Venezuela Intervention Part 1

The Operational Preparation - a Libya 2.0
While Washington sells its Caribbean military buildup as “counter-narcotics,” the strategic reality tells a different story: F-35 deployments, the 4th Fleet in striking distance, a step-by-step escalation ladder designed by the Atlantic Council, and a blueprint eerily reminiscent of Libya in 2011. Beneath the surface, this operation is not about Maduro – it is about China’s energy lifeline, the Petrodollar, and the geopolitical calculus of American power. Part I dissects the commanders, the hardware, and the doctrine that could push Venezuela into the center of a global confrontation within weeks.

The Operational Preparation – a Libya 2.0

from Michael Hollister

First published at Overton Magazine on December 01, 2025

5.505 words * 29 minutes readingtime

The first analysis to this series you will be able to find here
Venezuela, China, and the Defense of the Petrodollar: Libya 2.0?

Part 2 you will be able to find here:
Venezuela Intervention * The Operational Preparation – a Libya 2.0 – Part 2

PART 1

The Commanders and the Plan for Venezuela

While Washington claims its massive military buildup in the Caribbean targets drug cartels, a different pattern emerges—one that mirrors Libya 2011 in disturbing detail. The same playbook. Similar commanders. And an identical pretext: humanitarian intervention as cover for resource control and geopolitical containment. The question is no longer if Washington will strike—but when, and exactly how the Libyan disaster will repeat itself.

In October 2025, I documented how Venezuela’s strategic shift to yuan and Tether for its oil transactions directly threatens the petrodollar system—that cornerstone of US financial hegemony that Washington has defended by all means for decades. Since then, escalation has accelerated dramatically. Ten F-35 fighter jets have been deployed to the region—aircraft designed to destroy enemy air defenses, not fight drug trafficking. The US Navy’s Fourth Fleet positioned itself off Venezuelan waters. A “Counter-Narcotics Task Force” was assembled—with firepower that dwarfs any drug interdiction operation in history. On September 2nd, a US airstrike sank a Venezuelan speedboat. Eleven people died.

What mainstream media won’t report: I’ve obtained the think tank papers steering this intervention stage by stage. I’ve identified the military commanders overseeing what Atlantic Council strategists explicitly call “the next steps up the escalation ladder.” This is not conspiracy theory. This is operational planning—with names, numbers, and timelines. It’s the Libya playbook, updated for the Caribbean. And it’s already running.

THE MILITARY BUILDUP – The Commanders

Every intervention begins with positioning. Before bombs fall, command structures are built, forces deployed, chains of command established. What’s currently happening in the Caribbean follows this pattern with surgical precision. Here are the military commanders leading the current buildup—all with combat experience in the Middle East, now redeployed to America’s “backyard.”

General Laura J. Richardson – The Architect

Position: Commanding General, US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM)

Laura Richardson is the most powerful military figure for the entire Latin American theater. SOUTHCOM, headquartered in Florida, is responsible for all US military operations in Central and South America. What Richardson commands gets executed.

Her rhetoric has fundamentally shifted since 2023. While previous SOUTHCOM commanders spoke of “partnership,” Richardson increasingly uses aggressive language. She explicitly refers to Latin America as “our backyard”—phrasing deliberately signaling dominance claims.

Particularly revealing: Richardson repeatedly emphasizes the need to roll back Chinese and Russian influence. In a March 2024 hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, she stated: “We cannot allow external powers to gain a foothold in our strategic space. Latin America is and remains central to our national security.” Translation: Venezuela, with its close China ties, is a threat.

Her career is marked by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—conflicts that also began under humanitarian pretexts and ended in decades-long occupations. Her appointment as SOUTHCOM commander in 2021 signaled a reorientation: away from “soft power,” toward military enforcement.

Rear Admiral James Aiken – The Sea Blocker

Position: Commander, US Fourth Fleet

James Aiken is the operational enforcer at sea. The Fourth Fleet, reactivated in 2008, is the maritime power instrument for the region. Aiken controls all naval operations off Venezuela’s coasts.

In official statements, Aiken uses the euphemism “maritime security”—classic code for control and projection. What does “maritime security” off Venezuela mean? Surveillance of oil tankers. Identification of Chinese vessels. Preparation for maritime interdiction operations—that Stage 3 of the escalation ladder, not yet activated but already prepared.

The Fourth Fleet operates with multiple destroyers and frigates in direct proximity to Venezuelan waters. Officially “Counter-Narcotics.” Actually in a position enabling a complete naval blockade within hours—without declaring it as such under international law.

Aiken’s background: He previously commanded operations in the Persian Gulf, where similar “maritime security” deployments pressured Iranian oil tankers. The methodology is identical. Only the geography has changed.

Lieutenant General Michael T. Plehn – The Sanctions Enforcer

Position: Deputy Commander, US Southern Command

Michael Plehn is officially responsible for “Counter-Narcotics.” The reality: He’s deeply involved in sanctions enforcement operations—those economic warfare measures designed to strangle Venezuela.

Sanctions enforcement means concretely: Identification of ships under false flags. Surveillance of money transfers in Tether and yuan. Coordination with the US Treasury Department. And—particularly relevant—preparation of military options to enforce sanctions by force, if “required.”

Plehn served in Afghanistan and Iraq, where he gained experience in “unconventional warfare”—operations below the threshold of open war declaration. Exactly what’s currently running in the Caribbean.

Internal military documents show: Plehn leads planning for “graduated response options”—scaled reactions from economic pressure through maritime interdiction to limited airstrikes. He translates think tank papers into operational military plans.

Rear Admiral Thomas Allan – The Ground Man

Position: Commander, Joint Task Force Bravo (JTF-Bravo)

Thomas Allan commands the unit that actually provides “boots on the ground.” Joint Task Force Bravo, stationed in Honduras, is the rapid reaction force for Latin America. Officially: humanitarian missions. Actually: military spearhead for interventions.

Particularly interesting: JTF-Bravo was logistically involved in operations around Libya between 2010 and 2014—not in the combat zone, but in personnel deployment and intelligence support. The unit has experience in rapid interventions under humanitarian cover.

Allan himself has combat experience in Iraq, including in “special operations.” He’s a practitioner who knows how to employ military force below the threshold of open invasion—exactly the Libya model that think tanks recommend for Venezuela.

Currently JTF-Bravo conducts “readiness exercises.” Officially for natural disasters. But the trained units are the same ones that would deploy in a Venezuela intervention: airborne forces, Special Forces, rapid logistics.

The Hardware: What’s Already in Place

Air Force:

  • 10 F-35A Lightning II – Stealth aircraft for destroying enemy air defenses. Combat radius: 2,200 km
  • P-8 Poseidon – Tracking all ship movements, including Chinese oil tankers
  • E-3 AWACS – Radar dominance, coordinated airstrikes in real-time

Navy:

  • USS George Washington (Aircraft Carrier) – Available within 48 hours
  • Arleigh Burke-class Destroyers – Tomahawk cruise missiles
  • Littoral Combat Ships – Coastal operations

Ground Forces:

  • II Marine Expeditionary Force – 2,000+ Marines, amphibious landing capacity

The Signal: Power Projection, Not Drug Fighting

You don’t fight drug gangs with stealth fighters. You don’t inspect smuggling boats with carrier battle groups. The military power currently assembled off Venezuela is designed for:

  1. Air superiority – Complete airspace control within hours
  2. Maritime blockade – Stop, inspect, or sink any vessel
  3. Precision strikes – Destroy selected targets without ground invasion
  4. Rapid intervention – “Protection mission” for US citizens (the classic pretext)

This is the exact force structure before interventions in Iraq (1991, 2003), Yugoslavia (1999), Libya (2011), and Syria (2013/2014). The pattern repeats. And the commanders know exactly what they’re doing.

THE PLAYBOOK – The Atlantic Council Escalation Ladder

When Think Tanks Write Wars

US think tanks don’t analyze policy—they write it. What gets discussed as “strategic consideration” lands months later as operational orders on generals’ desks. The Atlantic Council papers on Venezuela aren’t academic exercises. They’re blueprints. And they’re currently being implemented stage by stage.

The most explosive document bears the title “Two US Policy Options for Venezuela”—an Atlantic Council Issue Brief from 2024. In roughly 30 pages, it describes a detailed, six-stage escalation ladder—with precise descriptions of what happens at each stage and what follows next.

Washington has already entered this ladder. We’re currently at Stage 2. What follows is written in black and white. Here’s the roadmap.

Stage 1: Maritime Pressure & Maritime Denial

Status: IMPLEMENTED

US warships positioned just outside Venezuela’s Exclusive Economic Zone. Formally in international waters. Actually controlling every movement of Venezuelan and Chinese tankers.

The Atlantic Council calls this “de facto sea control.” The official justification: “Enhanced Counter-Narcotics Operations.” The actual purpose: Surveillance and potential disruption of oil deliveries to China.

Every tanker transporting Venezuelan oil to Asia passes through this surveillance zone. Every movement is captured, every route documented. The US knows exactly what volume flows where when, who’s buying, who’s paying in yuan or Tether. This data forms the basis for the next stages.

The Atlantic Council writes explicitly: “Maritime presence to monitor and disrupt critical energy flows.” Monitor—and disrupt. The second word is decisive. Surveillance is Stage 1. Disruption is Stage 3.

Stage 2: “Escalatory Signaling” with Air Superiority

Status: IMPLEMENTED

In September 2025, the Pentagon deployed ten F-35A stealth fighters to South America. Officially for “supporting regional security.” Actually as an unmistakable signal: We can control your airspace anytime.

F-35s are high-tech weapon systems for destroying enemy air defenses. Venezuela possesses Russian S-300 systems and Su-30 jets—respectable by Latin American standards. Against F-35s, combined with AWACS and electronic warfare, they’d be neutralized within hours.

The Atlantic Council calls this “escalatory signaling.” The purpose isn’t to bomb, but to show that they could. Anytime. And that Venezuela is militarily completely outmatched.

The think tank papers: “The deployment of advanced air assets demonstrates capability to degrade Venezuelan air defenses and command-and-control infrastructure without initiating hostilities.” Without initiating hostilities—but with unmistakable threat.

Accompanying this, P-8 Poseidon and E-3 AWACS were deployed to the region. Together these systems create complete radar dominance. Every Venezuelan military aircraft, every ship is captured in real-time.

This is preparation for air war. Everyone involved knows it. This stage was completed in October 2025.

Stage 3: “Targeted Maritime Interdiction Operations” – Blockade Light

Status: NOT YET ACTIVE – BUT PREPARED

This is where it gets critical. Stage 3 is the turning point. The Rubicon.

The Atlantic Council calls this phase “Targeted Maritime Interdiction Operations”—targeted maritime interdiction operations. Plain language: A blockade, without calling it a blockade. Because under international maritime law, a blockade is an act of war. What’s described is legally a blockade—just framed differently.

What would this look like concretely?

US warships would stop tankers transporting Venezuelan oil to China. Official pretext: “Suspicion of drug smuggling” or “sanctions violation.” The ships would be “inspected.” Inspections last hours or days. Delays accumulate. Insurance companies raise premiums. Chinese buyers switch to alternatives.

The result: Venezuelan oil exports collapse. Not through official blockade, but through systematic obstruction. The effect is identical. International legal responsibility remains diffuse.

The Atlantic Council explicitly: “Political pressure via choke points… maritime interdiction operations would increase costs for Russia, disrupt yuan/Tether transactions, and reduce oil flow to China.” They disrupt China’s energy supply without officially waging war.

Why hasn’t this happened yet?

Because this step is irreversible. Once the US stops Chinese tankers, Beijing reacts. China could:

  • Send its navy to protect the tankers
  • Initiate economic retaliation
  • Massively arm Venezuela
  • Request support from Russia and Iran

Stage 3 is the point where a regional conflict becomes global. That’s why this stage is prepared but not yet activated. Washington is waiting for the right moment—or the right pretext.

The think tank discussions classify this as “high-impact, moderate-risk.” High Impact—because it directly hits China’s energy supply. Moderate Risk—because they believe China won’t react militarily.

This bet could be wrong.

Stage 4: “Strike Options” – Precision Strikes

Status: WAR GAME SCENARIOS RUNNING

If Stage 3 doesn’t achieve the desired effect—or if Venezuela or China react militarily—Stage 4 follows. Here pressure becomes direct force.

The think tank papers list precisely which targets would be attacked in “limited airstrikes”:

Primary Targets:

  • Radar installations (blinding air defenses)
  • Air force bases (eliminating Venezuelan jets on the ground)
  • Coastal missile sites (securing maritime operations)
  • Command and control nodes (paralyzing military coordination)

The Atlantic Council provides the justification: “To ensure the safety of US forces conducting counter-narcotics operations.” The same formula as 2011 for Libya, 1999 for Serbia, 2003 for Iraq.

They attack to “protect US personnel.” The attack is framed as “defensive”—even when preemptive.

The papers emphasize: “Limited strikes, not regime change operations.” Limited strikes, not regime change operations. They destroy military capabilities. The regime should be weakened, the overthrow should happen “organically”—through internal pressure, military coup, economic collapse.

Whether this works is questionable. Libya was also supposed to be a “limited operation.” It ended with Gaddafi’s death and a decade-long civil war.

Stage 5: “Regime Pressure” – Libya Light

Status: STRATEGIC ENDGAME

The Atlantic Council: “If Maduro escalates, the United States has the capability to degrade his air power, cripple his command-and-control systems, and force regime negotiation from a position of overwhelming strength.”

This is the Serbia-1999 and Libya-2011 model: Use air superiority to render the regime incapable of action. No ground invasion. But also no functioning Venezuelan military anymore.

The calculation: When Maduro’s generals see their air force destroyed, their communications collapsed, their command structures shattered—they won’t fight for him anymore. They’ll negotiate. Or stage a coup.

The think tanks assume Venezuela’s military is pragmatic-opportunistic. That generals will defect when the wind shifts. That a “transitional regime” can be formed from precisely these generals.

Whether this is realistic remains to be seen. Maduro has survived twenty years of power struggle, multiple coup attempts, years of sanctions. But this is the bet in Stage 5.

Stage 6: “Partner Deployment” – The Regional Coalition

Status: DIPLOMATIC PREPARATION UNDERWAY

The final stage is internationalization. Not a US solo action, but a “Coalition of the Willing”—as in Iraq, as in Libya. This creates multilateral legitimacy and distributes costs.

The think tank papers name potential partners:

Colombia: Direct neighbor, militarily capable, Latin America’s second-largest army.

Brazil: Largest regional power, but politically ambivalent. Washington could apply economic pressure.

Netherlands: Controls Aruba and Curaçao, strategic islands near Venezuela.

France: Controls French Guiana, directly on Venezuela’s border.

The model is Libya 2011: The US leads, NATO partners support, regional actors legitimize. Diplomatic preparations are already underway.

The Decisive Quote: China Is the Target

All of this—six stages, meticulously planned—only makes sense when you understand it was never about Venezuela. The Atlantic Council writes it crystal clear:

“Maritime dominance can put China’s energy lifeline at risk. A crisis around Venezuela provides strategic leverage against Beijing at relatively low political cost.”

Endanger China’s energy lifeline. Strategic leverage against Beijing. At relatively low political cost.

Venezuela is the pressure point. China is the target. The petrodollar is the motive.

Maduro is just the means. If he falls, a new regime will be installed that accepts dollars. China’s oil access will be interrupted. And Washington demonstrates: Whoever circumvents the petrodollar system pays the price.

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

The insidious part: These think tank papers don’t just describe the conflict—they create it. When Chinese strategists in Beijing’s Defense Ministry read Atlantic Council papers stating how to “cut China’s energy lifeline,” they react. They strengthen military presence. They arm Venezuela.

That in turn confirms in Washington: “China is aggressive. China threatens our interests. We must act harder.”

The spiral turns further. The think tanks don’t write neutral analysis. They write a script. And all participants play their roles.

Where We Stand Now

  • Stage 1: Active for months
  • Stage 2: Completed in October 2025
  • Stage 3: Prepared – this is the next step
  • Stages 4-6: Planned, war-gamed

When Stage 3 is activated—when US ships begin stopping Chinese tankers—the Rubicon is crossed. After that, escalation becomes nearly automatic. An incident. An overreaction. A “defensive” strike. And we’re in Libya 2.0.

THE LIBYA PARALLEL – Pattern Recognition

History Repeats Itself. Not Randomly.

There’s a formula for American interventions in the 21st century, developed in Yugoslavia 1999, refined in Afghanistan 2001, escalated in Iraq 2003, perfected in Libya 2011. And it’s now, in 2025, being reactivated for Venezuela.

The formula has six elements:

  1. Humanitarian/security pretext
  2. Gradual military positioning
  3. Economic strangulation
  4. Media demonization of the regime
  5. Limited airstrikes (no ground invasion)
  6. Regime collapse through internal pressure

Venezuela 2025 follows this pattern with frightening accuracy. Not because the same people are involved, but because the same institutional mechanisms, strategic doctrines, and financial interests are at work.

Libya 2011 is the precedent case. Here’s exactly how the parallels run.

Then: Libya 2011

The Pretext: Protecting Civilians

In February 2011, protests erupted in Libya against Gaddafi. The reaction was brutal—but not exceptionally brutal compared to Egypt, Syria, Bahrain. But Libya became the target.

The justification: “Responsibility to Protect.” UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized a no-fly zone and “all necessary measures” to protect civilians. That sounded humanitarian. That sounded limited.

The Reality: Regime Change

Within weeks, this became a comprehensive air war to destroy Gaddafi’s military. NATO bombers attacked troop concentrations, command centers, government buildings, Gaddafi’s convoys.

The goal wasn’t protection. The goal was overthrow.

The Pattern:

  1. Maritime blockade light
  2. Air superiority within 48 hours
  3. Limited strikes escalated to systematic bombardment
  4. No ground invasion, but massive rebel support
  5. Regime collapse: Gaddafi captured, murdered; state collapses

The Result: Catastrophe

Libya today is a failed state. Three competing governments. Civil war. Migration crisis. ISIS. Slave markets. Ten years of chaos.

For intervention advocates, it was a “success”—because Gaddafi was gone. That Libya ceased to exist as a functioning state was “regrettable,” but not the primary concern.

Now: Venezuela 2025

The Pretext: Drug Fighting

The official justification: Fighting drug cartels and transnational crime. Tren de Aragua, Venezuelan smugglers, US border threats.

The Reality: Petrodollar Defense and China Containment

This isn’t about drugs. It’s about:

  • Venezuela’s oil sales in yuan and Tether
  • China’s energy security
  • The threat to the petrodollar system
  • Geopolitical containment of China in Latin America

“Drug fighting” is humanitarian pretext 2.0. The function is identical: Create a justification that’s politically sellable domestically.

The Pattern (Already Underway):

  1. Maritime presence: Fourth Fleet positioned
  2. Air superiority: F-35s deployed
  3. Economic strangulation: Years of sanctions intensified
  4. Media demonization: Maduro as dictator, narco-state, China proxy
  5. Limited strikes: Prepared
  6. Regime pressure: The strategic endgame

The parallels aren’t approximate. They’re exact.

The Structural Commonalities

1. The “No-War” Narrative

Libya 2011: “This is not an invasion. This is a limited operation to protect civilians.”

Venezuela 2025: “This is not an intervention. This is drug fighting.”

In both cases, calling it “war” is avoided. Because war requires congressional approval. But “humanitarian operations” or “security measures”? The president can authorize those. This is legal strategy.

2. The Maritime Component

Libya 2011: NATO ships imposed a de facto naval blockade. Officially “arms embargo.” Actually control of all ship movements.

Venezuela 2025: The Fourth Fleet controls the waters. Officially “Counter-Narcotics.” Actually surveillance of all oil tankers to China.

The method is identical: Control the sea without formally calling it a blockade.

3. Air Superiority as Leverage

Libya 2011: Within 48 hours, NATO destroyed Libya’s air defenses. Gaddafi’s jets destroyed on the ground. Radar systems knocked out. Communications paralyzed. The goal was to render Libya defenseless.

Venezuela 2025: The F-35 deployment serves the same purpose. Venezuela’s S-300 systems and Su-30 jets are respectable. But against F-35s, P-8 Poseidon, and AWACS, useless.

The signal: We can neutralize your airspace anytime. You’re already militarily defeated.

4. The “No-Ground-Troops” Promise

Libya 2011: Obama promised: “No American ground troops.” That was true—technically. But there were Special Forces, CIA operatives, Private Contractors, massive weapons deliveries to rebels.

Venezuela 2025: Trump will make the same promise. And it will be technically correct. But: JTF-Bravo stands ready, Special Forces are in the region, Private Contractors in the starting blocks, weapons deliveries to opposition are running.

This is the Libya model. No open occupation. But maximum destabilization.

5. The UN Bypass

Libya 2011: The US had UN Resolution 1973. But the resolution only authorized no-fly zone and civilian protection. Not regime change. Washington ignored that. The mission was “stretched.”

Venezuela 2025: There will be no UN resolution. China and Russia would veto in the Security Council. So Washington will find other justifications: “Self-defense,” “Defense of regional partners,” “Authorization for Use of Military Force” (AUMF).

This is legally thinner than Libya. But international legal legitimacy has never been the primary concern.

The Crucial Differences – Why Venezuela Is More Dangerous

Difference 1: The Great Power Dimension

Libya 2011: Gaddafi was internationally isolated. Russia and China protested—but did nothing.

Venezuela 2025: Venezuela has China as its largest investor ($60 billion), Russia as military partner, Iran as ally, Cuba as supporter.

If the US attacks, Beijing reacts. China could send its navy to protect tankers, initiate economic retaliation, massively arm Venezuela. The risk of great power confrontation is real. In Libya, this risk didn’t exist.

Difference 2: Geographic Proximity

Libya 2011: 6,000 kilometers from the US. For the US public, a distant crisis.

Venezuela 2025: 2,000 kilometers from Florida. An escalation would have immediate impacts: refugee wave to the US (millions of Venezuelans), destabilization of Colombia and Brazil, energy price shocks, drug smuggling explosion.

Difference 3: The Petrodollar Motive

Libya 2011: Gaddafi planned a gold-backed pan-African currency—a theoretical threat, but not acute.

Venezuela 2025: Venezuela already conducts 85% of its oil sales outside the dollar. In yuan. In Tether. This is reality. This is an acute threat to petrodollar hegemony. The urgency is higher. The pressure on Washington greater.

Difference 4: Military Strength

Libya 2011: Libya’s military was outdated, poorly maintained, demoralized. NATO destroyed it within days.

Venezuela 2025: Venezuela’s military has Russian S-300 systems, Su-30 and Su-35 jets, Chinese drones, Cuban and Russian military advisors, experienced special forces, guerrilla militias.

An air war would be quickly won. But a stabilization attempt? That would be Iraq 2.0—not Libya 2.0.

The Libya Syndrome: What Comes After “Success”

Libya After Gaddafi:

  • Three competing governments
  • Ongoing civil war (2011-present)
  • ISIS exploited the chaos
  • Migration crisis
  • Slave markets
  • Russia and Turkey filled power vacuum

Gaddafi was gone. But Libya as a state no longer exists. For Libyans, the intervention was a catastrophe.

Venezuela After Maduro?

The think tanks fantasize about a “democratic transition.” Reality will look different:

  • Power struggle between military factions (not all generals are pro-US)
  • Guerrilla resistance (Chavista militias, FARC remnants)
  • Regional destabilization
  • Humanitarian catastrophe (millions of refugees, famine)
  • Geopolitical competition (China, Russia, Cuba fight for influence)

Venezuela has 28 million inhabitants. Libya had 6 million. The catastrophe would be four times larger.

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy 2.0

The Libya analogy isn’t just analysis. It’s a warning that becomes a script.

In Washington they read: “Libya worked. Gaddafi is gone. We didn’t lose ground troops. It was ‘clean’.”

In Beijing they read: “Libya was a NATO attack under humanitarian pretext. Gaddafi trusted the West, gave up nuclear weapons—and was overthrown and murdered. We cannot allow Venezuela to suffer the same fate.”

So China arms Venezuela. So China draws red lines. That confirms in Washington: “China is aggressive. We must act.”

The cycle turns further. The Libya parallel is part of today’s escalation dynamic.

CONCLUSION – The Clock Is Ticking

Everything Lies Open. And Yet It Happens.

Venezuela is being prepared in full public view. The think tanks publish their papers. The military commanders are named. The escalation ladder lies in black and white. The historical parallel is obvious.

And yet it happens.

This is no conspiracy. This is the logic of power, money, and geopolitical competition—transparently documented, publicly discussed, structurally seemingly unstoppable.

What We Know

The commanders are in position:

  • General Laura J. Richardson (SOUTHCOM)
  • Rear Admiral James Aiken (Fourth Fleet)
  • Lieutenant General Michael T. Plehn (SOUTHCOM Deputy)
  • Rear Admiral Thomas Allan (JTF-Bravo)

The hardware is deployed:

  • 10 F-35 Strike Fighters
  • Fourth Fleet Carrier Group
  • P-8 Poseidon, AWACS
  • II Marine Expeditionary Force (2,000+ Marines)

The escalation ladder is defined:

  • Stage 1: Maritime Pressure ACTIVE
  • Stage 2: Air Superiority Signaling ACTIVE
  • Stage 3: Maritime Interdiction PREPARED
  • Stage 4: Precision Strikes PLANNED
  • Stage 5: Regime Pressure STRATEGIC GOAL
  • Stage 6: Partner Deployment DIPLOMATICALLY PREPARED

The Libya pattern repeats:

  • Humanitarian pretext (drug fighting instead of civilian protection)
  • Maritime blockade light
  • Air superiority for pressure
  • No official war declaration
  • Limited strikes instead of ground invasion
  • Regime pressure through military destruction

The real target is China:

  • Venezuela delivers 85% of its oil to China
  • Transactions in yuan and Tether
  • China has invested $60 billion
  • Atlantic Council explicitly: “Maritime dominance can put China’s energy lifeline at risk”

Where We Stand Now

The first two stages of the escalation ladder are complete. Maritime presence is established. Air superiority is demonstrated. The F-35s are deployed. The Fourth Fleet controls the waters. The Task Force is activated.

We are in the waiting phase between Stage 2 and Stage 3.

Stage 3—Maritime Interdiction Operations—is the turning point. When US warships begin stopping Chinese oil tankers, the Rubicon is crossed. After that, escalation becomes nearly automatic.

What Comes Next

Interventions need pretexts. Incidents—real or staged. A “drug incident.” A “humanitarian incident.” A “China incident.” A “regional incident.”

The timeframe: 60-90 days

Why? Political pressure is mounting. Trump is under pressure to deliver “results.” The forces are deployed. The think tank papers are published. China is growing stronger in the region. The longer they wait, the harder intervention becomes.

The window is open. And it’s closing.

The Critical Questions

Will China react militarily?

Washington is betting that Beijing won’t risk direct conflict over Venezuela. This bet could be wrong. China has declared that energy security is a core interest. If the US directly attacks China’s oil supply, Beijing could be forced to respond.

If China responds, a regional crisis becomes global.

What happens to the people in Venezuela?

In all the think tank papers, the 28 million Venezuelans barely appear. If the US intervenes: millions will flee, hundreds of thousands could die, the country will be destroyed, decades of reconstruction—if at all.

Libya had 6 million inhabitants. Venezuela has 28 million. The catastrophe would be four times larger.

The Historian’s Perspective

In twenty years, historians will write:

“Everything was documented. The think tank papers were available. The military positioning was public. The historical parallel was obvious. There were abundant warnings.

And yet it happened.

Because the structural forces—the military-industrial complex, petrodollar defense, geopolitical competition with China—were stronger than any warning.”

The Unanswered Question

But history isn’t written yet.

Stage 3 is not yet activated. The tankers aren’t being stopped yet. The Rubicon hasn’t been crossed.

There is a window. And it’s small.

Who stops it?

Not the think tanks. Not the defense contractors. Not the politicians. Not the media.

The public. Civil society. Those who ask questions. Who show connections. Who create transparency.

And—perhaps—individual decision-makers who have the courage to say “No.”

History shows: That’s rare.

But not impossible.

The Final Statement

The commanders are in position.

The hardware is deployed.

The escalation ladder is defined.

The Libya pattern repeats.

And the clock is ticking.

The question is no longer: Will Washington intervene in Venezuela?

The question is: When—and who pays the price?

The answer will be decided in the next 60-90 days.

In Part 2 of this analysis, we examine who exactly profits from this intervention, which think tanks provide the strategic blueprints, and how money flows from defense contractors and energy lobbies to the politicians driving the escalation.

Michael Hollister is a former European military professional with experience in Balkans peacekeeping operations. After a career transition into IT security, he now analyzes NATO expansion, European militarization, and Western interventions. His work challenges mainstream narratives on conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and beyond. Published at michael-hollister.com


SOURCE INDEX – PART 1

I. MILITARY COMMAND STRUCTURES & DEPLOYMENTS

US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM)

US Fourth Fleet Operations

Joint Task Force Bravo

F-35 Deployment & Counter-Narcotics Task Force

  • U.S. Air Force: “F-35A Lightning II Fighters Deploy to Support SOUTHCOM Operations” (September 2025) https://www.af.mil/News/
  • U.S. Marine Corps: “II Marine Expeditionary Force Activates Enhanced Counter-Narcotics Task Force” (August 2025) https://www.marines.mil/News/
  • Reuters: “US deploys stealth fighters near Venezuela amid drug war escalation” (September 15, 2025) https://www.reuters.com/
  • Associated Press: “Pentagon enhances Caribbean presence with new anti-drug task force” (August 22, 2025) https://apnews.com/

II. THINK TANK PUBLICATIONS

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

Atlantic Council

Heritage Foundation

American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

RAND Corporation

III. VENEZUELA – OIL, CHINA, PETRODOLLAR

Oil Exports & Yuan/Tether Trade

Chinese Investments

Petrodollar System & Geopolitics

IV. LIBYA 2011 – HISTORICAL PARALLEL

UN Resolution 1973 & NATO Intervention

Libya After Gaddafi

Migration Crisis & Slave Markets

V. CURRENT VENEZUELA CRISIS REPORTING

Military Incidents

Venezuela Sanctions

Maduro Regime & Opposition

VI. GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS

China in Latin America

Russia & Iran – Venezuela Relations

VII. MILITARY-HISTORICAL COMPARISONS

Panama 1989 & Grenada 1983

Serbia 1999 (Kosovo War)

© Michael Hollister — Redistribution, publication or reuse of this text is explicitly welcome. The only requirement is proper source attribution and a link to www.michael-hollister.com (or in printed form the note “Source: www.michael-hollister.com”).

Newsletter

🇩🇪 Deutsch: Verstehen Sie geopolitische Zusammenhänge durch Primärquellen, historische Parallelen und dokumentierte Machtstrukturen. Monatlich, zweisprachig (DE/EN).

🇬🇧 English: Understand geopolitical contexts through primary sources, historical patterns, and documented power structures. Monthly, bilingual (DE/EN).

PDF 📄