In Caracas, Venezuela’s bustling capital, scenes unfold from starkly different realities. In one area, fervent government loyalists stood in formation, weapons clutched to their chests, listening to impassioned speeches urging them to defend their homeland at any cost.
Meanwhile, in other parts of the city, business leaders and diplomatic figures voiced deep concern. They lamented the missed chances for dialogue between Venezuela and the United States, fearing that escalating tensions could culminate in a U.S. military strike, plunging the nation into further bloodshed and chaos.
Yet elsewhere in Caracas, a weary resignation hung in the air, tinged with skepticism that any meaningful political change could ever truly take root.
During a rare journalistic visit, I witnessed firsthand the palpable tension gripping Venezuela. The country finds itself at a critical juncture with the United States, as the Trump administration’s deployment of warships to the Caribbean and explicit threats against President Nicolás Maduro have raised the specter of strikes, of commando raids in the South American nation, or of some broader conflict.
President Trump has publicly declared his intention to deploy military force against cartels and disrupt drug trafficking into the U.S. His administration has also labeled Mr. Maduro as the leader of a terrorist organization, accusing him of threatening the U.S. and facilitating drug flow.
In a notable escalation, the U.S. has reportedly destroyed at least three suspected drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean, with at least two originating from Venezuela. This mirrors the intense pressure the Trump administration previously applied to Mexico regarding fentanyl control.
However, despite some drug movement from Venezuela, U.S. government data indicates that fentanyl is not among them. The amount of cocaine trafficked through Venezuela represents a minor fraction of the overall trade, significantly less than what flows from Colombia and through Ecuador.
This disparity has led many analysts to conclude that the Trump administration’s primary objective is, in fact, the removal of President Maduro.
During my interviews, a segment of the Venezuelan population expressed support for any action that could lead to Maduro’s ouster. They point to his government’s alleged widespread human rights abuses and the prolonged grip his movement has held on the nation.
Maria Corina Machado, a prominent opposition figure, leads a faction advocating for intervention. Her supporters argue that removing Maduro would uphold the integrity of last year’s presidential election, which many believe he fraudulently won. Independent observers and several nations, including the U.S., recognized Maduro’s opponent, Edmundo González, as the rightful winner.
Pedro Urruchurtu, an adviser to Ms. Machado, confirmed coordination with the Trump administration on a detailed 100-hour transition plan should Maduro fall. He stated that this plan relies heavily on international allies, particularly the U.S., to ensure a stable handover of power to Mr. González.
However, many other Venezuelans interviewed were considerably less enthusiastic about U.S. involvement. Even those who desired Maduro’s departure, believing his rule is maintained by repression, cautioned that a violent American intervention would not solve the country’s problems. A notable number spoke anonymously, citing fears of repercussions.
Skeptics questioned America’s commitment to maintaining a substantial troop presence to guarantee stability for any U.S.-supported government that might emerge.
According to three diplomats, there’s little indication that Maduro’s inner circle would defect to an opposition leader, nor any sign of a military uprising against him.
Other Venezuelans voiced concerns that removing Maduro would merely ignite a power vacuum, drawing various armed factions—including the military, Colombian guerrilla groups, and paramilitary gangs—into a brutal conflict over the nation’s resources.
And Venezuela, rich in oil, gold, and other valuable minerals, presents an undeniable prize.
A prominent businessman warned, ‘If you kill Maduro, you turn Venezuela into Haiti,’ referencing the chaos that followed Haiti’s last presidential assassination.
Yet another segment of the population doubted President Trump’s genuine willingness for military intervention. They argued that the ‘gunboat diplomacy’ spearheaded by Secretary of State Marco Rubio would only alienate Venezuela further from the U.S., driving it closer to the influence of China, Russia, and Iran.
In response to Washington’s actions, Maduro has initiated military exercises, deployed tanks, and armed civilians, all widely showcased on state media. Despite these demonstrations, his advisors insist that their core message to Washington is a desire to avoid war.
Maduro recently sent a letter to President Trump, commending his efforts in de-escalating other global conflicts and expressing openness to a ‘direct and frank conversation’ with Trump’s special envoy to Venezuela, Richard Grenell.
Earlier this year, Grenell had seemingly attempted to mend relations, even traveling to Venezuela to meet Maduro shortly after President Trump assumed office. However, Trump has since appeared to lean towards Rubio’s more hard-line stance.
From her office in the oil ministry, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez asserted that she believes President Trump is guiding the world into an era where ‘the United States has openly declared war on the world.’
She dramatically stated, ‘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.’
Rodríguez condemned the boat attacks as ‘absolutely illegal’ and advocated for normalizing economic relations with the U.S., which has heavily sanctioned Venezuela’s crucial oil sector.
She concluded by claiming that ‘the people of the United States do not want war in the Caribbean.’
Remarkably, despite the rising tensions, Venezuela’s Foreign Minister Yván Gil confirmed that the country continues to receive twice-weekly flights of deportees from the United States.
Diplomats and business leaders in Caracas expressed a desire for the U.S. to revert to diplomatic strategies. They believe sustained negotiations could eventually convince Maduro to transfer power to a reformist or moderate opposition figure, in exchange for sanctions relief and other concessions.
Sources suggest Maduro, 62, who has governed since 2013, is weary but fears arrest if he steps down, particularly given his indictment in the U.S. on drug conspiracy charges.
Through the streets of Caracas, the strain between these two nations manifests in stark contrasts—images of readiness for conflict alongside moments of everyday peace.
Just recently, a downtown Caracas boulevard was filled with crowds gathered for a government rally, comprising both civilians and members of the Bolivarian militia, a reserve force.
Multiple attendees, some government employees, admitted their attendance was mandatory by superiors, and they were handed unloaded weapons for the event. Many dispersed quickly once it concluded.
Conversely, others proclaimed patriotism as their sole motivation, vowing unwavering defense of Maduro and his political movement.
Marisol Amundaray, 50, declared, ‘If there is an invasion, I will safeguard my children and head to the street with my rifle.’
Elsewhere in the city, however, life went on as usual. Near the presidential palace one morning, Constanza Sofía Arangeren gracefully twirled in a gold ball gown during a photoshoot on a cobblestone street.
Her mother admitted to being more preoccupied with the details of the impending Quinceañera than with the threat of a potential invasion.
No one I spoke with reported stockpiling supplies. Some expressed no concern about an attack, while others simply couldn’t afford to prepare.
Estefanie Mendoza, a 42-year-old social worker and mother of two, highlighted the economic hardship: ‘In a normal country with such a threat, people would stock up on food, but we simply cannot.’
Though Venezuela’s economy has seen some recovery since a prolonged crisis triggered a massive migrant exodus, this rebound has been inconsistent and unevenly distributed.
President Trump and Secretary Rubio have consistently asserted that substantial cocaine volumes transit through Venezuela, attributing this to a desire to curb U.S. overdose deaths. However, a 2020 State Department report indicated that only 10% to 13% of the world’s cocaine supply passes through Venezuela.
Fentanyl, responsible for far more overdose fatalities than cocaine, is primarily manufactured in Mexico using chemicals sourced from China, as per the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
The Trump administration has confirmed that U.S. forces have bombed several boats in the Caribbean, resulting in at least 17 fatalities.
Legal experts have raised concerns, deeming it a potential crime to summarily kill civilians not directly involved in hostilities, even if suspected of drug smuggling.
In Venezuela’s coastal state of Sucre, the first vessel destroyed on September 2nd is widely believed to have carried individuals from San Juan de Unare and Güiria, towns on the Paria Peninsula.
For many years, this specific region has been a hub for cocaine trafficking, a fact corroborated by Venezuelan journalist Ronna Rísquez’s extensive fieldwork.
However, Rísquez also noted that migrants, trafficking victims, and even government-subsidized Venezuelan gasoline (which fetches a higher price in nearby Trinidad and Tobago) depart from this same coastal region.
One grieving woman, identifying herself as the wife of a deceased man, recounted that her husband, a fisherman and father of four, simply left for work one day and never returned.
Many Venezuelans expressed profound fear that U.S. military action would only compound their suffering. They voiced skepticism that Ms. Machado, reportedly in hiding within Venezuela, and Mr. González, living in Spanish exile, could effectively ensure their safety.
Henrique Capriles, an opposition politician often at odds with Ms. Machado, challenged, ‘Name one successful U.S. military intervention in recent years.’
He dismissed the idea of a ‘bloodless U.S. extraction’ of Maduro as pure fantasy, ‘the stuff of Netflix, not reality.’
Capriles questioned the potential human cost for Venezuelans, asking, ‘What guarantee do we have that this will actually lead to the recovery of our democracy?’
