Trump's Venezuela Blockade Is About Geopolitics, Not Drugs

The US seized a second Venezuelan oil tanker carrying 1.8M barrels of crude. On December 20th, the Coast Guard intercepted the vessel, building on December 10th’s capture of a tanker linked to sanction evasion and set for Iran. Critics are divided: some see this as geopolitics, others see it as tough on narco-terrorism. They’re both right, but they’re missing an important point. The narco-terrorism connection is real—Maduro’s regime is corrupt, his military and government officials are complicit in drug trafficking. But the larger threat is geopolitical, and American leadership needs to be more direct in stating that. This is about China, Russia, and Iran building a hostile logistics network 1,500 miles from Florida. The narco angle provides legal and moral justification for action, but the geopolitical stakes are what justify Trump’s “total and complete blockade” of Venezuelan oil.

We need to approach what we are facing head on. Russia already has military advisors, arms dealers, and defense contractors in Venezuela repairing Maduro’s systems. China is receiving discounted oil as a top buyer and lender to the regime. They’ve secured energy supplies and are positioned for infrastructure expansion in Latin America. Iran already maintains ties in the region with potential Hezbollah connections. Combined, they’ve built a “counter-Western axis” that’s actively running arms smuggling networks, cyber operations, and a shadow fleet evading sanctions. Venezuela has the largest known oil reserves in the world, and they’re flowing to our enemies at a discount while US firms remain locked out.

This isn’t a future threat—it’s happening now, 1,500 miles from Florida. We’re already dealing with the consequences: surges in migration, crime from groups like Tren de Aragua’s, regional instability threatening Guyana’s oil-rich territories where ExxonMobil has major investments. The question isn’t whether Russia, China, and Iran could expand their military or infrastructure—it’s whether we’ll act before it’s too late. Trump is correct, our previous lack of action has given up strategic ground that could be permanently lost without course correcting. The deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford provides a powerful deterrent while the Coast Guard executes the seizures.

The narco-terrorism angle is real, and it provides important legal and moral arguments for these operations. Maduro’s regime has been proven to be corrupt. High-ranking government officials and military personnel are complicit in drug trafficking networks that have given rise to the fentanyl and immigration crises. This has allowed the administration to act without approval from Congress, and it resonates with Americans who see the damage of cartel operations.

The narco case is legitimate, but it isn’t the full story. Our approach to drug enforcement is reactive—we’re responding to crimes already committed. The geopolitical actions are preventive—we’re stopping a hostile alliance from making a second home for itself in our hemisphere before it’s no longer an option. That’s a harder argument to make because the threat feels abstract until a presence like Russia’s is seen directly. Leadership is leading with an easier narrative, but we need to start making the case for what really matters.

This is power politics at play, and we should stop looking the other way. China doesn’t apologize for its actions in the South China Sea. Russia doesn’t ask for permission before projecting force in neighboring countries. Why should America act differently, especially when it comes to defense? We’ve spent decades inactive while hostile powers built logistics networks in our backyard. That approach hasn’t brought us safety and prosperity—it’s opened the door to exploitation.

This operation is different from previous interventions. No troops on the ground. No regime changes. No nation-building exercises that add to our debt and cost lives. We’re using our existing naval forces to target a direct threat: a shadow fleet that funnels billions to Revolutionary Guards, Russian military operations, and Chinese strategic reserves. When compared to endless Middle East deployments—this is what a smart show of power actually looks like. Every seized tanker is one less revenue stream for regimes actively working against our interests. It’s minimum force, maximum impact, and it costs American taxpayers little beyond what we’re already spending on naval forces.

This is about whether we’re willing to confront a hostile alliance that’s building power in our hemisphere while we still have the opportunity. The narco-terrorism narrative will continue to provide legal justification for seizures, and it should. But if American leadership won’t make the geopolitical case publicly, we risk backing ourselves into a corner. China securing permanent energy access through Venezuela, Russia establishing military infrastructure 1,500 miles from our coast, Iran extending its reach into Latin America—this isn’t hypothetical. These are real, and the clock is ticking. Trump’s blockade is the right move. Now leadership has an obligation to explain why it really matters.