Article Summary – Any U.S. military action in Venezuela would be prolonged, expensive, and counterproductive strategically. Caracas’s heightened tensions over Guyana, reliance on Russia, China, and Iran, alongside deeply rooted criminal networks, could one day provoke intervention—but achieving air supremacy and conducting swift air raids would merely mark the initial phase.
- The main struggle would unfold as intense urban combat in cities like Caracas and Maracaibo, followed by a widespread insurgency throughout jungles, rivers, and border areas.
- Lacking significant regional support and imposing considerable costs on U.S. global military readiness, any Venezuelan campaign would represent a strategic pitfall rather than a demonstration of power.
A U.S. Invasion of Venezuela Can Be Summed Up in One Word: Quagmire
Venezuela has entered a conflict with the United States that extends far beyond theoretical strategic considerations. Caracas’s heightened tensions over the Essequibo region in Guyana, its strengthening alliances with Russia, China, and Iran, ongoing hybrid warfare against U.S. interests, and reliance on criminal enterprises for regime survival have pushed what was once a hypothetical scenario into serious strategic discussions: what circumstances might lead the U.S. to intervene in Venezuela, and what kind of conflict would ensue?
The reality defies hopes for a quick campaign. Military action in Venezuela would be drawn out and arduous, unfolding near U.S. borders, carrying substantial risks to American forces and damaging U.S. credibility—far beyond any simplistic vision of easy victory.
The Motivations: Sparks, Irritants, and Strategic Gravity
No single trigger would prompt U.S. military involvement. The Essequibo border conflict could escalate if Venezuela invades Guyanese lands, turning a frozen dispute into armed hostilities.
Drug trafficking and Venezuela’s safe haven status for armed factions would generate pressure from U.S. law enforcement, but neither would alone build sufficient momentum for war.
The root of concern lies deeper. Russia’s military footprint, China’s economic and infrastructure influence, and Iran’s intelligence and drone technology cooperation have transformed Venezuela into a strategic outpost for foreign powers within the Caribbean Basin.
For the United States, striving to maintain hemispheric security while juggling great power rivalry globally, a rival presence in Venezuela represents a seismic shift demanding attention. Should military intervention ever materialize beyond speculation, it would be primarily driven by this strategic challenge—even if public focus centers on border disputes or drug-related issues.
Opening Phase: Easy Airpower, Hard Realities
The initial stage of any U.S. intervention would follow an expected pattern. American forces would swiftly dismantle Venezuelan air defenses, disrupt command systems, and achieve control of the skies within a few days. Venezuela’s Air Force—comprising aging Su-30s and deteriorating F-16s—would be quickly neutralized. The S-300 and Buk missile systems imported from Russia, however, remain poorly integrated and maintained, leading to their rapid defeat.
Nonetheless, securing air dominance is not the same as winning. While air strikes can incapacitate Venezuela’s armed forces, they cannot guarantee control over this large, divided country, which is well-suited for irregular warfare. The true conflict would begin once the skies are under control.
Urban Combat: Where the Terrain Turns Against the Invader
Venezuelan cities such as Caracas, Maracaibo, Maracay, and Valencia are complex urban environments filled with regime supporters, intelligence operatives, and colectivos intimately familiar with the terrain. While they cannot halt U.S. forces, they can impose heavy casualties on every block fought over.
Contemporary urban warfare swiftly depletes infantry, combat engineers, small drones, armored vehicles, and logistical support, often to the surprise of even experienced commanders. Although air bombardments assist, they are ineffective at clearing stairwells, basements, and tightly packed neighborhoods where guerrillas blend with civilian populations. Initial media reports may claim progress, but the reality on the ground would signify the start of a drawn-out occupation.
Tennessee Army National Guard Soldiers with Alpha Battery, 1-181st Field Artillery Regiment conduct a training exercise using the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) at Camp Shelby, Mississippi, June 9. The unit’s annual training enhances battalion readiness, focuses on mission-essential tasks and ensures Soldiers are proficient in critical skills. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by Sgt. Grayson Cavaliere)
The Insurgency: A Country Built for Guerrillas
Venezuela’s vast interior exacerbates the challenge. Its Andean valleys, river systems, mining areas, and border regions have long served as sanctuaries for guerrillas, traffickers, and armed groups. These factions owe allegiance not to Maduro but to their control of territories, illicit profits, and independence. A U.S. invasion threatens all these elements.
As U.S. troops advance beyond coastal zones, insurgents would disperse into familiar terrain. No area would be secure. Supply convoys would face constant attacks, while river crossings would become death traps. What starts as a regime overthrow would easily devolve into a counterinsurgency across a land almost four times larger than Iraq.
Regional Blowback: The Politics of Isolation
Even nations who dislike Maduro would resist a U.S. invasion. Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico would encounter immediate domestic unrest, and Caribbean countries would prepare for waves of refugees. The legacy of past U.S. interventions in Latin America—including in Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, and Panama—would provoke strong opposition.
Without local allies, the United States would bear full responsibility for stabilizing post-conflict Venezuela: law enforcement in devastated urban centers, managing humanitarian crises, and rebuilding political institutions that have been utterly eroded. Such an occupation would be prolonged, solitary, and politically toxic.
Strategic Risks: A War That Undercuts U.S. Power Elsewhere
There is also a broader strategic price. A Venezuelan war would consume resources essential for U.S. deterrence in the Indo-Pacific and for maintaining a coherent security posture in the Western Hemisphere. Troops and units guarding Venezuela’s oil infrastructure would be unavailable for crises in the Pacific. Every year spent fighting guerrillas in the Orinoco basin would drain focus from critical arenas—sea lanes, cyberspace, and diplomacy—where U.S. interests are significantly higher.
Such a campaign would be more than costly; it would risk dragging the United States back into open-ended, regime-change conflicts it has sought to avoid for over a decade, as described in recent analyses.
The Victory That Becomes a Burden
Removing Maduro’s government would be the simplest task. The real challenge lies in what follows: cities that resist pacification, irregular forces that refuse to disband, porous borders channeling fighters and contraband, and regional neighbors that isolate the United States just when cooperation is most crucial.
A great power can win tactical engagements yet lose the strategic contest afterwards. For a United States seeking renewed strategic focus, an invasion of Venezuela presents less a demonstration of might than a strategic snare masquerading as an option.
Original article: nationalsecurityjournal.org
About the Author
