Follow us on social

Trump hails US airstrike against smugglers in the Caribbean

Trump hails US airstrike against smugglers in the Caribbean

Military attacked a 'drug carrying' boat after it departed Venezuela, killing 11 suspected gang members

Reporting | QiOSK

The U.S. military attacked a “drug-carrying boat” after it departed from Venezuela, according to President Trump, who recently surged American troops to the southern Caribbean in what he says is an effort to fight drug trafficking.

A senior U.S. defense official confirmed the attack in a statement to Responsible Statecraft, describing the operation as a “precision strike against a drug vessel operated by a designated narco-terrorist organization.” In a post on Truth Social, Trump claimed that the strike killed 11 members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang that the U.S. says is controlled by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Trump added that the attack took place in international waters.

The strike represents a serious escalation of Trump’s ongoing conflict with Latin American criminal organizations. As a candidate, Trump promised to use military force against Mexican cartels, and since taking office, he has designated multiple Mexican cartels and Venezuelan gangs as foreign terrorist organizations, a designation that includes groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.

Tuesday’s operation comes amid furious speculation over why Trump has surged U.S. forces to the southern Caribbean, including roughly 4,000 soldiers, seven warships and a nuclear submarine. Some observers frame the surge as a symbolic show of force, noting U.S. statistics showing that the vast majority of cocaine flowing to the United States from South America comes through the Pacific rather than the Caribbean. Maduro described the deployment as an “absolutely criminal and bloody threat” to his government. Military analysts, for their part, say that the relatively small size of the troop surge makes a full-scale invasion unlikely, though the force would be more than large enough to continue operations like the one carried out on Tuesday.

It remains unclear what legal authority the U.S. is using to justify the attack. Last month, the New York Times reported that Trump “secretly signed a directive” that authorized the military to target cartels, but Congress has yet to pass an authorization for the use of military force.

U.S.-Venezuela tensions have grown in recent months as Trump has increased pressure on Maduro by designating him as a terrorist under U.S. law and putting a $50 million bounty on his head.

The attack comes as Secretary of State Marco Rubio travels to Mexico this week, where he will meet with high-level officials to discuss drugs and immigration. The possibility of U.S. airstrikes against Mexican cartels will loom over those conversations, with Tuesday’s attack highlighting America’s willingness to opt for military force.

Many military experts argue that bombing the cartels is an ineffective approach to stopping the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. “If the objective is to bomb the cartels into submission or convince them to stop producing and shipping drugs across America’s southern border, then an air campaign will fall flat,” argued Dan DePetris in a recent article for Responsible Statecraft, citing America’s failed efforts to destroy poppy farms in Afghanistan in order to cut off the Taliban’s drug revenue.


Top image credit: U.S. President Donald Trump replies to a question during an event to announce that the Space Force Command will move from Colorado to Alabama, in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 2, 2025. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Reporting | QiOSK
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Air sickness symptoms: Old nukes and the F-35

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.

keep readingShow less
Trump returns to a failed playbook in Africa
Top image credit: 3rd SFG Soldiers on the range with Republic of Mali Armed Forces during a training exercise. Fort Bragg, NC. 8/4/2009 US Army Special Operations Command

Trump returns to a failed playbook in Africa

Africa

The Trump administration is reportedly increasing its intelligence sharing and military support to military-ruled Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger — all as part of a transactional framework aimed at boosting American access to critical minerals while also contesting Russian and Chinese influence in Africa. The administration’s approach may well find a receptive audience in Bamako, Ouagadougou, and Niamey, as well as within hawkish elements of the national security bureaucracy back in Washington. Yet the enhanced support is unlikely to make a meaningful difference in combating insurgencies in the troubled Sahel region.

The central Sahelian countries have been troubled by jihadist activity since the 2000s, and a rebellion in northern Mali in 2012 provided jihadists an even greater role in the region. Intensive French counterterrorism operations from 2013 to 2022 initially knocked jihadists back. Yet from 2015 onwards, insurgency spread from northern Mali into central zones of that country and into Burkina Faso and Niger, eventually spilling over into Benin, Togo, and Cote d’Ivoire as well (although Cote d’Ivoire has achieved some tenuous success in blunting jihadists’ momentum there).

keep readingShow less
Ursula von der Leyen Benjamin Netanyahu
Top image credit: miss.cabul and noamgalai via shutterstock.com

Europe finally stands up to Israel — but only halfway

Europe

In a significant and long-overdue shift, the European Commission has finally moved to recalibrate its relationship with Israel. Its proposed package of measures — sanctioning extremist Israeli ministers and violent settlers and suspending valuable trade concessions — marks the most substantive attempt by the EU to impose consequences for the Netanyahu government’s conduct in Gaza and the West Bank.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who once stood accused of a pronounced pro-Israeli bias, now states unequivocally that “the horrific events taking place in Gaza on a daily basis must stop.” Her declaration that the EU remains an “unwavering champion of the two-state solution” being “undermined by the Israeli government’s recent settlement actions” is a stark admission that Brussels can no longer ignore the chasm between its stated principles and its enabling actions.

These steps are important. They signal a breaking point with an Israeli government that has dismissed, with increasing contempt, the concerns of its European partners. The proposed tariffs, reinstating Most Favored Nation rates on €5.8 billion of Israeli exports, are not merely symbolic; they are a tangible economic pressure designed to get Jerusalem’s attention. The targeted sanctions against ministers responsible for inflammatory rhetoric and policies add a necessary layer of personal accountability.

Yet, for all its heft, this package suffers from critical flaws: it is horribly late, it remains dangerously incomplete, and it is a crisis, to a large degree, of Europe’s own making.

First, the delay. For almost two years since Hamas’ attack on Israel and Israel’s military campaign in Gaza leading to the killing of more than 60,000 people the world has watched the devastating conflict unfold. The EU, “the biggest donor of humanitarian aid,” has been forced to react to a catastrophe its own trade and political support helped underwrite. This response, only now materializing after immense public and diplomatic pressure, feels less like proactive statecraft and more like a belated attempt to catch up to reality — and to the moral courage already shown by several of its own member states.

Second, and most glaringly, the package omits the most logical and legally sound measure: a full ban on trade with Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. This is a profound failure of principle and policy. The settlements are universally recognized under international law as illegal. They are the very engine of the occupation that von der Leyen now claims is undermining the two-state solution.

While the Commission hesitates, what the Brussels-based head of the European Middle East Project Martin Konecny calls “a domino effect” is taking hold at the national level. The Dutch government has just announced it will ban imports from Israeli settlements, becoming the fifth EU member state to do so, following recent and decisive moves by Ireland, Slovenia, Belgium, and Spain. This growing coalition underscores both the moral imperative and the political feasibility of such a measure that the Commission continues to avoid.

Furthermore, this is not merely a political choice; it is a legal obligation. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its landmark opinion last year, made clear that all states are required to cease trade and support that facilitates Israel’s illegal settlement regime. As a matter of EU law, a union-wide ban could — and should — be implemented by a qualified majority vote as a necessary trade measure to uphold fundamental legal principles. The continued failure to do so renders the EU complicit in perpetuating the very system it now claims to oppose.

Third, the Commission’s entire approach suffers from a crippling legal and moral loophole: its proposed measures are framed purely through a humanitarian lens, deliberately sidestepping the EU’s explicit legal obligations to prevent genocide. By focusing solely on suspending parts of the Association Agreement, the proposal ignores the most direct form of complicity — the continued flow of arms from member states to Israel.

These lethal transfers, which fall outside the Agreement’s scope, are the subject of Nicaragua’s landmark case against Germany at the ICJ, which argues that providing weapons to a state plausibly committing genocide is a violation of the Genocide Convention. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Germany alone accounted for 30% of Israel’s major arms imports in 2019-2023. Berlin continued licensing the arms exports after the outbreak of war in 2023. The Commission’s failure to even address, let alone propose to halt, this pipeline of weapons from the member states while invoking “horrific events” reveals a strategic timidity that undermines the very rule of law it claims to defend.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.