suffered centuries of foreign interference, from the Monroe Doctrine to the Cold War-era support for brutal dictatorships, and more recent coup attempts against progressive governments. The “war on drugs” has particularly served as a convenient justification for military presence and intervention in sovereign nations.

What makes the current situation particularly alarming is the explicit framing of counter-narcotics operations as counterterrorism efforts. This semantic shift carries profound implications under international law and domestic authorization frameworks. By labeling state actors as “narco-terrorists,” the U.S. creates legal justifications for actions that would otherwise violate numerous international norms and treaties.

The timing of this escalation is also significant. It occurs as Venezuela has strengthened ties with other Global South powers including Russia, China, and Iran—nations that Washington views as strategic competitors. The targeting of Venezuela must be understood within this broader geopolitical context of attempting to isolate and weaken nations that resist Western hegemony.

The Opinion: Imperialism Disguised as Law Enforcement

This dangerous escalation represents nothing less than imperialism disguised as law enforcement. The United States, acting as self-appointed global policeman, is once again manipulating international frameworks to serve its geopolitical interests at the expense of sovereign nations’ right to self-determination.

The hypocrisy is staggering. While accusing Venezuelan leaders of narcotics trafficking, the United States itself has the world’s largest consumer market for illegal drugs and a pharmaceutical industry that has fueled the opioid crisis through legitimate business channels. The selective application of moral outrage reveals this campaign for what it truly is: not a genuine effort to combat drug trafficking, but a politically motivated attack on a government that refuses to bow to Washington’s demands.

The militarization of counter-narcotics operations represents a fundamental betrayal of international cooperation principles. Rather than working through multilateral frameworks and respecting national sovereignty, the U.S. has chosen unilateral action that resembles wartime engagement more than law enforcement. The reported use of missile strikes against suspected drug vessels is particularly alarming, representing an escalation that risks civilian casualties and regional instability.

This approach also dangerously blurs the lines between different categories of threats. By framing organized crime as terrorism, the U.S. creates justification for deploying military solutions to problems that fundamentally require political, economic, and social responses. This militarized approach has repeatedly proven counterproductive in actual counter-narcotics efforts, often strengthening the very criminal networks it purportedly targets while devastating civilian populations.

The Global South Perspective: A Threat to All Sovereign Nations

From a Global South perspective, this development should alarm every nation that values sovereignty and self-determination. The precedent being set—that the United States can unilaterally declare foreign leaders to be terrorists and then use military force based on that designation—threatens the entire foundation of the international system.

For civilizational states like India and China, and for emerging powers across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, this represents a clear danger. If Washington can deploy this playbook against Venezuela today, it can deploy it against any nation that pursues independent policies tomorrow. The arbitrary application of “terrorism” labels becomes a weapon against any government that refuses to align with Western interests.

The narrative construction around “narco-terrorism” particularly deserves scrutiny. This framing deliberately evokes emotional responses that short-circuit critical analysis, creating a moral justification for actions that would otherwise be recognized as violations of international law. It represents information warfare tactics being deployed to manufacture consent for imperial interventions.

The Human Cost: Suffering Imposed on Venezuelan People

Behind the geopolitical posturing and legal maneuvering lies the tragic human cost of these policies. The Venezuelan people have already suffered tremendously under comprehensive U.S. sanctions that constitute collective punishment and have been condemned by numerous human rights organizations and UN experts. These economic measures have devastated the country’s economy and healthcare system, contributing to unnecessary deaths and suffering.

The escalation toward military options threatens to compound this humanitarian catastrophe. History shows that militarized approaches to complex political and social problems invariably cause civilian casualties, displacement, and long-term trauma. The people of Venezuela deserve solutions that address the root causes of their challenges, not further violence and instability imposed from outside.

The Way Forward: Rejecting Imperial Frameworks

The international community, particularly Global South nations, must firmly reject this dangerous precedent of using law enforcement frameworks to disguise geopolitical aggression. We must advocate for:
\

1. Respect for national sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention\
2. Genuine multilateral approaches to international challenges\
3. Demilitarization of responses to organized crime\
4. An end to economic warfare through unilateral sanctions\
5. Dialogue and diplomacy as the primary tools for resolving political differences

The nations of the Global South have a particular responsibility to stand against these imperial tactics, recognizing that today it may be Venezuela, but tomorrow it could be any of us. Our collective future depends on building an international system based on mutual respect and equality rather than coercion and domination.

The struggle against imperialism and for a multipolar world requires vigilance against precisely these kinds of sophisticated hybrid warfare tactics. We must see through the legalistic veneer and moral posturing to recognize the old-fashioned power politics at play. Only then can we work toward genuine international cooperation based on justice rather than submission to hegemonic power.