CARACAS, Venezuela—In a televised state interview on Thursday, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro strategically avoided directly confirming or denying a recent alleged United States military strike on Venezuelan territory. When pressed about the incident, Maduro deferred commentary, suggesting the matter “could be something we talk about in a few days.” This development follows assertions from US President Donald Trump, who claimed on Monday that US forces had executed a successful operation targeting and destroying a dock facility allegedly used for loading narcotics onto vessels. Trump described the action as targeting a key “implementation area” for drug traffickers, though he provided no specific operational details, including whether it was conducted by military or intelligence assets, or its precise location beyond being “along the shore.
Despite this escalation, President Maduro projected a conciliatory stance towards Washington, expressing a conditional willingness to engage in bilateral discussions. “Wherever they want and whenever they want,” Maduro stated, indicating openness to dialogue concerning critical issues such as drug trafficking, oil policies, and migration. This overture occurs amidst a sustained period of US military pressure in the region, which has included numerous maritime strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean since September.
The alleged land strike represents a significant and potentially precedent-setting escalation in the US campaign against narcotics trafficking in Latin America, marking what would be the first known ground incursion. The Trump administration has repeatedly threatened such actions against drug cartels, promising they would commence “soon.” However, the legal and ethical foundations of these operations are under intense scrutiny. The administration has yet to publicly furnish evidence verifying that the targeted vessels or facilities were indeed involved in illicit activities, sparking a robust debate among international law experts and human rights organizations. These groups contend that the strikes may constitute extrajudicial killings, a characterization vehemently rejected by US authorities.









