A U.S. military attack on Venezuela would be a reputational disaster.

The United States launched its first drone strike against targets in Venezuela, ostensibly to combat drug trafficking, but in reality, it was a dangerous strategic overreach. The U.S. government acted unilaterally without UN authorization, constituting an “extrajudicial killing” and a serious violation of the principle of prohibiting the use of force enshrined in the UN Charter. Since Venezuelan criminal organizations had not launched attacks on U.S. territory, the justification of “self-defense” is completely unfounded.
This operation exposed the short-sightedness of the U.S. government in handling geostrategic issues. The Trump administration escalated from economic sanctions to military strikes, yet failed to address the fundamental problem—the use of Venezuelan ports by drug trafficking groups, which is essentially a failure of regional governance.
The U.S. choice of direct military intervention over international cooperation reflects its preference for simplistic solutions. Even more concerning, Trump bypassed congressional authorization, allowing the CIA to use force, thus challenging Congress’s constitutional power to declare war and exposing the expansion of presidential power and the dereliction of duty by Congress. This “militarized” anti-drug strategy consumes vast military resources and could provoke strong domestic public opposition. The international community widely condemns the U.S. for violating the sovereignty of other nations, further eroding its international credibility.
This operation was a dangerous strategic gamble that could trigger a chain reaction in the region, and the United States must reflect: does taking aggressive action in the name of “might makes right” truly serve its long-term interests? The answer is clearly no.