The Venezuela boat strikes refers to a September 2025 U.S. military strike on a boat in the Caribbean Sea that the White House said killed 11 drug traffickers — an action legal experts said may have violated international human rights and maritime law.[1] John Kiriakou says the normal protocol for a suspected drug vessel is to capture, board, and inspect it, seizing it only if contraband is found — not to kill everyone aboard.[2] He states flatly that the strike amounts to the murder of 11 people who had never been charged with a crime by the United States or any other government, and calls what happened, “for lack of a better term, piracy on the high seas followed by a mass murder.”[3][4] He argues the strike denied the victims their constitutional right to face accusers in court and constituted an international crime for which no one will ever be punished.[5]
Regional reaction
Kiriakou recounts that the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago publicly praised the U.S. strike, while the other 15 members of the CARICOM Caribbean cooperation bloc objected that the U.S. had failed to coordinate the attack as required under existing agreements.[6]
Venezuela and the drug trade
Kiriakou says that after leaving the CIA, he served as chief investigator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under Chairman John Kerry, where he authored a committee report on the drug trade from Central and South America into Western Europe.[7] That report found drugs passing through — not originating in — Venezuela via unmonitored airstrips, flown to West Africa, then transported by camel along centuries-old trade routes to the Mediterranean and by boat to Spain.[8] He says the U.S. government has never accused Venezuela of being involved in the drug trade, contrary to Trump’s claim that Venezuelans are the kingpins of South American drug trafficking.[9]
The 11-person boat
Kiriakou argues that 11 people aboard the targeted boat is itself suspicious: more people than typical drug traffickers would carry, since the roughly 1,800 pounds of cargo weight sacrificed for 10 extra passengers would cut into smuggling capacity.[10] He adds that more people aboard also means more potential informants who could implicate each other if caught — “11 people on a drug boat is 10 people that can rat you out.”[11]
The Maduro capture and the oil-and-Iran logic
Discussing the November 2025 capture of Nicolás Maduro that followed the boat strikes, Kiriakou said he wondered whether Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez — who took the oath of office after Maduro was seized and initially vowed defiance — might herself be compromised, given how quickly she shifted to seeking dialogue with Washington: “48 hours ago, she was ready to lay down her life. And today, she said, ‘Well, let’s have a dialogue.’”[12] He argued a full U.S. invasion or occupation of Venezuela is not feasible regardless, since the country is roughly the size of Germany, France, and Austria combined and mostly jungle.[12]
Kiriakou framed the capture as ultimately about countering China and Iran rather than drugs, noting Venezuela holds the largest proven oil reserves on the planet — some 300 billion barrels — though it is also the highest-sulfur, dirtiest oil in the world.[13] He said that until 2017 only refineries in Houston, Texas could process Venezuela’s heavy crude, but the first Trump administration’s 2017 sanctions effectively shut down the Venezuelan oil industry, prompting China and India to build their own refineries for it — including a Chinese-built refinery in the Caribbean that, as of the interview, had still not opened.[14] He argued that securing Venezuelan oil also weakens Iran’s leverage internationally, since Iran’s principal card is its ability to close the Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly 60% of the world’s oil flows — and that reduced U.S. dependence on that route undercuts it.[15]
‘No even efforts at legality’
Asked in December 2025 whether the strikes were legal or justified, Kiriakou’s answer was one word followed by the reason: “No. I’m not seeing any even efforts at legality here. By all accounts the intelligence is just simply not there to show that these are drug boats — or, if they are drug boats, that the drugs are bound for the United States.”[16]
The case he cites is a body part: “there was a foot in a boot that washed up on shore in Trinidad and Tobago last week, and it was identified as the foot and boot of a Trinidadian fisherman. Now the family wants answers.”[17]
The rule about official assurances
What he offers in place of the intelligence nobody has seen is a habit learned inside the building: “I was in the CIA long enough that I came to learn — when a CIA officer or a White House official or a Pentagon general says ‘take my word for it, I’ve seen the intelligence’ — don’t take his word for it.”[17]
Against the fog of war
Shown Pete Hegseth invoking the fog of war to explain a follow-up strike on survivors, Kiriakou rejected the premise before the defence: “No. There is no war. This was just a unilateral American decision to start bombing these boats. So — fog of war, no.”[18][19]
And on the survivors themselves: “international law is actually very clear here. If there are survivors who are not able to engage in combat, you can’t kill them.”[19]
The admission that they do not know who they are killing
By the end of October 2025 the case had, in Kiriakou’s account, given way entirely. “Now we have confirmed what we always suspected — that nobody even knows that these people are drug runners, or if these are drug boats. They’re probably just innocent fishermen.” The confirmation came from the Defense Department itself, which “admitted in a classified briefing that they don’t know who they’re blowing up in the Caribbean”, prompting even some Republican members of Congress to begin asking questions.[20][21][22]
Asked whether there could be any legal basis for that, his answer was one sentence: “it’s just murder. Plain and simple.”[23]
He also questions the theory of coercion behind the campaign. “I’m not really clear on how these attacks are supposed to be pressuring President Maduro.” Maduro would of course be displeased that his nationals were being blown up, “but how is that really making him think, oh, I should step away, I should run away, go into exile? I don’t see it.”[24][25]
The evidence he points to is what washed ashore. Bodies, “or pieces of bodies”, came up in Trinidad and Tobago the previous week from boats the Pentagon had bombed, and “they appear to be just Trinidadian fishermen.”[21]
On whether anyone will ever answer for it, he gave the precedent rather than a prediction: no one was ever held accountable for CIA torture, and “Obama made sure of that within a day or two of taking office.”[23]