By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Marco Rubio declined to rule out potential future US military action in Venezuela while denying the Trump administration’s intention to take such steps. Rubio defended the US’s intervention, including the removal of Nicolás Maduro, seizure and sale of Venezuelan oil, and a push for cooperation on oil sales. Rubio cited a hypothetical scenario of an Iranian drone factory threatening US forces, but acknowledged that military action is not ideal for recovery and transition. Democrats and Republicans have differing views on Trump’s actions, with some pushback beginning in the courts.
Read the original article here
Rubio to warn that US is ‘prepared to use force’ in Venezuela if leaders stray from goals, and that’s the headline, isn’t it? It immediately sets a tone, doesn’t it? A tone of potential aggression, of a country flexing its military muscle, of a warning shot across the bow. It’s a statement that, in different times, would be the main foreign policy story of the week, maybe even the month. But, in the current climate, it seems to be just another thread in the tapestry of international tensions.
The implications are pretty stark. The core message is simple: the United States is ready to use force if Venezuela doesn’t follow the US’s game plan. The use of the term “force” is particularly weighty; it conjures images of military intervention, of troops on the ground, of potential conflict. And, let’s be honest, that’s not something to be taken lightly. We’re not talking about diplomacy here; we’re talking about a willingness to use the ultimate tool of statecraft.
Now, who are these “goals” that Venezuela must adhere to? That’s the critical question, isn’t it? Who sets the goals, and by what authority? It’s easy to see how this could be interpreted as a classic case of a powerful nation dictating terms to a smaller one. Are we talking about free and fair elections, or are we talking about access to oil, or something else entirely? What are the justifications, and how solid are they?
The situation is further complicated by the fact that the US has already been involved in trying to influence the Venezuelan government. Remember, the initial pretext for involvement was an arrest warrant, followed by the claim of a need to bring democracy. Now, it seems like the narrative has shifted to “they’re not giving us the oil we want,” thus warranting more force. It’s not a great look, and the underlying logic is questionable. The fact that the US is already involved in establishing a permanent CIA presence in Venezuela paints a picture of, perhaps, a hostile takeover more than a helping hand.
Let’s not forget the context here. This is happening against a backdrop of increasing US assertiveness on the global stage. We’re talking about raising tariffs on allies, threatening military action, and applying economic pressure on other countries. This is something that doesn’t just apply to Venezuela; it’s a wider pattern of behavior. The implication is, “Do what we want, or there will be consequences”. And that kind of policy isn’t exactly making us any friends.
The whole situation also raises questions about the long-term impact on the US’s international standing. Actions like these can easily be viewed as bullying tactics. And when a powerful nation is perceived as a bully, it can lead to isolation and a loss of trust. Is that a price the US is willing to pay? Is this really the kind of role we want to play in the world?
Now, let’s address the elephant in the room: the potential for another military intervention. There’s a real fear here of a repeat of past interventions, the kind that end up dragging on for years and costing lives and resources. The idea of US troops being deployed in Venezuela, for what, to install a new, compliant government? It’s hard to see how that would resolve anything.
And what about the human cost? Any military action has the potential to cause death and destruction. It could lead to a protracted conflict, with all the accompanying suffering. Isn’t there a better way to resolve whatever issues exist between the US and Venezuela? Isn’t there a path forward that doesn’t involve threats of force?
The rhetoric used by some political figures seems to confirm these fears. It’s easy to be cynical. It’s easy to see this as a way to access oil and other resources. And there’s definitely a sense that this whole thing smacks of old-school colonialism: “Give us what we want, or we’ll take it”.
The problem is that this isn’t diplomacy; it’s extortion. Extortion, with the threat of military force. It also confirms that Venezuela was more of a hostile takeover rather than a liberation agreement. Now, the administration is potentially in a position of putting people in place, only to try again when they don’t do what the US wants.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of all this is the apparent lack of a clear strategy. What are the long-term goals? What’s the plan for after the “goals” are achieved? What happens if it goes wrong? These are critical questions, and it’s not clear that there are any good answers. The whole situation feels unstable and reckless.