US Secretary of State Marco Rubio meets with US Special Operations Command in April, 2025. Photo: X/@SecRubio.
By MisiĂłn Verdad – Aug 19, 2025
On August 8, The New York Times revealed that US President Donald Trump secretly signed an executive order to the Pentagon authorizing the use of military force against Latin American drug cartels designated as foreign terrorist organizations.
The document represents the administration’s most aggressive measure in this area, authorizing direct military operations, both at sea and on foreign soil, under the justification of “combating” drug trafficking. This decision marks a clear escalation of Washington’s unilateral and interventionist policy toward the region.
Regarding this news, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum responded that her government had been informed that an order would be issued against the cartels and that “the United States will not come to Mexico with military personnel. We cooperate, we collaborate, but there will not be an invasion. That is ruled out, absolutely ruled out.”
Her clarification recognizes the importance of combating drug trafficking but establishes a legitimate and clear limit in which all operations must be framed within bilateral cooperation and current agreements, not according to the criminal whims of Washington.
Then, on August 18, Reuters reported that three US Aegis-powered guided-missile destroyers were apparently expected to arrive off Venezuela’s coast within the next 36 hours: the USS Gravely, the USS Jason Dunham, and the USS Sampson, warships designed for strategic engagements rather than law enforcement.
The agency said anonymous sources informed it that it was part of “an operation against Latin American drug cartels.”
Other media agencies added to the picture, noting that more than 4,000 marines will be deployed to waters in the Caribbean and Latin America as part of a repositioning of the US Southern Command. The operation includes a nuclear offensive submarine and P-8 Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft.
CNN added that the operation also includes the USS Iwo Jima helicopter carrier, the Amphibious Ready Group with the USS Fort Lauderdale and the USS San Antonio, and a guided-missile cruiser.
In that note to senior Pentagon officials, they specified that, for now, the troop increase is “primarily a show of force, the objective of which is more to send a message than to indicate the intention to carry out precision strikes against the cartels.”
This military deployment, presented as a supposed “fight against the cartels,” is in reality and in principle a projection of power for broader political purposes. Behind the facade of “hemispheric security” lies an agenda driven by certain power centers in Washington that are pushing for a policy of open confrontation in the region.
This escalation did not happen abruptly, but gradually. The real turning point came in May, after the scandal involving former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz erupted in a Signal messaging group, triggering a reshuffle within Washington’s security establishment.
Following this episode, Marco Rubio was appointed acting national security advisor, simultaneously serving as secretary of state. This dual role, reminiscent of the concentrated power held by Henry Kissinger in the 1970s, provides Rubio unprecedented scope in matters of security and foreign policy, consolidating a more aggressive and centralized shift in the US agenda toward Latin America.
The national security advisor is the person who coordinates all US security and defense agencies and articulates the strategic recommendations received by the president. In other words, Rubio not only influences diplomacy through the State Department but now also guides military and intelligence priorities.
In this framework, the advisor becomes the true strategic filter, capable of guiding the president toward more aggressive decisions, especially when factors such as pressure from military sectors and the narrative of the “war on terror” and drug trafficking converge.
This position places him in a privileged position within the executive branch to use the national security apparatus as a tool for his own political agenda, as Rubio has turned the anti-drug issue into a vector for regional securitization.
It is worth noting that the US naval deployment in the Caribbean also occurs after an episode that meant a political blow to Washington and, above all, to Marco Rubio in particular: the release of 252 Venezuelan citizens kidnapped in El Salvador.
The repatriation, achieved through direct efforts by President Nicolás Maduro and his government, represented a diplomatic victory that left Rubio utterly humiliated.
Thus, this military movement, which the former senator oversees, may have a strategic background that suggests these operations serve three main functions:
• Psychological operations: The presence of warships near Venezuelan waters seeks to undermine morale and influence Caracas’s decision-making, sending a latent threat signal. These maneuvers are designed to intimidate without firing a single missile.
• Calculated provocation: By placing military assets near Venezuela, Washington is raising tensions and forcing regional governments to speak out, creating a climate of harassment and even creating a casus belli.
• Real military action capability: Although US officials insist this is a “show of force,” Trump’s executive order authorizes direct military operations.
US Accusations Against President Maduro Lack Evidence According to Former Biden Advisor
In short, the US deployment is multifaceted and deliberately ambiguous: it combines deterrence, psychological pressure, and preparation for war, with a clear political undertone of attacking the Venezuelan government.
Beyond the anti-drug rhetoric presented as justification, what is underway is a redesign of the regional landscape under the leadership of Rubio and the powerful sectors that support him.
Translation: Orinoco Tribune
OT/JRE/SL
