Why Did the US Invade Venezuela?

I have been trying to get an understanding of why the US invaded Venezuela. So far I have a bunch of theories, none of which I find compelling.

Official Rationale: Counter-Narcotics

The claim: Venezuela, under Maduro, became a narco-state. The "Cartel of the Suns" - allegedly led by Maduro himself - used state infrastructure to traffic drugs to the US. Designating it a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) provided legal justification for military action.

Evidence for:

• DOJ indicted Maduro on drug trafficking charges in March 2020
• Tren de Aragua and Cartel of the Suns designated as FTOs in 2025
• Pattern of US strikes against "narco-boats" since September 2025 (35 operations, 115+ killed)
• Echoes the 1989 Panama invasion to capture Noriega on similar charges

Evidence against:

• The indictment is six years old - why act now?
• Experts describe Cartel of the Suns as a diffuse corruption network, not an organised cartel
• The "narco-state" framing is contested; Venezuela is a transit country, not a major producer
• Legal authority for the strike remains unclear; international law experts call it a crime of aggression

Assessment: Provides legal scaffolding, but reads as pretext rather than genuine motivation. The timing doesn't match the threat timeline.

Oil Grab

The claim: Venezuela has the world's largest proven oil reserves. The intervention secures access for US companies and displaces Chinese/Russian influence over those resources.

Evidence for:

• Trump explicitly stated US oil companies would "go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure"
• Said the US would be "reimbursed through revenue from Venezuela's oil reserves"
• María Corina Machado promised to open Venezuela's oil and gas reserves at a Miami business meeting attended by Trump (November 2025)
• USGS estimates 17.5 billion barrels offshore crude, 4.19 trillion cubic meters natural gas

Evidence against:

• Venezuela's oil infrastructure is devastated - it requires years and billions to restore
• Heavy crude requires specialised refining capacity
• Sanctions relief and negotiation (the Biden approach) would be cheaper and less risky
• If oil was the goal, why not just cut a deal with Maduro directly?

Assessment: Oil is clearly part of the picture - Trump said so explicitly. But the cost-benefit math doesn't obviously favour military action over diplomacy unless other factors are in play.

Monroe Doctrine Revival / Countering China

The claim: The intervention reasserts US dominance in the Western Hemisphere, pushing back against Chinese (and Russian) influence in America's "backyard."

Evidence for:

• Trump explicitly invoked the Monroe Doctrine, styling it the "Donroe Doctrine" - The Monroe Doctrine (1823) was a US foreign policy position declaring that the Western Hemisphere was off-limits to further European colonisation or intervention. In exchange, the US would stay out of European affairs.
• Trump said "American dominance in the western hemisphere will never be questioned again"
• 2025 National Security Strategy prioritises Western Hemisphere
• China condemned the strikes as violation of international law; was "deeply shocked"
• Venezuela is one of China's largest debtor nations (over $100 billion in loans prior to 2016 when China slowed the pace of its lending). China saw Venezuela as part of its geopolitical strategy to project power beyond Asia.

Evidence against:

• Chinese economic engagement in Venezuela has actually declined as Venezuela's economy collapsed
• Venezuela now accounts for only  around 2% of China's oil imports; analysts describe Venezuela as having "limited economic significance" for Beijing today. 
• The debt has been largely written off by Beijing as a bad bet
• Russia was the more active partner (military advisors, weapons sales, diplomatic support)
• The "China threat" in Venezuela was more rhetorical than substantive
• If countering China was the goal, Taiwan and the Pacific would seem higher priority

Assessment: The Monroe Doctrine framing is real -  Trump used it. But "countering China" specifically seems like retrofitted justification rather than primary driver.

Epstein Files Distraction

The claim: The timing of the strike was designed to dominate news cycles and distract from damaging Epstein-related document releases. This one doesn’t deserve much space, but it’s circulating widely enough that it’s worth killing explicitly.

Evidence for:

• The timing is... suggestive?
• Nothing short of an invasion will get the story of the front pages of the media

Evidence against:

• Military operations of this scale aren't improvised for news cycle management
• Planning took months (CIA tracking Maduro, Delta Force mockups, asset positioning)
• The naval buildup began in August 2025
• No credible reporting links the two

Assessment: Conspiracy theory with no substantive support. The operational timeline doesn't fit.

Demonstrating Resolve / Precedent for Mexico

The claim: Venezuela was a test case or demonstration - proving willingness to use force, with Mexico (or other targets) as the real objective.

Evidence for:

• Trump said in a Fox interview that Mexico was "run by drug cartels" and "something is gonna have to be done"
• The same FTO designation / counter-narcotics framework could apply to Mexican cartels
• Shows adversaries (and allies) that threats will be followed through

Evidence against:

• Mexico is a fundamentally different target: shared border, massive economic integration, USMCA treaty
• Military action against Mexico would trigger refugee crisis, economic catastrophe, cartel retaliation
• If this is precedent-setting, you're arguing the real reason is something that hasn't happened yet

Assessment: Venezuela may function as precedent, but that's an effect rather than a cause. Doesn't explain why Venezuela specifically, nor why now.

Personal Fixation / Opportunism

The claim: Trump has wanted to do this since 2017. Maduro's regime was weak and isolated enough to make it seem achievable. When you have a hammer...

Evidence for:

• Trump floated military options for Venezuela in 2017 during his first term
• Maduro was internationally isolated after the disputed 2024 election
• Limited domestic US opposition to action against Maduro specifically
• Venezuela's military, while large on paper, was not capable of serious resistance

Evidence against:

• "He wanted to" isn't really an explanation of strategic logic
• Doesn't account for the timing or the specific operational approach
• If pure opportunism, why the elaborate counter-narcotics framing?

Assessment: Probably a necessary condition (Trump had to want this), but not sufficient as a full explanation.

Spheres of Influence: The Russia Deal

The claim: Venezuela is part of an implicit (or explicit) great-power bargain. The US gets its hemisphere; Russia gets Ukraine; China perhaps gets Taiwan. A return to 19th-century spheres of influence.

Evidence for:

• Fiona Hill testified in 2019 that Russia was "signalling very strongly that they wanted to somehow make some very strange swap agreement between Venezuela and Ukraine"
• Russia's response to the strike was conspicuously muted - condemnation but no action
• Ukraine peace talks are proceeding on terms favourable to Russia; Zelenskyy has signalled willingness to concede Donbas territory
• 2025 National Security Strategy reportedly de-emphasises Russia as adversary
• Trump-Putin Alaska summit in 2025; ongoing Witkoff/Kushner negotiations with Kremlin
• The logic is symmetrical: both powers assert control over their "near abroad"

Evidence against:

• No direct evidence of an explicit deal
• Russia may simply lack capacity to respond (overextended in Ukraine)
• Putin still called the action illegal (even if mildly)
• The theory requires assuming a level of strategic coordination that may not exist

Assessment: The most intellectually coherent macro-level explanation. Doesn't require the drug war or oil rationales to be sincere. Explains the muted Russian response. But remains speculative - we're inferring from behaviour rather than evidence of communication.

Greenland Preview

The claim: Venezuela demonstrates capability and willingness. Greenland (and possibly Panama or Canada) are next. This is about softening the world up for a new age of US American colonialism.

Evidence for:

• Katie Miller (Stephen Miller's wife) posted map of Greenland with US flag, captioned "SOON," immediately after Maduro capture
• Trump has consistently refused to rule out military force for Greenland
• Danish PM warned Trump to stop threatening Greenland the day after the Venezuela strike
• Same Monroe Doctrine logic applies
• Experts said Venezuela action was unlikely right up until it happened

Evidence against:

• Denmark is NATO; Article 5 would theoretically be triggered
• No drug cartel pretext available for Greenland
• 68% of Americans opposed Greenland acquisition in polling
• Greenland's strategic value (bases, radar) is already accessible via treaty

Assessment: Not an explanation for Venezuela per se, but the most important implication. If the pattern is "Trump's stated intentions should be taken literally," then Greenland is on the table. NATO membership may be less of a constraint than assumed.

Synthesis: What's Actually Happening?

No single theory is fully satisfying. The most likely reality is overdetermination - multiple factors pointing in the same direction:

1. Necessary conditions: Trump's personal fixation (since 2017) + Maduro's weakness/isolation + available legal pretext (FTO designations)
2. Enabling conditions: Implicit understanding with Russia that great powers don't interfere in each other's hemispheres + muted international response anticipated
3. Beneficiaries: US oil companies get access + Trump demonstrates "strength" + Monroe Doctrine reasserted
4. What it signals: Stated intentions should be taken literally. International law is not a constraint. NATO membership may not protect Greenland. The post-WWII order is being actively dismantled.

The question isn't "which theory is correct" - it's which combination of factors crossed the threshold from "Trump talks about this" to "Trump actually does this."

And the uncomfortable answer may be: the threshold is lower than anyone thought.

Open Questions

• Will Delcy Rodríguez remain as de facto leader? On what terms?
• What happens at the UN Security Council meeting?
• Does the US actually "run" Venezuela, or is this rhetoric?
• What's the reaction from the US military / national security establishment privately?
• Is there insider trading evidence that would reveal who knew in advance?
• Most importantly: Is Greenland next?

Postscript: The AUV Thesis

A reader pointed me to an analysis offering a more specific variant of the "Russia counter" theory.

The claim: The real driver is autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs). Russia has been enabling Venezuela to develop a maritime denial capability using cheap, nearly undetectable underwater drones that could threaten Gulf Coast shipping lanes. The counter-narcotics story is cover; the force posture only makes sense as preparation to eliminate an onshore threat.

The logic: You don't send F-35s and carrier strike groups to catch cocaine skiffs. That force package is designed to dismantle something ashore. Ukraine's December 2025 AUV strike on a Russian submarine proved the technology works - Russia had to sink barges to block its own harbour because it had no other defence. A dozen such platforms in the Florida Straits could cut off access to the Gulf, which handles half of US trade. Venezuela provides the forward base; Russia provides the technology while staying one step removed.

The argument in full can be found here.

For: The posture genuinely doesn't match the stated mission. AUV technology is proven. Venezuela already hosts Iranian drone manufacturing. Explains why this threat triggered a response when previous ones didn't.

Against: No direct evidence of AUVs in Venezuela. Unfalsifiable by design. The simpler "spheres of influence" explanation doesn't require a specific technical threat.

Assessment: The most technically coherent explanation for why now and why this force package. But also the most speculative. As the author puts it: "The test is not proof. The test is best fit."

---

If you have a better theory, please let me know in the comments.