Guadalajara, Mexico – A wave of violence swept across Mexico following the death of Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, known as “El Mencho,” leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), in a military operation on Sunday. The clashes, which included burning buses and automatic weapon fire, left at least 70 people dead, including 25 members of Mexico’s National Guard, according to President Claudia Sheinbaum. The operation, guided by intelligence shared with U.S. Military and law enforcement, underscores the escalating pressure on Mexico to combat drug trafficking, particularly fentanyl, flowing into the United States.

The sudden eruption of violence highlights the precarious balance between security operations and the potential for retaliatory attacks by powerful cartels. David Mora, an analyst with the International Crisis Group, described Guadalajara as a “ghost town” in the immediate aftermath, with streets completely deserted. The events are unfolding against a backdrop of increasing scrutiny from Washington, and a renewed focus on Mexico’s role in the fentanyl crisis.

President Sheinbaum asserted that “the country is at peace” and “calm” during a Monday press conference, despite the widespread unrest. Yet, the scale of the violence serves as a stark reminder of the deep-rooted challenges Mexico faces in its ongoing struggle against organized crime. The operation targeting El Mencho represents a shift in the government’s security strategy, but also reflects the external pressures influencing its approach.

The timing of the operation is inextricably linked to the intensifying rhetoric from former President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly blamed Sheinbaum’s administration for failing to curb the flow of illicit drugs into the U.S. Trump has even suggested the possibility of unilateral military action against Mexican cartels. “Mexico must step up their effort on Cartels and Drugs!” Trump wrote on his social media platform Monday, signaling his continued dissatisfaction despite the operation’s success.

Pressure from Washington and a History of Violence

The pressure from the Trump administration has been significant, with accusations that the Mexican government is complicit with trafficking networks. Despite a willingness from Sheinbaum to extradite high-profile narcos for trial in the U.S., and Trump’s own willingness to pardon convicted drug traffickers, the former president has shown little sign of easing his demands. This dynamic underscores the complex interplay between domestic security concerns in Mexico and external pressures from the United States.

The recent violence echoes a pattern seen in Mexico over the past decade. Confrontations with high-profile drug traffickers have frequently triggered bloody battles with heavily armed groups, paralyzing cities and resulting in numerous casualties. A particularly controversial incident occurred in 2019 in Culiacán, when Mexican troops briefly seized Ovidio Guzmán López, son of Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán Loera, only to release him following a fierce siege by cartel gunmen.

While previous operations often involved collaboration with U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration advisors and even special operations forces, Sunday’s operation appears to have been carried out entirely by Mexican security forces. Jesús Esquivel, a journalist with La Jornada, expressed pride in the Mexican Army’s actions, stating it sends a message to the U.S. Government that Mexico is capable of addressing the issue independently.

A Familiar Pattern of Fragmentation

However, experts warn that the killing of El Mencho may not bring lasting peace. Ieva Jusionyte, an anthropologist specializing in organized crime in Mexico, suggests that the removal of a top leader often leads to the fragmentation of criminal groups, resulting in increased violence as factions vie for control. “Here’s a continuation of this militarized approach to organized crime,” Jusionyte explained. “With the fracturing of these organized crime groups, there is more violence, but the structure remains intact—the drug demand in the U.S. And the gun supply from the U.S. Remains, and in Mexico the impunity and the weakness of the justice system remain.”

The long-term implications of El Mencho’s death remain uncertain. For nearly 20 years, Mexico has been engaged in a heavily militarized, U.S.-backed war on cartels, a strategy that has failed to stem the flow of drugs into the United States. Instead, the country has experienced decades of horrific violence, the proliferation of paramilitary groups, and a fractured criminal landscape. The current situation in Jalisco raises concerns that this pattern will continue.

The question now, as Esquivel pointed out, is not just about arresting or eliminating cartel leaders, but about addressing the root causes of the problem: reducing drug demand and stopping the flow of weapons from the United States.

As the situation stabilizes in Jalisco, the focus will likely shift to monitoring the response of the CJNG and preventing further fragmentation. The coming weeks and months will be critical in determining whether El Mencho’s death marks a turning point in Mexico’s fight against organized crime, or simply the beginning of a new chapter in a long and bloody conflict.

What are your thoughts on the situation in Mexico? Share your comments below.

The Shadow War Expands: Why the CIA’s Venezuela Strike Signals a Dangerous New Era

The recent confirmation of a CIA drone strike on Venezuelan soil – the first known U.S. attack on the nation – isn’t an isolated incident. It’s a chilling indicator of a rapidly escalating trend: the normalization of covert military and intelligence operations outside traditional warzones, and a return to the aggressive, destabilizing tactics of interventionism that have defined much of U.S. foreign policy history. At least 107 civilians have been killed in 30 such attacks since September, raising serious questions about legality and the long-term consequences of these actions.

Beyond “Narco-Terrorism”: The Shifting Justifications for Intervention

The Trump administration framed the Venezuela strike as targeting Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, and a supposed effort to disrupt drug trafficking. However, the justifications are increasingly flimsy and appear to be a pretext for broader regime change ambitions. Claims of a gang “invasion” of the U.S., swiftly debunked by the courts, and assertions that Tren de Aragua is a proxy of Maduro’s government – contradicted by U.S. intelligence itself – highlight a pattern of manufactured threats. This echoes historical precedents, where dubious claims were used to justify interventions in countries like Chile and Guatemala, often with devastating results.

A History of Intervention: The Pattern Repeats

The U.S. has a long and fraught history of intervening in Latin America, with at least 41 documented instances of ousting governments between 1898 and 1994. From the 1954 overthrow of Guatemala’s democratically elected government to the backing of coups in Chile and Brazil, the consequences have consistently included political instability, human rights abuses, and the erosion of democratic institutions. A 2025 study analyzing U.S.-led regime change operations from 1893 to 2011 found that the majority resulted in regional instability and anti-American sentiment. The current situation in Venezuela feels disturbingly familiar.

The Rise of Covert Action and the Blurring of Lines

What’s particularly concerning is the increasing reliance on covert action, specifically by the CIA. While drone strikes were once largely associated with counterterrorism operations in the Middle East, they are now being deployed in Latin America, often with little transparency or accountability. This shift raises critical legal and ethical questions. Experts argue these strikes constitute illegal extrajudicial killings, as they target individuals without due process and without an imminent threat of violence. The lack of congressional authorization further exacerbates the issue, highlighting a dangerous erosion of checks and balances.

The Legal Gray Area and the Erosion of Oversight

The legal basis for these operations remains murky. The Trump administration’s willingness to bypass Congress and operate in the shadows sets a dangerous precedent. This isn’t simply a matter of legal technicalities; it’s about the fundamental principles of democratic governance and the rule of law. The potential for escalation is significant, as other nations may feel emboldened to engage in similar actions, further destabilizing the international order.

The Blowback Effect: Why Regime Change Rarely Works

History teaches us that regime change operations rarely achieve their intended goals. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, devolved into years of violence and instability, costing trillions of dollars and countless lives. Even seemingly “successful” interventions often sow the seeds of future conflict. The 1953 ouster of Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, for instance, fueled anti-American sentiment that contributed to the 1979 revolution. The RAND Corporation’s 2023 study on Venezuela explicitly warns that overt military intervention is likely to be “messy” and “protracted.”

Looking Ahead: A More Volatile World?

The CIA’s strike in Venezuela isn’t just about Venezuela. It’s a signal that the U.S. is willing to employ increasingly aggressive tactics to assert its influence in the region, potentially sparking a new era of proxy conflicts and destabilization. The normalization of covert action, coupled with the erosion of legal and congressional oversight, creates a dangerous environment. The focus on short-term tactical gains risks overlooking the long-term strategic consequences, potentially leading to a more volatile and unpredictable world. The question isn’t whether interventionism *can* work, but whether the U.S. has learned from the costly failures of the past.

What are your thoughts on the increasing use of covert operations by the U.S.? Share your perspective in the comments below!