Marco Rubio: U.S. Will Judge Venezuela by Deeds, Not Statements
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made it clear that America’s approach to Venezuela will be guided not by rhetoric or political statements, but by tangible actions taken by the Venezuelan government. In a series of interviews with U.S. media outlets, Rubio sought to clarify the United States’ position amid rising tensions in the region, stressing that current operations should not be mistaken for a war against Venezuela.
“We are not at war with Venezuela,” Rubio stated firmly. “What we are at war with are the drug trafficking organizations operating in and through that country. Our efforts are aimed at dismantling criminal networks that send illegal drugs into the United States.” He emphasized that U.S. actions, including the interception and seizure of vessels suspected of transporting narcotics, are part of a broader law enforcement and security strategy rather than a military conflict directed at the Venezuelan state itself.
Rubio also addressed the broader issues that have shaped U.S. policy toward Venezuela in recent years, particularly illegal migration and the flow of drugs into the United States. He warned that if Caracas fails to take meaningful steps to tackle these problems, the U.S. is prepared to “retain all options we had before the arrest of Maduro,” a reference to measures such as seizing sanctioned tankers and applying pressure to key sectors of Venezuela’s economy. Rubio described these measures as deliberately targeting the revenues that sustain a small political elite, contrasting them with the potential for an oil industry that could benefit the Venezuelan population more broadly.
On the political front, Rubio reiterated that Nicolás Maduro is not recognized by the United States as the legitimate president of Venezuela. He described Maduro as someone the U.S. could not engage with constructively. At the same time, Rubio expressed cautious optimism that some elements within the Venezuelan government or society might step forward to enact reforms that could improve the country’s future. However, he stressed that U.S. actions are driven by domestic priorities, noting, “Our number one objective is America. We want no more drugs reaching our streets, and we want to stop the violence and gangs that harm our communities.”
Rubio’s remarks highlight a nuanced U.S. approach: a mix of pressure, enforcement, and conditional engagement. Rather than relying on diplomatic statements or promises from Caracas, the United States intends to measure Venezuela by concrete outcomes, such as whether drug shipments are curtailed and migration patterns stabilize. Rubio emphasized that words alone will not suffice; only meaningful changes in behavior will influence U.S. policy going forward.
These comments come amid a tense geopolitical climate in the Western Hemisphere. U.S. authorities have intensified operations targeting Venezuelan criminal networks, including the seizure of vessels carrying illicit drugs, while maintaining that these steps are distinct from an act of war against the Venezuelan state. At the same time, the international community watches closely, with debates ongoing over the legality and consequences of U.S. actions in the region.
In summary, Rubio’s statements make it clear that U.S. policy toward Venezuela is pragmatic and results-oriented. It combines counternarcotics enforcement, economic pressure, and diplomatic engagement, with the ultimate goal of protecting American interests while pushing Venezuela toward reforms that could benefit its own citizens. Rubio’s insistence on judging Venezuela by its actions rather than its statements underscores the administration’s focus on measurable outcomes and accountability.
Sanctions, Sovereignty, and State Power: How History Shaped the U.S.–Venezuela Standoff | Maya
