In one bustling district of Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, an impassioned scene unfolded: hundreds of government loyalists, rifles clutched to their chests, listened intently as speakers rallied them to pledge their lives in defense of the nation.
Meanwhile, in stark contrast, the city’s business community and diplomatic corps voiced deep apprehension. They expressed concerns over the escalating U.S.-Venezuela tensions, lamenting what they perceived as a squandered chance for diplomatic engagement and fearing a potential U.S. military strike that could plunge the country into violence and anarchy.
Yet, elsewhere across the sprawling capital, a sense of weary resignation prevailed. Many residents harbored profound skepticism that any meaningful political change would ever materialize in Venezuela, suggesting a deep-seated fatigue with the ongoing uncertainty.
As one of the few foreign journalists granted a visa, I spent a week in Venezuela during a period of exceptional tension. Relations with the United States are at a critical juncture, exacerbated by the Trump administration’s deployment of warships to the Caribbean. The scale of this military presence and President Trump’s explicit threats against President Nicolás Maduro have raised the alarming possibility of airstrikes, targeted commando operations, or a wider conflict in the South American nation.
President Trump has publicly stated his intent to deploy military force against cartels and curb drug trafficking into the United States. His administration has further labeled Mr. Maduro as the leader of a terrorist organization, accusing him of endangering the U.S. and inundating it with illicit drugs.
The U.S. claims to have destroyed at least three alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean, with at least two originating from Venezuela. This marks a notable escalation in the kind of anti-trafficking pressure the Trump administration has previously exerted on Mexico regarding fentanyl.
However, while Venezuela is indeed a transit point for some illicit substances, fentanyl is not among them. Moreover, the cocaine flow through Venezuela constitutes a minuscule fraction of the overall trade, significantly less than what originates from or passes through Colombia and Ecuador, as per U.S. government data.
This discrepancy has led many analysts to suggest that the Trump administration’s true objective in its actions against Venezuela is not solely drug interdiction, but rather the removal of President Maduro from power.
In conversations with various Venezuelans, some expressed support for any measure that could lead to the ousting of Mr. Maduro, citing his alleged involvement in widespread human rights abuses and the long-standing rule of his political movement.
The faction advocating for military intervention is spearheaded by opposition leader Maria Corina Machado. Her supporters contend that U.S. action to remove Mr. Maduro would uphold the integrity of last year’s presidential election, a vote widely believed to have been lost by Maduro. Independent observers and numerous countries, including the U.S., recognized Mr. Maduro’s opponent, Edmundo González – acting as Ms. Machado’s proxy – as the rightful winner.
Pedro Urruchurtu, an adviser to Ms. Machado, confirmed her coordination with the Trump administration, outlining a strategic plan for the initial 100 hours following Mr. Maduro’s potential removal. He noted that this plan includes involvement from international allies, particularly the United States, and is designed to ensure a smooth transition of power to Mr. González.
However, other Venezuelans interviewed expressed considerably less enthusiasm for U.S. involvement. Even those desiring Mr. Maduro’s departure, believing his rule is maintained solely through repression, felt that a violent intervention by the U.S. would not be the answer. Many spoke off the record, citing fears of retribution.
Concerns were also voiced regarding the U.S.’s commitment to maintaining a substantial troop presence on the ground, questioning whether it would genuinely ensure stability for any U.S.-supported government that might emerge.
Three diplomats reported observing minimal indications that any members of Mr. Maduro’s inner circle would defect to back an opposition figure, or that the military itself would turn against him.
Furthermore, some Venezuelans cautioned that removing Mr. Maduro would merely pave the way for a brutal power struggle among various armed factions left in the vacuum, including the military, Colombian guerrilla groups, and paramilitary gangs, all vying for control.
And in Venezuela, a nation rich in oil, gold, and other precious minerals, there is indeed much to be gained.
“Eliminating Maduro,” warned a prominent businessman, “would transform Venezuela into another Haiti,” referencing the widespread chaos that ensued in the Caribbean nation following the assassination of its president.
Yet, others remained unconvinced of Mr. Trump’s genuine willingness for military engagement. They argued that the administration’s “gunboat diplomacy,” spearheaded by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, would merely alienate Venezuela further from the U.S., pushing it closer into the orbits of China, Russia, and Iran.
In response to Washington’s military posturing, Mr. Maduro has taken several counter-measures: arming civilians, deploying tanks to city streets, and initiating nationwide military exercises, all widely broadcast on state media. Despite these displays of readiness, his advisers insist their core message to Washington is a desire to avoid war.
Earlier this month, the Venezuelan president sent a letter to Mr. Trump, commending his efforts in de-escalating other global conflicts. He conveyed his openness to a “direct and frank conversation” with Richard Grenell, Mr. Trump’s special envoy to Venezuela.
At the start of the year, Mr. Grenell appeared to be actively working towards diplomatic improvement, even traveling to Venezuela to meet with Mr. Maduro shortly after Mr. Trump assumed office. However, recent developments suggest President Trump has shifted towards Secretary Rubio’s more assertive, hard-line stance.
From her office within the nation’s oil ministry building, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez stated her conviction that Mr. Trump is steering the world towards “a stage where the United States has openly declared war on the world.”
She asserted, “The Ministry of Defense is no longer Defense, it’s the Ministry of War. Trade relations are no longer trade relations, they are a trade war.”
Condemning the recent boat attacks as “absolutely illegal,” she urged for the normalization of economic ties with the United States, highlighting the significant impact of sanctions on Venezuela’s crucial oil industry.
“The people of the United States do not want war in the Caribbean,” she concluded.
Despite mounting tensions, Venezuela has surprisingly continued to accept twice-weekly flights carrying deportees from the United States, according to Foreign Minister Yván Gil.
A consensus emerged among several diplomats and business figures in Caracas: a strong desire for the United States to revert to a diplomatic approach. They believe that sustained negotiations could eventually convince Mr. Maduro to relinquish power to a reform-minded successor or a moderate opposition leader, in return for sanctions relief and other agreed-upon terms.
Sources indicated that Mr. Maduro, 62, and in power since 2013, is reportedly fatigued but feels unable to step down due to fears of arrest. He faces drug conspiracy charges in the United States.
The palpable strain between the two nations manifests on the streets of Caracas through striking contrasts, painting a simultaneous picture of impending conflict and persistent normalcy.
Just recently, a downtown Caracas boulevard was thronged with individuals assembled by the government for a rally, comprising both civilians and members of the Bolivarian militia, a national reserve force.
Multiple attendees confided that they were government employees, whose presence at the rally was mandatory, and that they had been supplied with unloaded firearms solely for display. Many were observed quickly dispersing once the event concluded.
Conversely, some participants declared that their attendance was driven by patriotism, affirming their commitment to defending Mr. Maduro and his political movement.
“Should an invasion occur,” stated Marisol Amundaray, 50, “I will ensure my children’s safety and then take to the streets with my rifle.”
Elsewhere in the city, however, daily life unfolded largely undisturbed. One morning, near the presidential palace, Constanza Sofía Arangeren gracefully twirled on a cobblestone street, resplendent in a gold ball gown, as a photographer captured the moment.
As she prepared for her quinceañera, her mother’s primary concern was the upcoming celebration, seemingly outweighing any anxieties about a potential military invasion.
Notably, none of the individuals interviewed reported stockpiling supplies. Some expressed no fear of an attack, while others simply stated they lacked the financial means to prepare.
“In any normal country facing such a threat, people would immediately stock up on food,” commented Estefanie Mendoza, a 42-year-old social worker and mother of two, “but that’s simply not an option for us.”
Although Venezuela’s economy has seen a partial recovery following a prolonged crisis that prompted a mass exodus of migrants, this resurgence has been markedly uneven, benefiting some sectors more than others.
Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Rubio have repeatedly asserted that substantial quantities of cocaine transit through Venezuela, framing their actions as essential to combating U.S. overdose deaths. However, a 2020 report from the U.S. State Department indicated that only 10 to 13 percent of the global cocaine supply passes through Venezuela.
Fentanyl, a far deadlier drug responsible for significantly more overdoses than cocaine, is primarily manufactured in Mexico using precursor chemicals sourced from China, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
The Trump administration has confirmed that at least 17 individuals have died in the Caribbean from U.S. forces bombing suspected drug vessels.
Legal experts have criticized these actions, asserting that the summary killing of civilians not directly engaged in combat constitutes a crime, even if those individuals are suspected of drug trafficking.
On September 2nd, the first boat destroyed by U.S. forces in the Caribbean, off Venezuela’s Sucre state, is widely believed to have been transporting individuals from San Juan de Unare and Güiria, towns located on the Pariah Peninsula.
This region has long been a hub for cocaine trafficking, a fact corroborated by Venezuelan journalist Ronna Rísquez, who has conducted extensive fieldwork there.
However, Ms. Rísquez also noted that this same area serves as a departure point for migrants, victims of human trafficking, and government-subsidized Venezuelan gasoline, which fetches a significantly higher price in nearby Trinidad and Tobago, just six miles distant.
One woman, identifying herself as the wife of a man killed in a boat attack, shared a heartbreaking account: her husband, a fisherman and father of four, departed for work one day and never returned.
Several Venezuelans voiced fears that U.S. military action would only bring further hardship. They also expressed a lack of confidence that Ms. Machado, reportedly in hiding within Venezuela, and Mr. González, living in exile in Spain, could effectively ensure the safety of the populace.
“Name one successful U.S. military intervention in recent years,” challenged Henrique Capriles, an opposition politician known for his disagreements with Ms. Machado.
He dismissed the notion of a bloodless U.S. “extraction” of Mr. Maduro as a fantasy, more suited for a Netflix drama than real-world politics.
He pressed further, asking, “What would be the true cost for us Venezuelans? What assurance do we have that such an intervention would genuinely lead to the restoration of our democracy?”
