Senate Sanctions War by Omission

Senate Sanctions War by Omission

U.S. Sleepwalking Into Conflict with Venezuela

Commentary by Freddie Ponton | 21WIRE

When the U.S. Senate voted on Thursday to block a bipartisan resolution that would have restrained Donald Trump’s authority to strike Venezuela, it did more than deny Congress a say in war. It opened the door to yet another undeclared conflict, one that risks shattering lives across the Caribbean while hiding behind the worn mask of “fighting narco-terrorism.” If or when America decide to go to war against Venezuela, it will be justified on national security grounds.

The resolution, co-sponsored by Democratic Senators Tim Kaine and Adam Schiff alongside Republican Rand Paul, would have forced the White House to seek Congressional approval before launching further attacks on Venezuelan territory or vessels. It failed by just two votes. That narrow margin, and the silence that followed, now echoes across Latin America as U.S. warships crowd the Caribbean Sea.

In practical terms, the Senate’s refusal to act gave Trump a blank check. Without explicit authorisation, the President retains free rein to continue covert operations and targeted strikes that have already left dozens of Venezuelan and Caribbean fishermen dead. Intelligence sources confirm that the CIA has been operating inside Venezuela since early autumn, feeding coordinates to naval commanders patrolling under the pretext of a “counter-narcotics mission.”

But “mission” may be too generous a word. What’s unfolding looks less like a war on drug cartels and more like the early choreography of a regime-change campaign. The President has repeatedly hinted at taking the fight “to land,” claiming traffickers will “have nowhere left to run.” Inside the Pentagon, planners have drawn up contingencies that would once have been unthinkable: coastal bombardments, drone surveillance deep into Venezuelan airspace, even special-operations raids.

By rejecting the Kaine-Schiff-Paul resolution, the Senate has not only surrendered its constitutional duty to check presidential wars; it has effectively sanctioned this shadow war by omission.

The Build-Up No One Wants to See

The evidence of escalation is unmistakable. The USS Gerald R. Ford, America’s newest supercarrier, now looms off the Venezuelan coast, flanked by missile-equipped destroyers and amphibious assault ships loaded with Marines. Long-range bombers are staging from Puerto Rico, and reconnaissance flights circle daily along the Guajira Peninsula.

Military analysts warn that this configuration goes far beyond maritime policing. It is a strike posture, one capable of neutralising radar systems, destroying fuel depots, and crippling air defences within hours. Venezuelan civilians, meanwhile, are bracing for the fallout. Coastal towns near Maracaibo and Puerto La Cruz are already reporting food shortages and fuel rationing. The fear is not abstract: the first missiles will not distinguish between a military pier and a fishing dock.

The cost, if war breaks out, will be devastating. Venezuela’s power grid and ports are fragile; its hospitals are already short on medicine. Precision strikes may sound clean in Washington, but on the ground, they mean children sleeping under collapsed roofs and families fleeing burning oil refineries. In humanitarian terms, it would be Iraq all over again, only closer to Miami than to Baghdad.

The Legal and Moral Vacuum

Under international law, the United States has no clear right to wage war in Venezuela. Drug-trafficking, however serious, is not an “armed attack” under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Nor has the Security Council authorised military action. The United States is effectively claiming a unilateral right to kill suspected traffickers at sea, and possibly on land, without trial or accountability. Many legal experts describe the US’s recent military strike against local fishermen as extrajudicial killings.

UN human-rights experts have already described recent U.S. strikes on boats in international waters as “extrajudicial executions.” Human Rights Watch calls them a “violation of the right to life.” Even domestically, the constitutional foundation is shaky. Congress never granted Trump a new Authorisation for the Use of Military Force. That should matter. Instead, the Senate’s indifference signals a return to the post-9/11 pattern: presidents wage war first and justify later.

The deeper question is why this is happening now. Every indication suggests that the so-called war on cartels is a convenient smokescreen. Beneath it lies the same ambition that has haunted U.S. policy toward Caracas for decades, the desire to topple the government of Nicolás Maduro and secure access to the world’s largest proven oil reserves.

Oil, Power, and the Pretext of “Narco-Terror”

By rebranding Venezuela’s military and political elite as “narco-terrorists,” Trump’s team has created a legal fig leaf for open aggression. It allows the use of military force where law enforcement would normally suffice. But it also sells a narrative to the American public: that the enemy is not another sovereign state but a criminal enterprise threatening U.S. lives. It’s an old playbook, Panama in 1989, Iraq in 2003, and it works only if citizens stop asking why.

Behind the rhetoric, the stakes are unmistakably economic. U.S. oil companies have watched Chinese and Russian investments tighten their grip on Venezuelan energy. Regime change could pry those doors back open. The administration’s “counter-narcotics” campaign conveniently overlaps with areas rich in petroleum infrastructure. Coincidence? Very few regional observers believe so.

A Hemisphere on Edge

Russia and China have already moved to back Maduro, promising shipments of defensive weaponry and technical advisors. Moscow has condemned the U.S. military build-up as “excessive” and “provocative.” Beijing warns that freedom of navigation is being used as a cover for imperial revival. For Latin America, this is not abstract geopolitics; it is history repeating itself. The Caribbean and South America have long been treated as Washington’s testing ground. Each intervention leaves deeper scars.

Colombia, Trinidad, and several Caribbean states have publicly criticised the U.S. strikes after a Colombian fisherman was killed in October. Their message is simple: Latin America will not quietly accept a new war in its waters.

The Betrayal of “America First”

For all his campaign promises to end endless wars and “make America great again,” Trump now appears poised to launch another. In 2016 and again in 2024, he railed against foreign entanglements and vowed transparency, even promising to “unlock the Epstein files” and purge Washington’s secrets. Yet his foreign policy in 2025 looks indistinguishable from the interventions he once condemned: covert operations, proxy conflicts, and military escalations sold as patriotic duty. Globally, the United States is perceived as a partner in Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza, and the already tenuous peace plan and ceasefire seem to diminish in strength with each passing day.

His base may find that bitterly ironic. Instead of dismantling the “deep state,” Trump has armed it.

A Call for Accountability Before It’s Too Late

The Senate’s decision to block the War Powers resolution isn’t just a procedural footnote; it’s a moral failure. In a true democracy, no president should have the power to start a war without the consent of the people’s representatives. Yet that is precisely what has just been allowed.

As the U.S. fleet tightens its ring around Venezuela, Americans must decide whether they are witnessing another noble crusade or the first act of a needless war. Congress can still reassert its authority. Citizens can still demand answers before the missiles fly.

Because if history is any guide, the victims of this policy will not be drug lords or dictators. They will be ordinary Venezuelans, fishermen, dockworkers, mothers and children, whose only crime is living in a country Washington wants to control for profit…

_________

RELATED

Another Regime-Change War Will Accelerate America’s Slide into Authoritarianism

__________

 

(TLB) published this commentary from 21WIRE

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT MEDIA – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV  & VISIT OUR TELEGRAM CHANNEL

Header featured image (edited) credit: Org. post content. Emphasis & Related article link added by (TLB) editors

••••

••••

Stay tuned…

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.