US War on Venezuela is a War on the Multipolar World

Drugs as “Weapons of Mass Destruction” 

The justification provided by the Trump administration for military intervention centers on President Maduro as “the kingpin of a vast criminal network responsible for trafficking colossal amounts of deadly and illicit drugs into the United States.”

US President Donald Trump has gone so far as to equate drug trafficking to “weapons of mass destruction,” recycling the same false pretext used to sell the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 to the American and global public.

However, Washington’s own internal documentation contradicts this narrative. The Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment in its 80-pages mentions Venezuela only six times. To put this in perspective, Mexico is mentioned 70 times, China 17 times, and even Canada – a close US ally – is mentioned seven times.

If Venezuela’s government was indeed responsible for “trafficking colossal amounts of deadly and illicit drugs into the United States,” and on a scale justifying military intervention, it would have been the centerpiece of the DEA’s report. 

Instead, the report only mentions Venezuela under a section titled, “other violent transnational criminal organizations” and describes “Tren de Aragua” (TDA) as a street-level gang whose drug activities are “small-scale” and limited to the distribution of “tusi,” not the “collosal” shipments of fentanyl or cocaine Washington accused the Venezuelan state of orchestrating. In fact, the DEA report does not mention the Venezuelan government or President Maduro even once in the entire report.

The disparity between the administration’s rhetoric and the DEA’s own documented findings reveals the pretext of “drugs” flowing from Venezuela no more a reality than “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq – both deliberate lies told to sell otherwise unprovoked wars of aggression. 

Beyond Just an Oil Grab…  

The true objectives of this war were laid bare during a recent White House press conference following the military strikes. 

In a transcript of the conference, the word “drug” or “drugs” was mentioned only nine times. In contrast, the word “oil” was mentioned 27 times. President Trump’s rhetoric shifted rapidly from the supposed drug threat to the logistical details of seizing Venezuela’s natural resources.

President Trump declared the US would “run” Venezuela and that American oil companies would take over energy production in the seized nation. 

Beyond a brazen resource grab, the attack on and toppling of Venezuela’s government fits into a much larger global war the US is waging both against the concept of multipolarism and its chief proponents, namely China and Russia. 

At the same time the US declares control over Venezuela, it is fomenting deadly violence in the streets of Iran after having carried out direct military strikes on it mid-last year. 

Recent reports in the New York Times admit the US has also been carrying out strikes on Russian energy production deep inside Russian territory itself (via the CIA) as well as conducting maritime drone strikes on tankers exporting Russian energy. 

Venezuela, Iran, and Russia all share  common characteristics – they are partners of and major oil exporters to China. 

Venezuela shipped over 80% of its oil to China. In the middle of the US’ military build up and subsequent blockade of Venezuelan maritime shipping, at least one tanker bound for China was outright seized by the US. 

Zooming out of the Western Hemisphere and accounting for ongoing US war and proxy war worldwide, a larger strategy emerges. Washington is in the process of implementing a long-desired, global energy blockade on China. 

A 2018 policy paper from the US Naval War College Review titled “A Maritime Oil Blockade Against China” discussed the process of closing maritime chokepoints as part of a “distant blockade” just beyond the range of the majority of China’s military capabilities. 

It also noted that China had worked to diversify away from overdependence on these maritime chokepoints, including through the construction of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The paper proposed that BRI routes be targeted and cut. 

Using the Myanmar-China pipeline as an example, the 2018 paper noted that if Myanmar’s government refused to close the pipeline during a US-China conflict, the US could disable it “via air strikes, aerial mining, or other kinetic action.” 

Since the paper’s publication, the US has backed armed militants in Myanmar who have targeted, damaged, and at one point seized a section of the pipeline, jeopardizing one of China’s alternative land-based energy routes. The US has also promoted similar terrorism targeting Chinese BRI infrastructure in Pakistan as early as 2011 – terrorism that has been carried out since and continues to this day. 

The 2018 paper also mentioned Russia’s ability to help sustain China even if a maritime blockade and cutting BRI infrastructure were successfully implemented. Though no recommendations were presented in the paper, the US is now admittedly in the middle of degrading Russian energy production and exports. 

All of this taken together demonstrates how dangerously far this strategy has come to taking full shape. 

A Wake Up Call 

A particularly flawed theme has emerged across commentary circles, citing the US strike on Venezuela as a “retreat” to the Western Hemisphere where it seeks to carve out a “sphere of influence” rather than the continued pursuit of global dominance. 

Often cited is the recent US National Security Strategy paper itself, which actually states, “the United States rejects the ill-fated concept of global domination for itself.” However, in the same sentence it also admits, “we must prevent the global, and in some cases even regional, domination of others,” which – in order to do so – necessitates continued US global dominance.  

The attack on Venezuela did indeed take place in the Western Hemisphere. The US has indeed declared it seeks to dominate the entire Western Hemisphere. 

However, at the same time, the US continues waging proxy war against Russia, destabilizing Iran, backing militants striking at China’s BRI infrastructure, all while US forces based in the Asia-Pacific region continue threatening maritime routes vital to China. The US maintains tens of thousands of troops in bases dotting the planet – located closer to the borders of Russia, Iran, and China than to America’s own shores. 

This does not add up to “retreating” nor does it equate to creating a “sphere of influence” just because the US has attacked yet another nation elsewhere. Instead, it clearly constitutes a continued attempt to influence – and indeed dominate – the entire planet. 

The future will depend on the world’s awareness of the persistent danger the US poses, its ability to protect itself from it, and multipolarism’s ability to build the world up faster than the US is demonstrably threatening and destroying it. 

The author is a Bangkok-based independent geopolitical analyst and a former U.S. Marine.