By BEN FINLEY, ERIC TUCKER, KEVIN FREKING and JOSHUA GOODMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) — Rising tensions surrounding President Donald Trump’s blockade of oil tankers in Venezuela have sparked debates over international law and the potential for military escalation. This move has brought forth questions about whether the U.S. might be inching toward a military conflict.
The Trump administration maintains that the action is narrowly focused and not aimed at civilians, which would constitute an illegal act of war. However, experts warn that targeting oil tied to Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro might invite a military response, potentially escalating the situation beyond current operations against drug-smuggling boats.
“My biggest fear is this is exactly how wars start and how conflicts escalate out of control,” said Rep. Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. “And there are no adults in the room with this administration, nor is there consultation with Congress. So I’m very worried.”
Legal Concerns and Political Reactions
Claire Finkelstein, a professor of national security law at the University of Pennsylvania, expressed concerns that such aggressive tactics without congressional approval might stretch international law and seem like an attempt to provoke a Venezuelan response.
“The concern is that we are bootstrapping our way into armed conflict,” Finkelstein said. “We’re upping the ante in order to try to get them to engage in an act of aggression that would then justify an act of self-defense on our part.”
Support and Criticism
The term “blockade” used by Trump in describing his strategy has been met with mixed reactions. While Republicans largely support the move, comparing it to actions against Iranian oil, Democrats have expressed outrage. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, has stated, “Just like with the Iranian shadow tankers, I have no problem with that. They’re circumventing sanctions.”
Republicans in Congress have blocked efforts to require formal authorization for further military actions, with Sen. Roger Wicker affirming that the campaign is conducted legally.
Venezuelan Response and Economic Impact
The U.S. has long imposed sanctions on Venezuela, intensifying under Trump’s administration. The latest blockade comes shortly after the U.S. seized a sanctioned tanker. Venezuela, possessing the world’s largest oil reserves, relies heavily on oil revenues. Nicolás Maduro Guerra, Maduro’s son, announced efforts to mitigate the blockade’s economic impact.
“We value peace and dialogue, but the reality right now is that we are being threatened by the most powerful army in the world, and that’s not something to be taken lightly,” Maduro Guerra said.
Terminology and Implications
Despite Trump’s use of “blockade,” the Pentagon prefers the term “quarantine,” which is seen as a selective security measure rather than an act of war. A defense official noted that a blockade requires formal declaration and enforcement, whereas a quarantine targets specific illegal activities.
Rep. Adam Smith, a Democrat, questioned the legality of the blockade, emphasizing that a blockade is generally considered an act of war.
Historically, the U.S. has used naval forces to pressure other nations, but contemporary international law views such actions as potentially punitive to civilians. The Cuban missile crisis saw a similar situation termed a “quarantine” by President John F. Kennedy.
Legal experts like Mark Nevitt and Geoffrey Corn have weighed in on the situation, suggesting that the blockade may be an attempt to increase pressure on Maduro rather than escalate conflict.
Goodman reported from Miami. Associated Press reporters Stephen Groves and Konstantin Toropin in Washington and Regina Garcia Cano in Caracas, Venezuela, contributed to this report.
