TEHRAN – Venezuela has forcefully rejected recent threats from President Donald Trump to treat its skies as closed, arguing the United States has no legal authority to impose restrictions on another nation’s airspace. Officials in Caracas insist that the move is not only illegitimate but also a direct challenge to the principles of international law.

The foundation of Venezuela’s position lies in the Chicago Convention of 1944, the treaty that governs civil aviation worldwide. The convention explicitly states that each country has exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. This principle has guided international aviation for more than eight decades and remains a cornerstone of global order. By attempting to dictate terms over Venezuelan skies, the U.S. is disregarding a treaty it helped draft and has long relied upon.

The Trump administration has attempted to justify its stance by linking Venezuela to drug trafficking networks. Yet these claims have not been supported with verifiable evidence. Since early September, the U.S. military has reported 21 strikes on vessels in the Caribbean, it alleged were carrying narcotics, resulting in more than 80 deaths. No independent proof has been provided to substantiate these operations. Venezuela argues that such accusations are politically motivated, and designed to topple President Nicolás Maduro. Without transparent proof, the narrative of Venezuela as a drug hub remains speculative and unconvincing.

This absence of evidence is critical. International law requires that punitive measures be based on facts that can withstand scrutiny. By designating alleged Venezuelan groups as terrorist organizations, the U.S. expands its legal powers while sidestepping the need for credible documentation. Such unilateral actions undermine trust in institutions meant to uphold fairness and legality.

Venezuela has responded by appealing to the international community. The country has urged governments, the United Nations, and multilateral organizations to reject what it describes as an act of aggression. Officials emphasize that Venezuela will meet external pressure “with legality and dignity,” reinforcing the idea that sovereignty must be defended through law rather than force.

The broader picture reveals a familiar pattern in Latin America. The U.S. has deployed significant military assets near Venezuelan territory, including an aircraft carrier and thousands of troops. President Trump has even raised the possibility of a ground offensive “by land” in Venezuela, further escalating tensions.

Officially, this presence is framed as part of anti-drug operations. In practice, it recalls earlier interventions in the region where allegations of crime were used to justify political and military pressure. From Panama in 1989 to more recent sanctions regimes, Washington has often blurred the line between law enforcement and regime change.

For Venezuela, the issue is not only about control of its skies but about the principle of independence. By invoking the Chicago Convention, Caracas is reminding the world that rules apply equally, and that no state has the right to impose its will on another.

Ultimately, the dispute highlights a clash between law and assertion. Venezuela insists that its sovereignty is protected by international treaties and that accusations must be proven, not presumed. The U.S., by acting without substantiation, risks weakening its own credibility and the very legal frameworks it claims to defend.