It’s hard to escape the feeling that there are those hell-bent on a showdown in Venezuela no matter the cost. It’s a depressing thought, but these past few days this crisis has moved inexorably towards a tipping point. 

A military escalation is the last thing the country needs, but such are the high stakes for both sides in this struggle for power there seems an increasing readiness to go down that route. 

The “all options are on the table” talk that some weeks ago characterised the rhetoric coming out of Washington in support of the Venezuelan opposition and echoed in response by the government of President Nicolas Maduro, now has a distinctly scary ring. 

Yesterday Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido only added to that fear as he met US Vice President Mike Pence and asked other countries to consider “all options” to remove President Maduro from power.

Mr Guido’s request in all likelihood will only further intensify a violent situation on the ground that last weekend saw clashes between opposition forces and security forces as well as armed supporters loyal to Mr Maduro that led to several deaths and hundreds being injured. 

The most dramatic scenes unfolded on Saturday on the bridges connecting the Colombian city of Cucuta to Venezuelan towns across the Tachira River. 

There, Mr Guaido, now recognised by dozens of countries as Venezuela’s legitimate interim president, called for convoys of humanitarian aid to be let into his beleaguered nation. 

For weeks Mr Guaido trumpeted the day as the moment when Venezuela’s long-suffering people would get the aid they so desperately needed. But some say what might have been a masterplan to increase pressure on Mr Maduro has only pushed the country down an even more chaotic course towards civil war.

It was a gesture say critics of Mr Guaido that had more to do with provocation than humanitarianism and which left some global organisations like the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) warning all sides of the dangers in “weaponising aid”. Perhaps the most worrying aspect in all of this however is the apparent willingness of other outside players to play fast and loose with the fate of Venezuela and its people. 

Just what did US Senator Mark Rubio think would be the outcome of him posting two photographs of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi on his Twitter account on Sunday? 

It’s well known of course that Mr Rubio is an influential voice in Washington on Venezuela policy and a staunch critic of Mr Maduro. But his tweet showing the Libyan leader bloodied and injured shortly before his death at the hands of rebel militiamen is the crudest and most incendiary of messages to Mr Maduro. 

That Mr Rubio had previously tweeted another photo of former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, who was captured in 1990 after a US military invasion, is likewise unequivocal it its meaning and can, as intended, only be read one way by Mr Maduro. The message is simple, your time is up and force if necessary, will be used.  

How Mr Rubio and those in Washington think such gestures strengthen their case for democratic change in Venezuela is baffling. Surely rather that stoke an already dangerously volatile situation, the US government should be doing all it can to ensure that such a process happens through the ballot box?

The Trump administration is now clearly losing patience with Mr Maduro and no longer cares how he is removed from office so long as he is and their chosen leader Mr Guaido takes over.  

Just last week President Trump at a speech in Miami urged “Venezuelan patriots” to rise up against the regime. Mr Guaido at the weekend did the same on Twitter.

“Today’s events force me to make a decision to formally propose to the international community that we must have all options open to secure the freedom our country.”

For many Latin America analysts such talk bodes ill and presents serious warning signs. 

“There is no question that a military intervention to resolve the Venezuela crisis is more plausible than ever,” Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a US-based think- tank, told the Washington Post over the last few days as the crisis deepened. 

“Guaido’s insistence that ‘all options are on the table’ echoes President Trump’s words, first uttered in August 2017 and widely interpreted as serious consideration of military action,” warned Mr Shifter.

Some observers however insist that the US history of attempted regime change in the Latin American region and Mr Trump’s loose language are both working against the opposition that faces a still formidable foe in Mr Maduro’s regime.

Many Venezuelans remain suspicious of Washington’s motives, even if yet more defections to the opposition from within the ranks of the Venezuelan security forces have taken place over the past few days.

More than 100 members of Venezuela’s armed forces defected during the clashes last weekend, with Mr Guaido promising the defectors would be given amnesty and congratulating them on joining “the right side of history.”

Mr Maduro meanwhile still believes himself to be on the right side of history even if last weekend’s blockade of foreign aid has left him facing a diplomatic siege. 

As the crisis worsens UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has appealed for “violence to be avoided at any cost” and insisted everyone should lower tensions.

Washington however is paying little heed and more than ever seems intent in doing whatever it takes to get its way in Venezuela.   

“The eyes of the entire world are upon you today, every day, and every day in the future,” Mr Trump told Mr Madruo in a speech last week.  “You cannot hide from the choice that now confronts you,” the US president warned.  

For now all eyes are on the outcome of yesterday’s meeting in the Colombian capital Bogota between Mr Pence and Mr Guaido 

If indeed all options are on the table, as both men have made clear, then Venezuela might be about to face the most dangerous moment in this crisis so far. What an even greater catastrophe it would be if US military intervention were the option chosen.