Dec 30, 2025
3 min read
A review of history helps us appreciate the difference between what happened to Noriega in Panama in 1989 and the current situation surrounding Maduro and Venezuela.
How does Trump's invasion of Venezuela compare to the 1989 invasion of Panama?
Escalating tensions between the US and Venezuela have led to the largest military buildup in the Caribbean since the end of the Cold War.
The last time the United States sent large ships to the region was in 1989, when it overthrew Panamanian President Manuel Noriega on drug charges.
However, there are more differences than similarities between then and now.
On December 16, 1989, US Navy Lt.Robert Paz in the back of the Chevrolet Impala headed for dinner at the Marriott Hotel in Panama City, just as the conflict between his country and the Panamanian strongman was close to critical.
When a car carrying four U.S. soldiers into the country arrived at a Panama Defense Force checkpoint, six soldiers surrounded the vehicle.
After the shootout, the Panamanians shot while driving the car.Paz died in the incident and his death led to the American invasion of Panama four days later, on December 20.
It remains the last major US invasion of foreign territory in the Americas.
Washington called it Operation Just Cause and mobilized some 30,000 American troops. Noriega was forced to withdraw and transferred to Miami to face trial on drug-trafficking charges.
The UN estimates that around 500 Panamanian civilians died in the invasion.The US says it was much less, while its critics say it was much more.
Parallels and differences
The invasion of Panama was also the last time the United States had a major military presence in the Caribbean at the level we are seeing now in the waters around Venezuela.
The comparison between the two periods is notable, but so are the differences.
First of all, equality.Although they are decades apart, in both cases, a major war of words between Washington and a Latin American power led to a major US military presence in the region after years of conflict.
In both cases, Washington accused the Latin American ruler of involvement in the drug trade, increasing domestic pressure on the embattled president.
In the cases of both Noriega and Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, the US government's central argument is that they and their governments were drug dealers.
Ultimately, the premise that the rival leader was essentially a drug dealer became Washington's rationale for all subsequent moves in American society.
Both countries also have strategic importance - the Panama Canal and Venezuela's massive oil reserves - which have increased their stakes.
However, the differences are also noticeable.
The Cold War and the 21st century are different times, and George W. Bush, the President of the United States in 1989, and Donald Trump are both leaders.
Noriega was a CIA asset for many years and was finally convicted based on a large amount of evidence from financial documents to the testimony of people who ran drugs or sold drug money in Panama to the Medellin Cartel.Even one of the cartel's top leaders accused Noriega of engaging in illegal trade.
In a Maduro case, the Trump administration draws a direct link between the speedboats hit in deadly airstrikes in the Caribbean and the Venezuelan president himself.
Washington accuses Maduro of leading the Cartel of the Suns, a group allegedly made up of members and former members of Venezuela's military leadership.
But many drug war analysts question whether the Sun Cartel is a formal criminal group or rather a loose alliance of corrupt officials who have made their fortune smuggling drugs and natural resources through Venezuela's ports.
For their part, Maduro and his administration deny the existence of such cartels, calling them a baseless "story" by Washington to oust them from power.
"Buddies Circle"
"Suddenly they dusted off something called the Sons Cartel, which they could never confirm because it doesn't exist," said Deostato Cabello, Venezuela's powerful interior minister."It's an imperial invention," Cabello said last month.
However, there is evidence that the family of the Venezuelan president was involved in drug trafficking.
In 2015 two of Maduro's nephews were arrested in Haiti in a sting operation by the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
The children of Maduro's wife's sister were caught trying to smuggle 800 kg of cocaine into the United States.
Francisco Flores de Freitas and Efrain spent Antonio Campo Flores, then known as the "Narco nephew," several years in US prisons after being returned to Venezuela in 2022 in a prisoner exchange with a biden administration.
The Trump administration has issued new sanctions against the two and the third son of Carlos Erik Malpica Flores.
Al anunciar las sanciones, el Secretario del Tesoro de EE. UU., Scott Bessent, dijo: "Nicolás Maduro y sus cómplices criminales en Venezuela están inundando Estados Unidos con drogas que están envenenando al pueblo estadounidense".
He added: "Treasury holds the regime, its cronies and companies accountable for their continued crimes."
"Circle of friends" is the language Washington used to describe Noriega's government in the 1980s. A US Senate subcommittee report at the time called it "the first narco-kleptocracy in the hemisphere."
Thirty-six years ago, the main pillar of the Trump administration's strategy against Maduro was based on the use of the term "narco-terrorism."
It is controversial due to the wide scope of its legal definition.Back in 1987, the United States Department of Justice defined terrorism as "the involvement of terrorist organizations and insurgent groups in the drug trade," which "has become a problem of international concern."
La cuestión en el contexto venezolano es la base legal bajo el derecho internacional para las últimas acciones de Washington, que dice tener como objetivo combatir el "narcoterrorismo" en las Américas.
The Trump administration says it is now engaged in a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels and has justified its attacks on suspected drug vessels in the Caribbean.
The Pentagon claims the ships are valid targets under the rules of engagement.However, serious doubts have been raised in recent days about a second attack on a suspected drug-carrying ship on September 2, which killed two survivors of the first attack.
The Trump administration has defended itself against allegations that the deaths in the second attack constituted unlawful killings.However, the issue has not gone away, nor have calls to make public video footage of the attack, which was recently viewed by senior lawmakers during a closed-door briefing for members of Congress.
After Trump initially suggested he would have "no problem" with releasing video of the next attack, he said the decision was up to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
So far the Pentagon has not released the video or legal advice on the second attack, but the White House insists it was carried out "in accordance with the law of armed conflict."
Tensions between the United States and Venezuela continue to rise and intensify, especially after US forces seized a tanker full of Venezuelan crude oil.
Mr.Trump has shown that after the US takes control of the air and seas around Venezuela, it is left to control the country.Many are holding out hope that some kind of negotiated solution is still possible, though it's hard to imagine one that would satisfy both Maduro and the White House.
But when one examines the lessons of Panama, one thing is clear: Although this modern conflict is less conventional than the Christmas invasion of 1989, Venezuela's explosive situation is not as explosive as the death of Lieutenant Robert Paz in Panama.
Click here to read more News Mundo stories.
Subscribe to our newsletter to receive the best content of the week every Friday.
You can also follow us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, X, Facebook and our new WhatsApp channel.
And don't forget you can get notifications in our app.Download the latest version and activate them.
