PNN – The “Southern Spear” operation may strengthen Trump’s political standing in the short term and send a deterrent message to his rivals, but in the long term, it could push the Caribbean region toward a broader conflict.
According to the report of Pakistan News Network: The official announcement of the launch of the “Southern Spear” operation by the U.S. Secretary of Defense has once again placed Latin America at the center of a new crisis. Washington justifies this crisis under the pretext of combating “drug terrorism,” but much of the region views it as a continuation of old interventionist policies. On the surface, the operation aims to counter traffickers allegedly moving from the Venezuelan coast to the U.S.; however, when considering the scale of deployed forces, the types of equipment, and the timing alongside explicit threats against Maduro’s government, a different picture emerges. Washington has once again activated its familiar propaganda campaign: drug crisis, national security threat, and the need for preemptive defense.
Experience over recent decades shows that whenever the U.S. invokes terms such as “terrorism,” “supporting freedom,” or “humanitarian intervention,” it usually pursues goals beyond what it publicly claims. Now, the Southern Spear operation is more of a geopolitical pressure tactic and a prelude to containing the influence of U.S. rivals in the region—a region Washington still considers its “backyard.”
Read more:
Beyond the media; what does the Trump administration seek from a military attack on Venezuela?
What does the Southern Spear operation mean?
The title “Southern Spear” is symbolic: a spear pointed south intended, according to Pentagon officials, to “eliminate the threat at its source.” However, examining the operational structure reveals its true nature. The operation is conducted under Southern Command, deploying an extensive range of warships, surveillance aircraft, special forces units, and even the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford—an overwhelming force for intercepting a few drug-carrying boats.
In recent months, the U.S. has carried out at least 20 maritime attacks in the Caribbean and the Pacific, resulting in over 80 deaths. Washington claims these targeted “drug terrorists,” yet has provided no verifiable evidence linking the individuals or boats to cartels. For many regional governments, what the U.S. calls “drug terrorism” is simply a political term to legitimize military action.
The timing of Southern Spear with the movement of the largest U.S. warship toward Venezuela, reports of attack options being presented to Trump, and the mobilization of Venezuelan forces all point to a clear image: the U.S. has launched a series of limited, low-cost operations that could escalate into broader intervention if necessary. Some American sources have admitted that this operation could serve as a “gateway for direct pressure on Caracas.”
Hidden roots of the crisis: from oil nationalization to a multipolar world
The U.S. may attempt to present these developments as a simple security issue, but analysts see deeper roots dating back to the 20th century, when U.S. oil companies controlled Venezuela’s economy. The nationalization of the oil industry and the rise of the Bolivarian Republic marked a decisive shift: Venezuela pursued an independent path, expanding relations with Russia, China, and later Iran. For U.S. policymakers, a country in the “Western Hemisphere” cooperating with strategic rivals is intolerable.
In recent years, these collaborations have also taken on security dimensions. Therefore, the Southern Spear operation should be viewed as part of U.S. efforts to curb the influence of these powers in Latin America, rather than an initiative to save American youth from addiction.
Interestingly, official U.S. statistics show that over 90% of fentanyl is distributed through domestic networks within the U.S., primarily via Mexico, not from boats departing Venezuelan coasts. Nevertheless, the Trump administration prefers to portray the threat abroad, as it is easier to control and politically advantageous.
From sanctions to attacks: the recurring pattern of U.S. pressure
U.S. policy toward Venezuela over the past two decades has consistently combined sanctions, political pressure, media campaigns, and military threats. The first round of Trump-era sanctions shook Venezuela’s economy, reducing oil revenues by up to 70%. Accusations against Maduro and the $15 million reward for his capture (now $50 million) were part of this pressure.
Trump’s return in 2025 essentially revived the same maximum-pressure strategy. He uses the drug crisis as a pretext to open the path for military intervention. When Washington labels a country as a “terrorist base,” the next stage is usually direct or indirect military action. Beyond the military aspect, domestic motives must also be considered: ahead of the U.S. midterm elections, any foreign power display that reconstructs Trump’s image as a “decisive leader” is politically appealing. The Southern Spear operation serves exactly this purpose: a flashy, low-cost, and seemingly legitimate demonstration.
Venezuela’s response and a new split in Latin America
Venezuela has not remained passive. Maduro has declared his country ready for full-scale defense, mobilizing four and a half million people from popular forces and special army units. Deploying fighter jets, missile systems, and conducting joint maneuvers with Russia and Nicaragua sends a clear message to Washington.
Regionally, responses are not uniform, but the weight of countries opposing U.S. intervention is significant. Brazil and Mexico have both deemed U.S. attacks a violation of international law. Latin America today is no longer like the 1990s; it is moving toward multipolarity, where Washington’s influence is no longer uncontested.
The legal front: an operation without legal basis
From an international law perspective, the Southern Spear operation faces serious legitimacy challenges. Neither the UN Security Council authorized it, nor were U.S. attacks in response to an “armed attack,” nor has Washington proven that the targeted boats were genuinely carrying drugs. UN experts consider this operation a clear violation of the UN Charter. Even within the U.S., some members of Congress have called for its halt, as the government lacks legal authorization for these actions.
The fact that Washington refuses to publicly release its justification raises further questions: if the boats were truly carrying drugs, why is there no evidence? Why has such overwhelming military force been deployed against small vessels? And why is an attack on Venezuelan territory simultaneously on Trump’s table?
Conclusion
Overall, the Southern Spear operation continues the century-old pattern the U.S. has followed: whenever a Latin American country decides to step out of Washington’s orbit and cooperate with other powers, the U.S. views it as a threat to its hegemony and uses various tools to contain it.
What Washington calls “national security defense” is, for many in the region, little more than a show of force. Drugs are merely a pretext to justify the operation; if the U.S. were genuinely concerned about combating drugs, it would first address domestic networks instead of sending an aircraft carrier to the Caribbean.
The Southern Spear operation may boost Trump’s political position in the short term and send a deterrent signal to rivals, but in the long term, it could push the Caribbean toward widespread conflict. Behind the veil of “drug war,” the same longstanding policy of dominance in the Western Hemisphere is being reproduced—a policy that has always exacerbated instability and the north-south divide.