Venezuela - Military Options
A war between the United States and Venezuela would be a conflict shaped as much by politics and geography as by raw military power. The most likely trigger would be Washington deciding that Nicolás Maduro’s government posed a direct threat to U.S. interests—whether through an oil crisis, escalating repression at home, or a regional dispute such as Venezuela’s border claims against Guyana. However, any U.S. military intervention in Latin America would face enormous political sensitivity. Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba have all cultivated ties with Caracas, meaning the United States would not just be striking a weakened South American state but challenging the influence of its geopolitical rivals close to home.
Militarily, the United States would enjoy overwhelming advantages in technology, logistics, and force projection. Air and naval power could rapidly dismantle Venezuela’s defenses. Cruise missiles, stealth aircraft, and electronic warfare would neutralize the S-300 air defense batteries, Su-30 fighter jets, and coastal defense systems that Venezuela has acquired from Russia and China. The U.S. Navy could enforce a blockade that would strangle Venezuela’s economy, cutting off oil exports and accelerating political collapse. Special operations forces and Marines would be capable of seizing strategic facilities, particularly oil installations along the Caribbean coast, though Washington would likely hesitate to commit to a full-scale ground occupation.
Venezuela’s conventional military is large on paper, with around 100,000 active personnel, but it suffers from low readiness, poor maintenance, and internal corruption. The real strength of the Maduro government lies in irregular forces: paramilitary colectivos, Cuban intelligence advisors, and militias trained to resist urban incursions. Even if Caracas were to fall quickly to U.S. strikes, these forces could transition into guerrilla warfare. In that case, the United States could find itself drawn into a grinding insurgency reminiscent of Iraq or Afghanistan, with asymmetric tactics making a decisive victory elusive.
Regionally, Colombia would be the most likely staging ground for U.S. operations, providing airbases and logistical support. Brazil, depending on its leadership, might remain neutral but would brace for refugee flows and economic turbulence. Cuba would double down on its support for Maduro, supplying advisors and intelligence expertise. Russia and China would avoid direct combat but could provide Venezuela with covert arms shipments, cyber support, and economic lifelines, turning the war into a proxy struggle played out in the Western Hemisphere. The disruption of Venezuelan oil exports, coupled with sanctions and a U.S. blockade, would spike global prices, rattling the world economy and provoking diplomatic backlash even from U.S. allies.
The outcome of such a war could take two very different forms. In one scenario, a rapid U.S. campaign decapitates the Maduro government, toppling the regime in weeks and replacing it with a Washington-friendly authority. In another, the initial assault succeeds militarily but fails politically, leading to a drawn-out insurgency where militias and Cuban-backed fighters bleed U.S. forces and keep the country unstable. The first path would give Washington a swift victory but risk long-term instability; the second would entangle the United States in yet another protracted conflict far from home.
"No one in their right mind thinks that with 4,500 people you can invade a country that's got mountains, jungle and multiple urban centers," Christopher Sabatini, a senior research fellow for Latin America at the British think tank, Chatham House, told the Guardian newspaper. "This is all performance on both sides." James Story, who served as U.S. ambassador to Venezuela from 2018 to 2023, told the newspaper that the military presence was likely "a show of force" rather than a "utilization of force."
"Intent is always difficult to read," William Freer, a research fellow in national security at the U.K.-based Council on Geostrategy, told Newsweek. "The Trump administration has shown clear signs of frustration with Venezuela's role in the flow of drugs to the U.S. but has shown no signs so far of clear intent for direct military action."
Scenario One: Rapid Regime Collapse
The United States begins its campaign with overwhelming force. Carrier strike groups deploy to the Caribbean, and stealth bombers operating from Florida and Puerto Rico unleash a wave of precision strikes on Venezuela’s radar installations, airbases, and command centers. Within the first forty-eight hours, the Venezuelan Air Force is grounded, its Su-30 fighters destroyed on the tarmac, and the S-300 missile batteries silenced by electronic warfare and cruise missile barrages. The destruction of the country’s integrated air defense system clears the way for U.S. aircraft to dominate the skies uncontested.
Simultaneously, the U.S. Navy enforces a blockade, cutting Venezuela off from the international oil trade. Tankers attempting to leave Maracaibo or Puerto La Cruz are intercepted and turned back. With export revenues already battered by years of sanctions, this sudden strangulation accelerates the collapse of state finances. Elite Venezuelan units, many of them underpaid and distrustful of Maduro’s inner circle, begin to fracture. Some desert, others quietly signal their willingness to switch sides if guaranteed safety.
On the ground, U.S. Marines land near key oil terminals and secure them with minimal resistance. Special forces teams strike directly into Caracas, targeting communications hubs and arresting mid-level regime officials. Within days, the psychological pressure on Maduro intensifies. International media beam images of U.S. forces operating at will across the country, and loyalists begin to doubt the regime’s survival. Russian and Chinese support is limited to rhetoric at the United Nations; neither is willing to risk a direct confrontation in America’s backyard.
The breaking point comes when senior officers in the Venezuelan military, calculating that continued loyalty will only bring destruction, broker a deal with Washington. Maduro flees, perhaps to Havana, and a transitional council is installed with U.S. backing. Within three weeks of the first strikes, the regime has collapsed. For Washington, the operation is hailed as a triumph of decisive power projection, a short, sharp war that topples a hostile government without entangling the United States in prolonged occupation. Yet beneath the victory, questions linger about legitimacy, stability, and the capacity of the new leadership to govern a deeply divided nation.
Scenario Two: Long Insurgency and Proxy War
In the alternative path, the opening phases look the same: U.S. strikes obliterate Venezuelan defenses, and American warships enforce a blockade that chokes off the flow of oil. The government in Caracas reels under the shock, but unlike in the first scenario, the regime holds together. Maduro, shielded by Cuban intelligence advisors, retreats into fortified command centers, emerging through propaganda broadcasts that frame the conflict as another Yankee invasion in the tradition of Latin America’s long history of resisting foreign domination. This message resonates with many Venezuelans, especially the colectivos, the armed militias embedded in urban neighborhoods.
Though U.S. forces seize coastal facilities and oil infrastructure, they quickly discover that holding territory is far harder than taking it. Caracas, a city of millions, becomes a patchwork of contested zones. Militias armed with Russian-supplied rifles and Cuban tactical guidance set up ambushes against U.S. patrols. Venezuelan soldiers melt into the population, launching hit-and-run attacks that erode the sense of control. Every convoy on the highways to Maracaibo or Valencia becomes a potential target, and what was supposed to be a swift demonstration of American power devolves into a grinding counter-insurgency campaign.
Internationally, the conflict transforms into a proxy war. Russia begins funneling arms through sympathetic Caribbean states, while China extends economic aid to keep the Venezuelan economy afloat in the shadows of the blockade. Iran deploys advisors, eager to bleed American forces on another front. Colombia supports the U.S. operation, but this inflames cross-border tensions as guerrilla groups sympathetic to Maduro launch raids into Colombian territory. Brazil, fearing regional instability, refuses to commit troops and urges negotiations.
Months stretch into years. U.S. commanders report tactical successes—high-profile raids that kill militia leaders, seizures of weapons caches, the protection of oil terminals—but none of these translate into strategic victory. American casualties mount, and televised images of urban firefights in Caracas and funerals in U.S. towns erode domestic support. Calls grow louder in Congress to bring the troops home. By year three, the war has lost its original clarity; it is no longer a mission to topple Maduro but an open-ended struggle against an entrenched insurgency with external backing.
In this scenario, the United States finds itself trapped in the same dilemma it faced in Iraq and Afghanistan: having toppled the visible defenses of a weaker state, it cannot impose political stability. Maduro may or may not survive personally, but the system he built—reliant on militias, Cuban advisors, and foreign backers—remains intact enough to make Venezuela ungovernable. The result is a proxy battlefield in the Americas, a costly quagmire in which the United States pays a steep price for underestimating the resilience of a regime it thought would collapse in weeks.
Scenario Three: Hybrid War Without Invasion
In this scenario, the United States calculates that a direct invasion of Venezuela would be too costly, politically risky, and strategically unnecessary. Instead, Washington shifts to a long-term strategy of hybrid warfare designed to erode Nicolás Maduro’s regime from within while avoiding the burden of occupation. The campaign begins quietly with intensified cyber operations. Venezuelan banking networks, state oil company accounts, and government communications systems come under relentless attack, disrupting daily life and sowing frustration. At the same time, U.S. intelligence agencies increase support for exiled opposition figures, equipping them with secure communication platforms to coordinate resistance movements inside the country.
The blockade is applied gradually, first through legal sanctions on shipping and energy companies willing to do business with Caracas, and later through naval patrols that shadow or divert tankers suspected of carrying Venezuelan crude. These moves push Venezuela into an ever-tightening economic chokehold, reducing revenues and straining the ability of the government to pay soldiers, police, and loyalist militias. As the economy contracts further, inflation surges, food shortages deepen, and public anger spills into waves of protest. The regime responds with repression, which in turn fuels Washington’s narrative that Maduro is isolated and illegitimate.
Rather than risk American troops on Venezuelan soil, the U.S. empowers proxies. Colombia becomes the central hub, hosting training camps where Venezuelan defectors and opposition militias are equipped and organized. Across the porous border, these groups launch cross-border raids on fuel depots, army checkpoints, and symbolic government installations. In the east, near the Guyanese frontier, Washington quietly provides support to forces exploiting Venezuela’s disputed border claims, opening another pressure point on the regime. The fighting is deniable, fragmented, and asymmetric, keeping Caracas off balance without giving it a conventional army to defeat.
Cuban and Russian advisors rally to Maduro’s side, reinforcing his intelligence services and training paramilitary units to strike back at opposition groups. China provides limited economic lifelines, buying Venezuelan oil through shadow networks and supplying spare parts for military equipment. Yet the drip of support cannot offset the cumulative weight of sanctions, cyber disruption, and mounting unrest. Over time, Venezuela begins to resemble a country under siege, with daily blackouts, dwindling imports, and crumbling infrastructure. The government maintains control of Caracas and a few strongholds, but vast stretches of the countryside become lawless zones contested by militias, colectivos, and opposition fighters.
For the United States, the hybrid war is relatively low-cost compared to outright invasion, but it is not without risks. The humanitarian situation in Venezuela worsens dramatically, producing millions of additional refugees spilling into Colombia, Brazil, and the Caribbean. Global oil markets remain jittery, with periodic spikes in prices when tankers are interdicted. Russia and Iran retaliate in their own ways, launching cyber campaigns against U.S. infrastructure and meddling in Latin American politics to undercut Washington’s narrative. The hybrid war does not produce the clean spectacle of regime change but instead drags on as a grinding contest of attrition, a shadow conflict where no decisive moment arrives.
Years later, Venezuela is transformed into a fractured state: Maduro still clings to power in parts of Caracas, but the rest of the country is divided among local warlords, militias, and opposition enclaves. The United States claims success in preventing Venezuela from threatening regional stability, yet the victory is ambiguous. By choosing hybrid war, Washington avoided the quagmire of occupation, but it created a prolonged crisis in the heart of South America that destabilized neighbors, fractured the oil market, and deepened the confrontation with rival great powers who had treated Venezuela as their foothold in the Western Hemisphere.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
