Category World News

Rescuers in Indonesia have been searching for survivors of a landslide that inundated three villages in Java, after days of heavy rainfall. Several people have been reported killed.

Venezuela on Tuesday announced what it called a major nationwide military deployment in response to the presence of growing United States naval forces off its coast.

On Thursday, the US also unveiled an operation, called Southern Spear, which it said was intended to target “narco-terrorists” in the Western Hemisphere.

The escalation has raised alarm in Caracas, where officials worry the US may be using these operations as a pretext to force President Nicolas Maduro out of power.

“We tell the American empire not to dare: We are prepared,” Foreign Minister Yvan Gil said on Thursday at an event in Caracas.

But is Venezuela really prepared for a US attack or invasion? What are its military capabilities? And what might be the calculus driving the decisions of US President Donald Trump and Maduro, respectively?

What has happened over the past few weeks?

Tensions between Washington and Caracas have been spiralling for weeks, as the Trump administration has hit a series of boats in the Caribbean Sea and, more recently, the Pacific Ocean, claiming they were carrying individuals smuggling narcotics into the US.

The 20th strike took place this week, US officials have said. In all, about 80 people have been killed. The Trump administration has not presented any evidence to back its assertion that the bombed boats had narcotics or drug smugglers on them, or that the vessels were even headed to the US. It has also not offered any legal justification for its actions, which many experts believe violate international law.

At the centre of Washington’s allegations is an unsubstantiated claim that Venezuela’s Maduro is driving the narcotics smuggling to the US in cahoots with cartels.

Meanwhile, the US has dispatched the USS Gerald R Ford carrier strike group into Caribbean and Latin American waters, a powerful naval formation built around the world’s most advanced and largest aircraft carrier.

An aircraft carrier is a floating airbase – a warship that can launch, land, refuel, and arm military aircraft at sea.

The Ford is a nuclear-powered supercarrier equipped with advanced technology, sailing alongside guided-missile destroyers and support ships, with more than 4,000 personnel and dozens of tactical aircraft ready for rapid deployment.

#Venezuela: I’ve often described the USS Gerald R. Ford in the media as a “floating fortress of American power.” Some facts and figures showing why: pic.twitter.com/f53PeACIOB

As Washington expands its military presence in the region, analysts say the stated goals of the mission have broadened and may not fully align with the capabilities of the forces being deployed.

“The administration has said that the deployment is to stop the flow of illegal drugs to the US, and also to degrade the cartels, but over time the US goal has expanded to include anti-Maduro regime activities,” said Mark Cancian, senior adviser in the defence and security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), in an analysis posted on X early on Friday.

Cancian noted that the carrier may not be fully optimised for the mission as described. “The Ford is not well suited for counter-drug operations… It’s well suited to attack adversaries either at sea or on land.”

He also pointed out that the deployment of the Ford cannot be indefinite.

“There are demands around the world for its presence because it’s such a powerful military asset, and eventually it’ll have to go home – so Southern Command will need to either use it or stand down,” he said, referring to the US military command under which the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean fall.

Is Venezuela prepared for an attack?

On Tuesday, Venezuela’s government announced a “massive” mobilisation of troops and civilians to prepare for any potential US action.

Venezuelan Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez announced a “higher phase” of the Independence Plan 200, a military response mechanism ordered in September to strengthen defence measures against the US presence in the Caribbean.

“Nearly 200,000 troops have been deployed throughout the national territory for this exercise,” Padrino Lopez added.

The exercise was scheduled to start Tuesday and end on Wednesday.

Padrino Lopez also stressed that the country’s military forces were united. He said “more than 90 percent of the people reject any aggression against Venezuela,” dismissing opposition groups he described as “minority, subversive, [and] fascist”, and claiming they “no longer exist” in the national political landscape.

He framed the mobilisation as part of a broader stand against “imperialist aggression” and Washington’s attempts to act as “the world’s hegemon” and “the world’s police”, insisting that Venezuela remains committed to its independence, liberty and sovereignty.

According to analysts, Venezuela’s armed forces indeed are – for the most part – closely tied, politically, economically, and institutionally to the movement known as Chavismo that has shaped the Venezuelan state for more than 20 years.

The military doctrine is based on policies laid out by the late Hugo Chavez, and it is based on members being “patriotic, popular and anti-imperialist”. Maduro took over as president after Chavez died in 2013.

“I don’t think that the Venezuelan government and the military are going to fracture only because of threats,” Elias Ferrer, founder of Orinoco Research and the lead editor of Venezuelan media organisation Guacamaya, told Al Jazeera.

“Because of the way they think in front of threats, they’ve always stuck together and strengthened their position,” he added.

What is Venezuela’s current military capability?

According to Global Firepower’s 2025 Military Strength Ranking, Venezuela places 50th worldwide out of 160 countries assessed in terms of military capabilities.

Within Latin America, it ranks seventh.

It falls behind regional militaries such as those of Brazil, Mexico and Argentina, and sits in a similar range to Colombia, Chile, and Peru.

According to a report released by CSIS this week, Venezuela’s air force is small and only partially functional.

Roughly 30 of its 49 aircraft are believed to be operational, and only three F-16s can still fly, due to a lack of spare parts caused by US sanctions.

According to Military.com, a platform focused on the US military and veteran community, Venezuela has invested billions in Russian-made weapons systems, including missiles and fighter jets, intended to deter or challenge US ships and aircraft.

Venezuela has at least 21 operational Su-30s, a Russian fighter aircraft developed in the 1980s.

The Su-30s can be armed with supersonic antiship missiles, such as the Kh-31A, which are a significant threat to naval warships operating near Venezuela.

The CSIS report notes that in the event of a conflict, Venezuelan airfields and aircraft would likely be among the first US targets. The US has deployed F-35 stealth fighters to the region, and they are likely intended to counter both Venezuelan fighter-jet manoeuvres and the country’s air-defence systems.

On the ground, however, the analysis suggests that Venezuela maintains a significantly larger troop presence and greater firepower than the limited US forces currently positioned offshore.

According to Global Firepower, from a total population of 31 million, the Venezuelan military has an active military personnel of 337,000. Of them, 109,000 are active members, 220,000 belong to paramilitary forces, and the remaining 8,000 are reserve personnel.

But experts say these numbers mask a more troublesome reality for Venezuela: Its military forces have been hampered by years of limited warfighting training and a focus on internal security.

Its navy, meanwhile, is no match for the US and its uncontested control at sea.

Ultimately, analysts agree that the US is militarily far superior to Venezuela.

“No one can match the power of the United States military in conventional warfare,” Ferrer, the Orinoco Research founder, told Al Jazeera.

“What we need to think about in Venezuela is the capacity of the local armed forces to resist or to make the country ungovernable.

“They can make it so costly that it’s not worth it; that’s how you win in asymmetric warfare,” Ferrer added.

Is the US preparing to attack Venezuela?

Trump has justified the recent military buildup by arguing it is necessary to curb the flow of drugs into the US. But many analysts believe this is an effort to increase pressure on Nicolas Maduro.

The US president has said he does not plan to invade Venezuela, and Carlos Pina, a Venezuelan political scientist, believes Washington’s preferred strategy is indeed still political rather than military.

“I still believe that the main option for the US is not to carry out any armed attack, but to apply enough pressure for Nicolas Maduro to resign and hand over power peacefully,” he said. “In my opinion, that remains the most desirable option for the US.”

Pina argued that Maduro is fully aware of this strategy and is responding accordingly. “Maduro knows this, and because he knows it, he tries to raise the cost of any potential intervention,” Pina said. “He also counts on the fact that, both in the region and even within the country, a military invasion would likely not be well regarded or well received.”

However, Pina warned that the scale of the US deployment creates political pressure of its own in Washington.

“After sending so much military equipment to the Caribbean, it would be a political and diplomatic defeat for Trump to do nothing, to pull back and leave things as they were before the mobilisation,” he said.

Because of this, Pina said he expects the US to continue escalating rather than retreating. “Trump will probably do something to avoid that defeat,” he said. “He will likely keep increasing military pressure to force a political change, to initiate a transition. And as the days go by, he will continue building up more force-equipment, ships, planes, even troops in the Caribbean.”

A United States House of Representatives push to release files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein cleared a significant hurdle November 12, as Democrats and a handful of Republicans reached 218 signatures to force a floor vote on a bill to release the files within 30 days.

There’s still a long road ahead.

Republican leaders aligned with President Donald Trump’s wishes by stalling Democrat-backed legislation to release the files. Trump, a onetime friend of Epstein, has faced persistent questions about what the files may show about the two men’s history.

Bill sponsors Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna used an arcane procedural tactic called a discharge petition to secure floor consideration. The move came over the objections of Speaker Mike Johnson and other Republican leaders. Johnson has argued that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s ongoing effort is sufficient. The committee has released tranches of emails and other documents related to Epstein, most recently on November 12, a release that included emails from Epstein that discussed Trump.

For weeks, the discharge effort was stuck at 217 votes – one short of the required 218 – but supporters reached the magic number on November 12 when newly elected Representative Adelita Grijalva was sworn in 50 days after being elected, the longest delay in recent history.

Grijalva signed the petition shortly after her swearing-in, making the discharge official. Massie and three other Republican members – Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Nancy Mace of South Carolina – joined all Democrats in signing it.

Though Johnson could have delayed it further, he said he would bring the measure for a vote the week of November 17.

Trump opposes further releases of Epstein material, writing on Truth Social November 12 that Republicans should focus only on opening up the government, which was still shut down because of a funding impasse. “There should be no deflections to Epstein or anything else,” his post said.

Here’s a guide to what happens next with this legislation and what’s at stake.

Who was Epstein?

Epstein hobnobbed with powerful people and received lenient treatment by the criminal justice system until the Miami Herald published an extensive investigation into his case in 2018.

In 2005, Palm Beach police began investigating Epstein after reports that a 14-year-old girl had been molested at his mansion. A grand jury indicted Epstein in 2006 on a single count of prostitution and he was arrested. The FBI launched an investigation and was prepared to bring an indictment, but in 2008 Epstein pleaded to one state count of soliciting prostitution and one state count of soliciting prostitution from someone under the age of 18. He served about a year in jail, largely on work release.

The Miami Herald investigation found federal prosecutors and Epstein’s lawyers covered up the scope of Epstein’s crimes.

In July 2019, Epstein was arrested on federal charges for recruiting dozens of underage girls to his New York City mansion and Palm Beach estate from 2002 to 2005 to engage in sex acts for money. He was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell on August 10, 2019, and investigators concluded he died by suicide.

What are the Epstein files?

The Trump administration has given conflicting information about what’s in the Epstein files.

In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi released what she called the “first phase” of the declassified Epstein files, including flight logs, an evidence list and a redacted list of contacts. Bondi said the Justice Department would release more case files after redacting victims’ names.

When Fox News host John Roberts asked Bondi in February whether her department would release a list of Epstein’s clients, she said, “It’s sitting on my desk right now to review.”

But in a July memo, the Justice Department said there was “no incriminating ‘client list’”.

“There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions,” the memo said. “We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

What would the legislation do?

The Massie-Khanna bill, titled the Epstein Files Transparency Act, requires that no later than 30 days after the bill’s enactment, the attorney general shall release “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials” held by the Justice Department, the FBI and federal prosecutors’ offices relating to Epstein and his partner Ghislaine Maxwell, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for sexual exploitation and abuse of minor girls over the course of a decade.

These materials would include flight logs and travel records related to Epstein, documents related to people and companies connected to Epstein, prosecution documents and internal Justice Department communications about Epstein-related cases and material related to his death in custody.

Under the legislation, documents containing victims’ identifiable information may be withheld or redacted. So would materials depicting child sex abuse, death or injury, or materials that would jeopardise an ongoing federal investigation, or prosecution or that would endanger national security. However, “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity” cannot be invoked to withhold material, the legislation says.

What are the bill’s prospects for House passage?

The steepest hurdle in the House was securing the 218th signature.

With that achieved, Khanna said he expects dozens more Republicans to vote for the bill than the four who signed on to the discharge petition, The Hill reported.

What happens if the bill passes the House?

If the legislation clears the House, it would head to the Senate. It would need 60 Senate votes to proceed to final consideration, meaning at least 13 Republicans would have to join all 47 Democrats and Democratic-aligned independents to advance. That’s a challenging obstacle.

“It is treated the same as any other bill, solely subject to the discretion of the majority leadership,” Donald Wolfensberger, a former staff director of the House Rules Committee, said.

In July, reporters asked Senate Majority Leader John Thune whether any Senate Republicans supported forcing more Epstein file disclosure. He said he was “not hearing” much desire within his conference to push the issue.

Thune said that when the House petition was still gathering signatures, and a successful House vote – especially with strong Republican support – could change that Senate calculus. But even if the Senate were to pass the legislation, the measure would face its stiffest test with Trump, who could veto the bill.

Overriding a presidential veto would require a two-thirds vote of both chambers, which would require substantial Republican support in opposition to their own party’s leader.

How much new material could come from the law’s enactment?

If the measure became law, Trump could still find ways to neuter its impact.

“The implementation of its provisions would still rely on Justice Department compliance,” a department that Trump has asserted significant control over, said Stanley Brand, a longtime Washington DC attorney who serves as distinguished fellow at Penn State Dickinson Law.

The Justice Department could argue to withhold certain documents, and resolving legal challenges to those decisions could put document releases at a standstill, Brand said.

“Complex questions of standing and federal court jurisdiction to entertain such a suit would undoubtedly stall resolution,” he said.

Dave Aronberg, a Democratic former state attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, said he expects the Justice Department to have “wiggle room” with the exceptions included in the legislation.

Prosecutors in Italy are examining claims that Italians travelled to Bosnia during the war in the 1990s to join ‘sniper safaris,’ paying fees to shoot at civilians from Serb-held hills above besieged Sarajevo.