TEHRAN – When U.S. forces began striking vessels in the Caribbean in early September, Washington said it was fighting drug cartels. Yet almost 90 people have been killed, no narcotics have been shown as evidence, and the scale of deployment, including the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group, makes clear this is not a routine mission.

What is unfolding is the largest U.S. military buildup in Latin America in decades, framed as counternarcotic but aimed at something far more consequential: reshaping global power.

The campaign began with amphibious groups moving into the southern Caribbean. By November, the Ford strike group joined, and bases in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands were expanded. Venezuela responded by mobilizing thousands of troops and militia, accusing Washington of trying to topple President Nicolas Maduro and seize oil reserves. The tension is not about drugs alone; it is about influence, leverage, and signaling.

President Donald Trump’s repost of a Fox News op-ed by David Marcus made this plain. The article argued that U.S. threats of military action against Venezuela are meant to pressure Russia, showing that Moscow cannot protect its partners. By sharing it, Trump confirmed that the “drug war” narrative is a cover. The buildup is about geopolitics, not narcotics.

Why the buildup matters

There are several reasons behind this strategy, each distinct but connected:

*Hemispheric control: Reviving a Monroe Doctrine-style logic, Washington is reminding the world that it intends to maintain primacy in its own hemisphere.

*Negotiation leverage: By showing that external partnerships can be destabilized, Washington strengthens its hand in talks over Ukraine.

*Deterrence signaling: A supercarrier in the Caribbean is a message that escalation costs are low close to home.

*China as next target: Beijing’s growing presence in Latin America — ports, energy projects, and infrastructure — is increasingly seen in Washington as a strategic challenge. By raising risks in Venezuela, the U.S. is signaling that Chinese-backed ventures in the region, and perhaps elsewhere, could be contested.

Historical echoes

This pattern is not new. In 1983, the U.S. invaded Grenada under the pretext of protecting medical students, but the deeper motive was to block Soviet and Cuban influence. In 1989, the invasion of Panama was justified as a drug war against Manuel Noriega, yet it secured control of the canal. Today’s campaign fits this tradition: counternarcotics as the public story, geopolitics as the real intent.

Global stakes

The implications are serious. For Latin America, it raises questions of sovereignty and autonomy. For global economics, it signals that Chinese-backed projects could face new risks. For international law it shows how fragile norms become when military operations are justified under contested narratives. And for ordinary people, civilian casualties undermine legitimacy and risk destabilizing neighboring states through refugee flows and economic disruption.

At the global level, the Caribbean buildup illustrates how Washington is adapting its strategy to a multipolar world. Rather than direct confrontation, the U.S. is targeting pressure points in regions where its military advantage is overwhelming. This approach risks entrenching rivalries and destabilizing regions far beyond the Caribbean.