TEHRAN – Venezuelans took to the streets in Caracas and other cities this week to protest escalating U.S. military pressure. The demonstrations follow the continued presence of the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group in the Caribbean and thousands of U.S. troops in the region. The U.S. has also carried out more than 20 strikes on maritime targets in the Caribbean and Pacific since early September, killing over 80 people, actions that Caracas says go beyond anti-drug operations and threaten Venezuelan sovereignty.

Defending sovereignty

At rallies outside the Miraflores Palace, President Nicolas Maduro reaffirmed Venezuela’s commitment to peace—but only on terms that respect national sovereignty. “We do not want a slave’s peace, nor the peace of colonies! Colony, never! Slaves, never!” he told crowds waving flags. Maduro condemned the campaign of “psychological terrorism,” pointing to 22 weeks of sustained U.S. pressure, including sanctions, threats, and military posturing. Meanwhile, the government has deployed troops and displayed military equipment to protect key areas such as the capital, main highways, and coastal zones.

Second strike controversy

Tensions have further deepened following an initial U.S. military strike on a vessel in the Caribbean on September 2, which is said to have killed nine people. According to reports, War Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a verbal instruction regarding a follow-up strike, described in some accounts as an order “to kill everybody.” The mission commander, Admiral Frank Bradley, is reported to have carried out the second strike, which allegedly killed two survivors clinging to debris. International law experts and some U.S. lawmakers have expressed concerns that such actions may constitute a potential war crime under international law. Both Democrats and some Republicans in Congress have expressed concern, and committees in the House and Senate have opened inquiries into the incident. International law forbids such attacks: The UN Charter (Article 51) allows force only in response to an actual armed attack. The Geneva Conventions prohibit attacking individuals hors de combat—people who are incapacitated, shipwrecked, or no longer a threat. The September 2 follow-up strike could also constitute a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

U.S. contradictions

The Trump administration’s handling of the incident shows internal contradictions. President Trump said he “wouldn’t have wanted that—not a second strike,” while the White House defended the operation as legal and necessary to protect U.S. interests in international waters. Hegseth framed the victims as “narco-terrorists” linked to Maduro’s government, despite intelligence showing no direct connection. These justifications illustrate a pattern of U.S. interventions justified by selective claims and strategic objectives.

Regime change and oil control

Beyond military pressure, Trump has openly threatened to attack inside Venezuela if Maduro refuses to leave power. In a call revealed by U.S. media, Trump warned Maduro to step down “or face U.S. military force.” He later declared Venezuelan airspace “closed in its entirety,” intensifying fears of imminent invasion. Analysts note that Trump’s Venezuela policy is inseparable from regime change ambitions and control over oil reserves. His administration revoked Chevron’s license to operate in Venezuela and imposed crippling sanctions on the state oil company, moves widely seen as attempts to weaken Maduro and secure leverage over the world’s largest proven crude reserves.