The substantial deployment of U.S. naval forces in the Caribbean, featuring destroyers and amphibious ships nearing the Venezuelan coastline, has stirred comparisons to the 1989 Panama invasion that toppled Manuel Antonio Noriega's regime. Analysts are pondering whether Nicolás Maduro might face a fate similar to Noriega, who was once accused of drug trafficking and turning his nation into a "narco-state."
The Noriega Precedent: A Historical Context
On December 20, 1989, President George H. W. Bush initiated Operation Just Cause, a significant military intervention that led to Noriega's downfall. Once a CIA ally, Noriega was accused by the U.S. of engaging in drug trafficking, corruption, and aligning Panama with the Medellín Cartel. The invasion involved 27,000 U.S. troops, hundreds of aircraft, and armored vehicles, swiftly overwhelming Panama's Defense Forces. Noriega sought refuge in the Apostolic Nunciature and surrendered on January 3, 1990, eventually facing trial and conviction for drug charges in Miami, where he spent two decades in prisons across the U.S. and Europe.
Although the U.S. framed the operation as a victory in the "war on drugs," it resulted in significant casualties, with at least 500 Panamanian deaths reported by the Pentagon and up to 3,000 according to local organizations. The United Nations and OAS condemned the action for breaching international law.
Maduro Under Pressure: A New Chapter
Decades later, President Donald Trump has dispatched a combat group to the Caribbean, comprising three guided-missile destroyers (USS Sampson, USS Jason Dunham, and USS Gravely) and three amphibious ships (USS San Antonio, USS Iwo Jima, and USS Fort Lauderdale). Collectively, they carry 4,500 personnel, including an expeditionary force of 2,200 Marines, providing Washington with the capability to land on Venezuelan shores if deemed necessary.
The Pentagon has kept the mission's specifics under wraps, but the White House asserts that the deployment targets "narcoterrorist" entities in the region. Among them is the Cartel of the Suns, which U.S. prosecutors allege is led by Maduro and high-ranking officials of his regime. The U.S. has raised the bounty for capturing the Venezuelan leader to an unprecedented $50 million in Latin America.
"Maduro is not a legitimate president; he's a fugitive leader of a narcoterrorist cartel," stated spokesperson Karoline Leavitt, emphasizing that Trump is prepared to use "every instrument of American power," from sanctions to military force.
Parallels and Distinctions: Venezuela vs. Panama
The comparison with Panama is unavoidable. Both Noriega and Maduro faced drug trafficking accusations in New York's federal courts and were identified by Washington as heads of drug-trafficking states. However, experts highlight significant differences. Former federal prosecutor Richard Gregorie, involved in Noriega's prosecution, told the Herald, "Panama and Venezuela are not the same. There's more at play than drug trafficking," citing Caracas' ties with Iran and its strategic oil and mineral wealth.
Meanwhile, Jon May, Noriega's defense attorney in 1992, concurred that a large-scale invasion would be "suicidal": "It was easy for the U.S. military to crush Panama. Venezuela has a much larger, more motivated army that would resist fiercely."
Legitimacy and Popular Will: A Decisive Element
An essential factor linking Noriega's case in Panama with Maduro's situation in Venezuela is the disregard for electoral outcomes. In both scenarios, the opposition triumphed at the polls, only for the ruling regime to annul the victory to remain in power. In Panama, opposition candidate Guillermo Endara was promptly recognized by the U.S. and much of the international community as the legitimate president, fostering a favorable narrative for intervention. In Venezuela, a similar situation unfolded: the opposition claimed to have defeated Maduro in recent elections, with international organizations acknowledging their evidence and denouncing irregularities and manipulation by the chavista electoral apparatus.
The Larger Geopolitical Picture
Today, like in 1989 when the Panama invasion occurred shortly after the Berlin Wall fell and a new international order began, the global stage is again undergoing profound transformation. The resurgence of "spheres of influence" in great power doctrines is evident: Russia's invasion of Ukraine blatantly challenged the post-World War II system based on international law and sovereignty principles. Just as Moscow has defied the order established after the socialist camp's collapse, the Trump administration—led by a president who openly admires Vladimir Putin—might be tempted to undertake a similar endeavor in the Western Hemisphere, aiming to eliminate Moscow's influence in its "backyard."
In this context, the naval operation off Venezuela's coast could be seen not only as part of the fight against drug trafficking but also as a move within the global contest for influence, where each power tests its strength to claim territory against its rivals.
Caracas' Response: Mobilizing Militias
In response to the military pressure, Maduro announced the mobilization of 4.5 million militiamen this week to "defend national sovereignty." The chavista regime insists that Washington's anti-drug operation is merely a pretext for a political intervention. Meanwhile, allied countries like Cuba, Bolivia, and Nicaragua, gathered within ALBA, condemned the deployment as a violation of international law.
The specter of the 1989 invasion looms again over the Caribbean. Back then, the U.S. justified its intervention in the name of national security and the war on drugs. Today, Trump employs similar arguments against Maduro. The difference lies in that Venezuela, unlike Panama, is a much larger country, with extensive armed forces, significant energy resources, and a broader geopolitical role. The crucial question is whether this naval presence is merely a show of force to pressure the chavista regime or if, like with Noriega, it could herald a military action that shifts the region's political balance.
Key Questions on U.S. Naval Deployment in the Caribbean
How does the U.S. naval deployment near Venezuela compare to the 1989 Panama invasion?
Both situations involve U.S. military presence and allegations of drug trafficking against the heads of state. However, Venezuela's larger size, military capacity, and geopolitical significance differentiate it from Panama's circumstances in 1989.
What are the objectives of the U.S. naval forces in the Caribbean?
The U.S. asserts that the naval deployment aims to counter "narcoterrorist" organizations in the region, including the Cartel of the Suns, allegedly led by Maduro and his officials.
What historical precedents influence the current U.S. strategy towards Venezuela?
The 1989 invasion of Panama serves as a precedent, where military intervention was used to combat drug trafficking and remove a leader deemed illegitimate by the U.S.