During the race for the presidential seat in 2024, threats by Republican candidates against Mexican drug cartels are causing worry in both the US and Mexico, in fear of any escalation.

Last week, after the first Republican debate, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis claimed that if he gets elected, he would deploy US forces to disintegrate Mexican drug labs "on day one." But shortly after, DeSantis toned it back down: "When I talk about using the military to take on the drug cartels because they're killing tens of thousands of our citizens, we have every right to do it."

It was reported by Rolling Stone recently that former US president Donald Trump requested advisors for military "battle plans" against Mexico if he is reelected next year. Three Republican candidates, Vivek Ramaswamy, Nikki Haley, and Tim Scott, have supported the idea. 

Back in March, Haley suggested that Mexican traffickers should be handled the same as ISIS: "We can do that by putting special ops in there... just like we dealt with ISIS, you do the same thing with the cartels," she said.

In light of these calls, foreign policy experts warn that such threats be taken seriously as former Mexican ambassador to the United States Arturo Sarukhan described them to AFP as "sheer lunacy".

Read next: Trump back on X for the first time in 2 years, shares Georgia mugshot

This rhetoric echoes after Trump voiced interest in cross-border strikes against the cartels in Mexico during his 2017-2021 presidency but after aides reportedly talked him out of it, it was never taken into consideration. Since then, excessive fentanyl flow across the Mexican border became a real problem as it was breeding an epidemic of drug overdose deaths in the US.

Sarukhan states that cooperation with the US on drug trade and illegal immigration has been curbed by Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

Now, Republicans are urging to use surgical drone strikes and nighttime raids that have previously been used by US forces in countries like Iraq, Syria, and Somalia.

'No respect for sovereignty'

A pro-Trump think tank, The Center for Renewing America, issued a policy that if Mexico does not curb the fentanyl trade, the president should deploy the US military directly. "The goal is to crush cartel networks with full military force," it stated.

At the beginning of this year, Republicans in Congress put forward a proposal that called for formal war powers to ask US President Joe Biden to have US troops act unilaterally against Mexican gangs.

In March, legislation was introduced that would designate nine cartel groups as "foreign terrorist organizations," allowing the president to send the US military against them.

Brian Finucane, of the International Crisis Group, warned that such talk should not be dismissed as just election talk.

Last month, Finucane wrote: "The posturing carries real risks," adding: "Such stunts in Congress and bellicosity on the campaign trail increase the likelihood that a future president may regard such an attack as a real option."

Read next: The Republican debate recap for the 2024 presidential race

Earlier this year, these talks of military action led Lopez Obrador to call it "irresponsible" and "a lack of respect for our independence and sovereignty."

"We're not going to allow any foreign government to intervene, much less the armed forces of a foreign government," he expressed.

Sarukhan is claiming that calls for military action are stemming from a "perfect storm," which is a mix of the buildup for next year's US elections and Lopez Obrador's diminishing cross-border collaboration. 

Although he called the debate "red meat" for voters, Sarukhan added his belief that "deep down, (the candidates) do believe in what they're saying."

He further stated that an attack on Mexico would not be regarded the same way as a counter-terror strike on ISIS overseas, as opposed to Haley's opinion, and would instead see Mexico backfire in a way that would decrease the effort to stop the flow of drugs and migrants.

He added that Mexico would stop intelligence sharing and bilateral issues like water-sharing pacts would be at risk of breach. "It's an act of war, and it's a violation of international law".