As tensions escalate between the United States and Venezuela, the specter of a major armed conflict looms over South America, raising profound concerns not only for the region but for the global community. The latest developments—a series of aggressive U.S. actions, warnings from regional leaders, and deepening humanitarian crises—paint a picture of a continent teetering on the brink.
The U.S. has dramatically stepped up its campaign against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s regime in recent months. According to The Guardian, since August 2025, the Trump administration has placed a $50 million bounty on Maduro’s head, launched the largest naval deployment in the Caribbean since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, and conducted deadly airstrikes on vessels allegedly transporting narcotics from Venezuela. These strikes, which have reportedly killed more than 80 people, are carried out without warning, raising alarms among international legal experts and regional diplomats alike.
Donald Trump’s decision in late November to declare Venezuelan airspace "closed in its entirety"—a move described by Celso Amorim, chief foreign policy adviser to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, as “an act of war” and “totally illegal”—has only heightened the sense of crisis. Most international airlines have since halted flights to Venezuela, further isolating the country and compounding its woes.
The humanitarian toll of Maduro’s rule is staggering. As highlighted by Nexstar Media, nearly 8 million Venezuelans—a quarter of the nation’s population—have fled abroad, seeking refuge from persecution and economic hardship. Once one of Latin America’s most prosperous nations, Venezuela has seen its oil production plummet from over 3 million barrels per day in 1999 to around 900,000 barrels today, a collapse attributed to widespread corruption and mismanagement under both Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez.
While the desire to see Venezuela without Maduro is widely shared—many believe the country and the world would be better for his departure—the means of achieving this outcome are fiercely debated. The U.S. argues that the Venezuelan regime poses a threat to its neighbors and to American security interests, citing its harboring of narcotics traffickers and Colombia’s National Liberation Army guerrillas. Complicating matters further, Cuban, Iranian, Russian, and Chinese security services are known to cooperate closely with Caracas, using Venezuela as a platform to project their strategic interests and undermine democracy across the region.
But the aggressive tactics employed by Washington are not without their critics. Legal scholars warn that blowing up boats on the high seas without provocation or warning is a clear violation of international law. Such actions, they argue, risk setting dangerous precedents that could backfire elsewhere—most notably in the South China Sea, where the U.S. has mutual defense obligations with the Philippines. China’s increasingly assertive claims to Philippine waters have already resulted in confrontations and even fatalities, and American unilateralism in the Caribbean could embolden Beijing to further flout international norms.
There are also broader geopolitical ramifications. Any U.S. military action against Venezuela would almost certainly be seized upon by Russian President Vladimir Putin as justification for his own illegal invasion of Ukraine. This kind of “whataboutism” is a staple of Russian propaganda, and while it may not sway public opinion in staunchly pro-Ukraine countries, it could influence the so-called Global South—nations that Russia has been actively courting. As Nexstar Media notes, the perceived parallel between a U.S. intervention in Venezuela and Russia’s actions in Ukraine could erode support for Kyiv in the United Nations General Assembly at a critical moment.
Within South America itself, the prospect of war is viewed with deep trepidation. Celso Amorim, speaking to The Guardian, compared the potential fallout of a U.S. invasion to the Vietnam War, warning, “The last thing we want is for South America to become a war zone – and a war zone that would inevitably not just be a war between the US and Venezuela. It would end up having global involvement and this would be really unfortunate.” Drawing on his decades of diplomatic experience, Amorim argued that even some of Maduro’s opponents might rally to resist foreign intervention, given the continent’s long history of resisting outside invaders. “Our whole continent exists because of resistance against foreign invaders,” he remarked.
The Trump administration’s pressure campaign has been relentless. Reports indicate that Trump personally gave Maduro a one-week ultimatum to resign during a phone call in late November—a deadline that has come and gone without any sign of the Venezuelan leader stepping down. Despite this, Maduro, who was democratically elected in 2013 but is widely believed to have stolen the 2024 election, remains defiant. Voting data released by the apparent winner, opposition leader Edmundo González, and verified by independent experts, showed Maduro suffered a stinging defeat in the 2024 poll. Yet Maduro has refused to publish the full voting tallies to support his claim of victory, deepening domestic and international skepticism.
Brazil, despite its longstanding ties to Maduro’s political movement, has refused to endorse the legitimacy of the 2024 election. Still, Amorim emphasized that Brazil opposes any form of forced regime change, stating, “If every questionable election triggered an invasion, the world would be on fire.” Instead, he floated the possibility of a negotiated solution, suggesting a recall referendum—similar to the one held in Venezuela in 2004—as a potential way forward. “If Maduro reaches the conclusion that leaving is the best thing for him and the best thing for Venezuela, it will be his conclusion … Brazil will never impose this; it will never say that this is a requirement … We are not going to push for Maduro to step down or abdicate,” Amorim said.
Speculation continues over where Maduro might seek asylum if he relinquishes power, with Cuba, Turkey, Qatar, and Russia touted as possible destinations. Brazil, however, is not considered a likely option, although Amorim noted that asylum is a longstanding Latin American institution, recalling past instances where deposed leaders from the region found sanctuary in Brazil.
Not everyone agrees that decisive action against Maduro would plunge Venezuela into chaos. María Corina Machado, an opposition leader whose movement is widely believed to have prevailed in the 2024 vote, dismissed fears of a new Iraq or Libya. In the New York Post, she wrote, “There are claims that decisive action could create instability or spark migration. But the instability has already happened and the migration has already occurred,” citing the 8 million Venezuelans who have already fled the country.
As the standoff continues, the world watches anxiously. The choices made in the coming weeks will not only determine Venezuela’s future, but could reshape the geopolitical landscape far beyond Latin America. For now, the hope is that diplomacy and negotiation can prevail over force, sparing the region—and the world—from yet another devastating conflict.