Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

A Modern History Of U.S. Regime Change Efforts

A look at recent U.S. regime change efforts

The Dissident | January 7, 2026

With Trump’s recent regime change in Venezuela , the subject of American regime change is back in the mainstream conversation.

This marks the perfect time to note that the long-running hybrid regime change war on Venezuela is not unique to the country and is a repeat of similar regime change campaigns that Washington has unleashed around the world.

In this article, I will review the recent history of U.S. regime change operations.

Reshaping The Middle East

In 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu was elected as Prime Minister of Israel, and a group of American Zionist Neo-conservatives came up with a plan sent to him to have Israel dominate the Middle East.

These Neo-conservatives such as, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, laid out this plan in a letter sent to the newley elected Benjamin Netanyahu titled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” which called for him to abandon the prospect of a two state solution and instead overthrow governments in the Middle East that were seen as too sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, first and foremost though, “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right”.

When George W. Bush was elected president of the United States in 2000, many of the authors of this document filled up high ranks in his administration, Richard Perle was “A key advisor to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld”, Douglas Feith was, “Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from July 2001 until August 2005” and David Wurmser was “Middle East Adviser to then US Vice President Dick Cheney”.

After 9/11, these Neo-cons saw it as the perfect opportunity to carry out the “important Israeli strategic objective” of overthrowing Saddam Hussien.

The Pentagon created a Office of Special Plans, which funnelled fabricated intelligence from the U.S’s Iraq puppet Ahmad Chalabi, and a secret rump unit created by then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, which falsely claimed that Saddam Hussein was connected to Al Qaeda and had weapons of mass destruction.

Similarly, the UK’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair fabricated intelligence claiming Iraq had WMDS and spread the claim through a dossier, despite the fact- as the British Chilcot report later found- “the original reports said that intelligence was ‘sporadic and patchy’ and ‘remains limited’ and that ‘there was very little intelligence relating to Iraq’s chemical warfare programme’”, all of which was left out of the UK dossier.

Based on this mass fabrication, the U.S. and UK launched a criminal invasion of Iraq in 2003 and removed the Saddam Hussein-led regime, which killed 1.03 million people by 2008.

For the U.S, Israel, and the UK, this regime change war was only the beginning of a grander plan to “reshape the Middle East” through regime change.

The U.S. General Wesley Clark said that after 9/11, when he went to the Pentagon and met with “Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz” he learned they came up with a plan to, “take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and, finishing off, Iran.”

Clark later revealed that this plan came from a study which was “paid for by the Israelis” which expanded on the clean break document, saying, “if you want to protect Israel, and you want Israel to succeed… you’ve got to get rid of the states that are surrounding”.

The plan was later continued by the Obama administration when the Arab Spring protests erupted across the Middle East, to carry out the already planned regime change in Libya and Syria.

To take out Libya’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi, the Obama administration organized a bogus humanitarian intervention through NATO, claiming that Gaddafi was about to slaughter civilians.

Based on this false claim, the U.S. and allied NATO states intervened in Libya and bombed the way for “rebels” to take out Muammar Gaddafi.

But in 2015, a UK Parliament Inquiry into the regime change operation found that the claim Muammar Gaddafi was massacring civilians was fabricated, writing, “The Gaddafi regime had retaken towns from the rebels without attacking civilians in early February 2011”, and “The disparity between male and female casualties suggested that Gaddafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians”.

It added, “the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence”.

Furthermore, it noted that the rebel force backed by NATO, which was presented as moderate and pro-democracy, in reality was largely made up of, “militant Islamist militias” including branches of Al Qaeda and ISIS.

The regime change in Libya, was used by the U.S. advance the next regime change war in Syria.

Following the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, journalist Seymour Hersh reported that the CIA established a rat line to, “funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition” adding, “Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida”.

The CIA’s rat line to Al-Qaida linked rebels fighting the Bashar Al Assad regime eventually turned into a CIA program to arm the rebels directly, dubbed Timber Sycamore which the New York Times called, “one of the costliest covert action programs in the history of the CIA” and “one of the most expensive efforts to arm and train rebels since the agency’s program arming the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 1980s”.

According to the Washington Post in 2015 , Timber Sycamore was, “one the agency’s largest covert operations, with a budget approaching $1 billion a year.”

A declassified State Department cable from 2015 revealed the real reason for the operation, writing, “A new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles” and “Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East” adding, “America can and should help them (Syrian rebels) – and by doing so help Israel”.

Following the CIA regime change program- as the U.S. Pentagon official Dana Stroul, boasted -the U.S. placed crushing sanctions on Syria and occupied one third of the country military which was the “economic powerhouse of Syria” with the intention of keeping Syria in “rubble” in hopes it would lead to regime change, a plan that eventually came through in late 2024, when CIA backed rebels overthrew Bashar Al Assad.

Turning Ukraine Into A U.S. Proxy

Another major U.S. regime change project was the overthrow of Ukraine’s neutral, elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, to turn Ukraine into a U.S. proxy to be used to fight Russia.

The U.S., through USAID and NED, funded groups like New Citizen, which organized protests against Viktor Yanukovych in late 2013.

Once the protests were underway, they were overtaken by far-right extremist groups, including Right Sector and the Svoboda party, who eventually overthrew Yanukovych in a violent coup backed by the U.S. over false claims that Viktor Yanukovych massacred protestors in Maidan Square.

After the coup, the U.S. senator Chris Murphy, who went to Ukraine during the coup, admitted on C-Span, “With respect to Ukraine, we have not sat on the sidelines; we have been very much involved. Members of the Senate have been there, members of the state department that have been there on the (Maidan) square. The Obama administration passed sanctions, the Senate was prepared to pass its own set of sanctions, and as I said, I really think the clear position of the United States has been in part what has led to this change in regime. I think it was our role, including sanctions and threats of sanctions, that forced, in part, Yanukovych from office”.

The U.S. justified backing the coup based on the claim that Viktor Yanukovych’s forces committed a sniper massacre on protestors in Maidan Square, but in-depth research from the University of Ottawa’s Ukrainian-Canadian professor of political science, Ivan Katchanovski, proves that the massacre was actually carried out by Right Sector, one of the militant groups behind the coup.

Before the coup took place, then Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was caught on tape deciding who to install in government after Viktor Yanukovych was deposed, eventually deciding that, “Yats is the guy” referring to the Ukrainian opposition leader Arseniy Yatseniuk.

This – as Forbes Magazine noted at the time –  was because, “Yanukovych resisted the International Monetary Fund’s demand to raise taxes and devalue the currency” while, “Yatsenyuk doesn’t mind”.

Ukrainian political scientist Konstantin Bondarenko documented the effect of the IMF-imposed policies after the U.S. imposed regime change in Ukraine, including:

  • “Ukraine’s GDP shrinking by approximately 17%”.
  • The exchange rate going from “8 hryvnias (Ukrainian dollar) to 1 U.S dollar” in 2013 to “23 hryvnias to the dollar” in 2015
  • Inflation rising from 24.9% in 2014 to 43.3% in 2015
  • a “significant decline in industrial production during the first two years” after the coup, leading to Ukraine losing “its economic cluster that manufactured goods with high added value (machine engineering)”
  • “mining and metallurgical complex, energy (coal production), chemicals, food production”, “sustained significant losses”.
  • “an increase in unemployment and the emigration of citizens from Ukraine to neighboring countries—primarily to Poland and Russia.”
  • “utility rates increasing by 123%, reaching up to 20% of family income” from the IMF introduced policies

Along with the IMF “reforms” the coup was done to turn Ukraine from a neutral country into a U.S proxy willing to fight Russia.

As Konstantin Bondarenko put it, “The West, however, did not want a Ukrainian president who pursued a multi-vector foreign policy; the West needed Ukraine to be anti-Russia, with clear opposition between Kyiv and Moscow. Yanukovych was open to broad cooperation with the West, but he was not willing to confront Russia and China. The West could not accept this ambivalence. The West needed a Ukraine charged for confrontation and even war against Russia, a Ukraine it could use as a tool in the fight against Russia.”

Following the regime change, the UK’s channel 4 news reported that, “the far-right took top posts in Ukraine’s power vacuum”, which supported abuses against Ukraine’s ethnic Russian population, including by supporting ethnic Russians being trapped in a burning trade Union building in Odessa in 2014 and burning alive, which eventually led to all out civil war in Eastern Ukraine.

Furthermore, the new U.S.-backed government dropped its neutral stance on NATO and, as former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg put it was, “keen to ensure that the resolution from the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, through which Ukraine had been promised NATO membership, would be upheld”.

This regime change- by design -provoked the eventual Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and ensuing U.S. proxy war to weaken Russia.

Regime Change In South America

The recent regime change in Venezuela is far from the only U.S. regime change in South America in recent years.

As Mother Jones reported in 2004, when, “a rebellion erupted against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide”, Haiti’s democratically elected president, “Several leaders of the demonstrations — some of whom also had links to the armed rebels — had been getting organizational help and training from a U.S. government-financed organization”, the International Republican Institute, a subsidiary of the CIA cutout NED.

Mother Jones noted, “In 2002 and 2003, IRI used funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to organize numerous political training sessions in the Dominican Republic and Miami for some 600 Haitian leaders. Though IRI’s work is supposed to be nonpartisan — it is official U.S. policy not to interfere in foreign elections — a former U.S. diplomat says organizers of the workshops selected only opponents of Aristide and attempted to mold them into a political force. In 2004, several of the people who had attended IRI trainings were influential in the toppling of Aristide”.

In 2009, a military coup took place against Honduras’ elected president Manuel Zelaya, and an in-depth investigation fromthe Center for Economic and Policy Research Research Associate Jake Johnston later found that:

… high-level US military official met with Honduran coup plotters late the night before the coup, indicating advance knowledge of what was to come;

While the US ambassador intervened to stop an earlier attempted coup, a Honduran military advisor’s warning the night before the coup was met with indifference;

Multiple on-the-record sources support the allegations of a whistleblower at SOUTHCOM’s flagship military training university that a retired general provided assistance after-the-fact to Honduran military leaders lobbying in defense of the coup;

US training of Honduran military leaders, and personal relationships forged during the Cold War, likely emboldened the Honduran military to oust Zelaya and helped ensure the coup’s success;

US military actors were motivated by an obsessive concern with Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez’s perceived influence in the region, rather than just with developments in Honduras itself. …

From 2014-2018, the United States National Endowment for Democracy spent $4.1 million funding opposition groups in Nicaragua- which “laid the groundwork for insurrection” that attempted to violently oust the country’s president, Daniel Ortega.

The outlet Global Americans noted during the insurrection in 2018, “it is now quite evident that the U.S. government actively helped build the political space and capacity in Nicaraguan society for the social uprising that is currently unfolding”.

USAID even funded opposition outlets which- before the failed coup attempt- “urged anti-Sandinista forces to storm the presidential residence, kill the president, die by the hundreds doing so, and hang his body in public”.

The U.S. also caused a violent military coup in Bolivia in 2019, by pushing the false claim that the country’s president, Evo Morales, stole the election that year, which was used to justify the military coup, which installed a military dictatorship led by U.S. puppet Jeanine Áñez, who massacred many of Morales’ indigenous supporters when they protested the coup.

The U.S.’s latest regime change in Venezuela is yet another regime change campaign to be added to the long list.

January 8, 2026 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

China Slams U.S. Pressure on Venezuela and Vows to Deepen Trade Ties

teleSUR | January 8, 2026

On Thursday, He Yadong, a spokesperson for China’s Commerce Ministry (MOFCOM), questioned the United States for attempting to restrict Venezuela’s international economic relations and reaffirmed his country’s willingness to maintain trade ties with the South American nation.

“The hegemonic actions of the U.S. seriously violate international law, infringe on Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threaten peace and security in Latin America. China firmly opposes such actions,” He said.

“Economic and trade cooperation between China and Venezuela is conducted between sovereign states and is protected by international law and the laws of both countries. No other country has the right to interfere.”

“Regardless of changes in Venezuela’s political situation, China’s willingness to continuously deepen bilateral economic and trade relations remains unchanged,” the MOFCOM official stressed.

“China’s economic and trade cooperation with Latin American countries has always adhered to the principles of mutual respect and win-win outcomes. China does not seek spheres of influence, nor does it target any specific party. Economic complementarity serves as a solid foundation for China–Latin America cooperation, with openness, inclusiveness and mutual benefit as its defining features.”

“China will continue to work with Latin American countries to address international uncertainties through unity and collaboration, promote economic and trade cooperation on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, and achieve shared development,” He concluded.

The remarks by the MOFCOM spokesperson come after the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump informed Venezuela that it must end its relations with China, Russia, Iran and Cuba as part of a series of demands before it can extract and market its oil.

January 8, 2026 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Kidnapped By the Washington Cartel

By Eric Striker • Unz Review • January 8, 2026

Washington’s snatching of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and his visibly brutalized wife, Cilia, has been widely condemned as naked criminality. Supporters of US interventionism have taken to justifying the attack under the guise of the Monroe, or “Donroe,” Doctrine, while leaders of the American left such as Bernie Sanders have largely ignored the moral implications by fixating on the legalistic aspect of the spectacle.

Practically nothing substantial has been presented to the public justifying military intervention in Venezuela. US officials have made half-hearted attempts at blowing the cobwebs off the Reagan-era Cold War boogeyman trope, but the Venezuelan state of Maduro last year spent only 18% of its GDP on public expenditures, making the US (37%) twice as “communist.” It should also be noted that Venezuela’s Communist Party has long been part of the heterogenous US-backed anti-Maduro opposition and is perceived inside the country as a front for the CIA.

The next ginned up fable accuses Maduro, in a Brooklyn federal court case overseen by 92-year-old Zionist Jew Alvin Hellerstein, of being a global cocaine kingpin.

The original Department of Justice case was cobbled together during Trump’s first term but was pursued heavily by the successive Biden administration, which introduced a $25 million dollar bounty in hopes that someone inside the regime would capture Maduro for them. Critics have dismissed the charges as both baseless and hypocritical, pointing out that several current US-installed leaders in Latin America are running actual narco regimes. The well of irony goes deeper: the very Delta Force unit responsible for capturing Maduro is itself a violent cocaine trafficking ring, as journalists documenting JSOC operator’s use of military planes to import millions of dollars worth of cocaine from Colombia to Fort Bragg for both personal use and illicit profit have shown.

The last excuse, tossed to the nihilists in the MAGA base as red meat, is that America wants to steal the oil to make gas prices cheaper. During World War II, the United States strong-armed Venezuelan oil into the hands of American businesses to fuel the Allied war effort, but the 30 to 50 million barrels of oil Trump is demanding for America is only enough to last two months. Venezuela’s low-quality crude requires refining infrastructure that experts believe could cost 10s of billions of dollars in investment and potentially a decade to come to fruition, meaning that the US would have to pay a hefty price to produce the product in order to “steal” it.

Military action for oil makes no sense. For nearly a decade, Maduro’s government has been desperately reaching out to the US to negotiate an end to the devastating sanctions crippling the Venezuelan economy and bring back American oil companies, with extraordinary gestures such as a $500,000 donation to Trump’s 2017 inauguration festivities. These overtures were ignored.

Realist arguments for removing opponents of the American empire from the Western Hemisphere also seem inadequate. Many nations that have strong links to Russia and China, such as Hungary, also have close relations to the Trump administration. Neither Russia or China are interested in or able to meddle in the Western Hemisphere, as the May 2024 8,000 word Sino-Russian joint statement calling for non-interventionism reveals.

The remaining outstanding issue, what separates friend-to-all Hungary from Venezuela and is likely real cause of the conflict is Maduro’s militant anti-Zionism, which has been put into practice through Hugo Chavez-era infrastructure of sanctions-busting trade with Iran, who the Zionist hawks in Washington are trying to isolate further. Venezuela has become an outlier in Latin America, where regimes propped up by the US are rapidly embracing the pro-Israel Isaac’s Accords. What exactly the Israelis want in Latin America remains a matter of speculation, but this question is important enough to compel Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado to repeatedly declare her devotion to the Jewish state and openly plan to make Israel a central focus of her potential future government.

The notion that Trump was settling accounts on behalf of Israel, rather than America, appears to be taken for granted by both Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who cited the security interests of Israel for cause, as well as Maduro’s successor Delcy Rodriguez, who has publicly declared that the president’s kidnapping has “Zionist undertones.”

It is not yet clear if the British and French educated lawyer Rodriguez, the daughter of a communist guerrilla tortured to death by the CIA, is herself an American asset tasked with gradually taking apart the Bolivarian revolution from within, but the decision to keep her in power was made by the same group that murdered her father. The new president was initially purged from Hugo Chavez’s political circle in 2006, only to be brought back by Maduro in 2013 for her magical ability to operate around American sanctions and defeat diplomatic onslaughts.

Delcy’s power within the Maduro government grew after she was able to single-handedly defeat an attempt by the Organization of American States to officially ostracize Venezuela in 2017. She has been able to broker large sanctions violating underground financial transactions on behalf of her country in Europe and, as head of Venezuela’s oil sector, has been actively lobbying the US to return to take it over. She has been criticized in socialist circles for her campaign re-dollarizing the Venezuelan economy, which has exacerbated poverty and inequality in the country. Her links to enemies of Venezuela are an open secret and include secret meetings with mercenary leader Erik Prince even as his outfit was actively trying to overthrow Maduro. Her years of unusual unofficial welcome in Washington and the wealth it has provided some corrupt elements in the world of Chavismo has allowed her to accumulate enough power domestically to, over the years, root out elements suspicious of her rise.

For now, Rodriguez is urging calm and the armed forces appear to be taking her at her word that she is a good faith pragmatist rather than a traitor. The next six months of her presidency will be crucial as a boots on the ground intervention by America continues to loom.

The flood of fake videos on social media of showing celebrations of Maduro’s removal do not reflect the reality on the ground. Approval for Trump’s actions is a minority opinion in both the United States and Venezuela. General sentiment is that the populations of both America and Venezuela will suffer the consequences of yet another Washington military adventure if the Trump administration goes any further.

Supporters of American imperialism — again, a minority opinion — have sought to distance themselves from the spoiled “neo-conservative” brand and argue that this new emphasis on Latin America will be different from the disastrous War On Terror. But interventions of the kind just witnessed with Maduro in the Western Hemisphere have historically fared no better than Iraq.

A case that comes to mind is the 2009 US overthrow of President Manuel Zelaya, who like Maduro, was abducted and taken to face trial in Costa Rica on flimsy drug charges. Successive American backed governments (including an actual cocaine trafficking president Trump recently pardoned) mismanaged Honduras to the point of making it the most violent country in the world. This situation provoked a massive exodus to the US, producing a large percentage of the hundreds of thousands of so-called Northern Triangle illegal immigrants, with Honduras regularly populating the bulk of the notorious migrant caravans. From 2010 and 2020, the Honduran population in the United States increased from 490,000 to at least 1.3 million, and this is only those we know of. More than 10% of Honduras’ population now lives in America, many of them illegally.

The removal of Maduro is a regime change campaign going back 20 years, with the blame for this latest conflict shared by Democrats and Republicans equally. The substance of Washington’s global terrorism is decided by permanent bureaucrats and high finance, with the president only serving to influence the style and execution.

January 8, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

US to ease Venezuela oil sanctions after Maduro kidnapping: CNBC

Al Mayadeen | January 7, 2026

The United States is preparing “to recalibrate” its unilateral sanctions regime on Venezuelan oil, CNBC reported. Washington says the move would allow crude exports to continue without a fixed end date, a claim Caracas and several international observers reject as part of a coercive campaign to seize control over the country’s strategic resources.

The reported policy shift comes amid extraordinary tensions following the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro by US forces, an operation carried out without an extradition process, a United Nations mandate, or consent from Venezuelan institutions. Caracas has described the act as a grave breach of sovereignty and international law, while allied governments have warned it marks a dangerous escalation from sanctions enforcement to outright military intervention.

Against this backdrop, US President Donald Trump is expected to meet executives from major American oil companies on Friday to discuss what the White House has described as the “future” of Venezuela’s energy resources. Fox Business, citing a senior US official, said the talks will focus on managing Venezuelan oil flows as sanctions are selectively eased.

Oil Coercion Campaign

The discussions follow reports that US authorities have instructed Venezuela’s what it blatantly described as “interim leadership” to prioritize American buyers and partner exclusively with US firms in oil production, while simultaneously demanding that Caracas cut economic and security ties with key allies, including China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba.

Beijing has condemned the demands as “typical bullying,” warning that Washington is attempting to reshape Venezuela’s foreign relations and economic model through force and pressure.

Trump earlier claimed that Venezuela’s interim authorities had agreed to supply the United States with between 30 million and 50 million barrels of oil, pledging that the proceeds would be used for the benefit of both countries.

“We’re talking about 30 to 50 million barrels of oil being turned over,” Trump said. “We’re going to use the money for the benefit of the people of both countries.”

Caracas and its allies reject that framing, arguing that any such transfers, announced in the aftermath of military pressure, maritime interdictions, and the kidnapping of the country’s head of state, amount to resource extraction under duress, regardless of claims that transactions would occur at “market prices.”

Venezuelan officials note that Washington has simultaneously enforced seizures of tankers, restricted access to non-US buyers, and threatened senior political and military figures with similar treatment, narrowing Caracas’ options while portraying the outcome as voluntary trade.

Sovereignty Under Assault

The White House has yet to release full details on the scope or conditions of the sanctions rollback. Critics, however, say the sequence of events, including military escalation, leadership seizure, recognition of an interim authority, threats against remaining officials, and rapid moves to redirect oil exports, reflects a longstanding US strategy of using sanctions and force to assert control over energy assets in resource-rich states.

For Venezuela, which holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, officials insist that oil belongs to the Venezuelan state and its people. They argue that Washington’s actions represent an escalation from economic warfare to outright aggression, setting a precedent that threatens international norms governing sovereignty, non-intervention, and the prohibition on the use of force to secure economic advantage.

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Somaliland and the ‘Greater Israel’ project

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | January 7, 2026

More than a simple recognition of Somaliland, “Israel” is hatching a scheme alongside its Emirati allies aimed at a regional expansion agenda. For the so-called “Greater Israel” vision to come alive, dominance must be secured not only across West Asia and North Africa, but also throughout the Horn of Africa.

The recent decision by the occupying entity in “Tel Aviv” to recognize Somaliland as a State has triggered outrage across Africa and much of the Islamic World, while drawing condemnations from most Arab capitals, with the notable exception of Abu Dhabi.

For the most part, analysts have pointed to “Israel’s” desire to use Somaliland as a staging ground for aggression against Yemen as a primary motivation behind the move. Some have further noted that officials of the Zionist regime have expressed interest in ethnically cleansing Gaza’s people and forcibly transferring them to Somaliland. While these factors evidently inform Israeli decision-making, they do not exhaust its strategic calculus; yet the conspiracy goes much deeper.

On November 24, 2025, the influential Israeli think-tank Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) released a report detailing both the benefits and drawbacks of recognizing Somaliland. While the report acknowledged multiple strategic incentives for such a move, it ultimately advised against proceeding before the United States had done so.

The INSS had advocated against the move, hedging that such a declaration would further isolate “Israel” within the framework of the so-called “Abraham Accords”, triggering backlash on the international stage regarding the issue of Palestinian statehood.

So what changed since the Israeli think tank report?

Understanding the Israeli thinking here, such a move would not be made if they saw it as a net negative. Instead, the recognition was offered in a very public and brazen manner. In order to make sense, we therefore have to look at the broader picture.

To begin with, the normalization drive [“Abraham Accords”] has clearly stalled, at least in terms of any major developments in this regard. The last country to enter into the fold of the broader Trump administration-led normalization movement was Kazakhstan. For context, Astana already normalized ties with the Zionist regime back in 1992.

Although US President Donald Trump announced Kazakhstan’s declaration as a development of great significance, the move was clearly seen as a weak attempt at keeping the normalization project alive amid the conspicuous absence of Saudi Arabia. In parallel, an increasingly desperate Israeli entity has launched what it calls the “Isaac Accords”, a separate normalization project with Latin American nations that are client regimes of the US.

In other words, the Israelis were not actually in a position where they necessarily viewed recognition of Somaliland as an impediment to their normalization agenda. In fact, through projecting power in the Horn of Africa, they may even see it as an advancement of this project, especially given that some 6 million people who identify as belonging ethnically to Somaliland are Muslims.

Another element of the move is to assert their dominance and to lash out internationally over the wave of recognition, last September, for the state of Palestine.

In addition, the elephant in the room here is that the Israelis are currently pursuing a joint agenda with the United Arab Emirates, particularly in both the Horn of Africa and Northern Africa. This alliance seeks to co-opt sectarian movements, separatist groups, and to weaponize warlords in order to reshape the continent as a whole.

The Emirati and Israeli agendas are one in this regard. They are inseparable and connected on almost every conceivable level, this is to the point that the de facto head of intelligence operations for the UAE has long been a man named Mohammed Dahlan, well known for his alleged involvement with Mossad and the CIA; particularly in Africa.

The UAE’s proxy in Yemen, the Southern Transitional Council (STC), seized the Hadhramaut and al-Mahra provinces from Saudi-backed forces in early December, bringing around 80% of Yemen’s oil resources under their control. The STC’s militants have even been trained by “Israel”. The UAE’s move, which would not have come without Zionist backing, now threatens the stability of the Arabian Peninsula and triggered major backlash from Riyadh.

While “Israel” is reportedly seeking to build up a military presence near the strategically located port of Berbera in Somalia’s Somaliland, the UAE began constructing the Berbera airbase as early as 2017, securing access to it for a period of 25 years. Similarly, the UAE–Israeli alliance has extended to the establishment of a joint military presence on Yemen’s strategically located island of Socotra.

It is speculated that the Emirati-backed STC, in southern Yemen, may launch an offensive aimed at capturing the Ansar Allah-controlled port city of Hodeidah, likely receiving Israeli aerial support. The coastline of Somaliland lies only 300 to 500 kilometers from Ansar Allah-controlled lands, making such an air campaign much more manageable than launching strikes from occupied Palestine.

Furthermore, turning to “Israel’s” agenda in Somalia itself, it is clear that this is a calculated move that targets Türkiye. Ankara maintains enormous influence in Somalia and remains a strong proponent of the “One Somalia” agenda. Therefore, at a time of heightened regional tensions, especially in Syria, where both Turkish and Israeli forces are seeking to carve out zones of influence and establish red lines, “Tel Aviv’s” move appears to be another attempt to land a strategic blow on Ankara.

Together, the Emiratis and Israelis are adamant about combating the Muslim Brotherhood and any Islamic governments or groups that voice their concerns for the Palestinians, which is why they are lobbying Western governments so hard on these issues and running non-stop propaganda campaigns against so-called “radical Islam”.

In reality, the Israeli-UAE-backed militias in Yemen are riddled with al-Qaeda-linked fighters and hardline Takfiri Salafists. The STC’s toughest fighting force, known as the Southern Giants Brigades, is reportedly led by the core of experienced militants who are former al-Qaeda fighters. In Gaza, meanwhile, the UAE and the Zionist Entity are also backing five separate proxy militias with alleged links to ISIS.

The Emiratis and Israelis are huge fans of these Salafist militants, who are totally obedient to them and adopt a mass Takfir doctrine that they use to justify the mass slaughter of Muslims. This was the same exact strategy adopted inside Syria by the Zionists, using Wahhabi extremists to do their bidding, while dividing the Muslim World and paving the way for their expansionist agenda.

If the Zionist Entity is to achieve “Greater Israel”, the common misconception is that they wish to directly occupy the entire region between the River Nile and the Euphrates. According to the Zionist vision, they would rule as an empire instead, whereby they enter into formal alliances with countries broken up into ethno-regimes and sectarian rump States. Divide and conquer.

So, dividing Somalia, in order to help the Emirati proxy-militias secure a southern Yemeni State, is precisely in line with the Zionist agenda. They will attempt to rule these territories through proxy support, using their puppets to destroy the Palestinian cause. In the case of Somaliland, if they are to succeed, they would also certainly attempt to ethnically cleanse the population of Gaza there. In other words, Somaliland recognition isn’t a small, isolated move; it is a piece being strategically positioned on their wider chessboard.

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Donald Trump, and Most Americans, Do Not Understand the Monroe Doctrine

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR | January 7, 2026

I want to make you a wager… I bet that 99% of Americans have never read the speech that President James Monroe made to the US Congress on December 2, 1823. As part of that speech — which was the seventh annual address to the US Congress — President Monroe outlined a policy that is now commonly referred to as the Monroe Doctrine. Understanding what President Monroe actually said has taken on more importance because Donald Trump referenced the Monroe Doctrine to justify his kidnapping of Venezuelan President Maduro. I am going to show you that President Monroe said nothing that would excuse or support Trump’s action. To the contrary, Trump is behaving like one of the old European colonial tyrants.

Trump is not the first to misunderstand the Monroe Doctrine, which is now widely interpreted in America as giving the US control of the Western Hemisphere and giving the US the right to take action against ANY foreign government that has relations with the countries of Central and South America, Mexico and Canada.

The essence of the Monroe Doctrine originally was a firm declaration to oppose European colonization of the Americas. Read carefully what Monroe said:

In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers

All US presidents in the 20th Century — including Trump — believe that the Monroe Doctrine gives the US a veto over political or economic relations that any country outside the Western Hemisphere can have with Canada, Mexico, and the countries of Central and South America. But Monroe’s focus was on European colonial imperialism. President Monroe did not declare that the US would be the final arbiter in deciding whether a country in Central or South America can voluntarily form a political or economic alliance with another country, such as China or Russia.

Monroe’s specific concern was to keep the US out of the wars that were ravaging Europe in the 19th Century. He said:

In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. . . .

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.

Monroe made two critical points in the preceding two paragraphs… First, the US will act only if it is attacked or threatened by European powers. Again, his concern was to keep America free of the wars among the various European powers as they sought to secure and consolidate their respective colonial ambitions. Second, Monroe insisted that the US will not interfere with existing colonies or dependencies. However, if people in Mexico, Central America or South America decided to declare independence — as did the 13 British colonies on July 4, 1776 — then any European military action against those former colonies would be viewed as an attack on the United States. In other words, the US policy proposed by Monroe gave priority to those American countries that declared independence a tacit promise that the US would support them. However, this did not grant the US the right to unilaterally insert itself into the political affairs of countries in Central and South America, nor did it empower the US to carry out regime changes in those countries simply because we did not like the new rulers or the structure of the new government.

Monroe then makes a policy statement that every US president in the 20th and 21st Century has ignored… No interference in the internal affairs of other countries:

Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none.

Monroe concluded his outline of the Monroe Doctrine by emphasizing that would be his policy to prevent foreign governments from forcibly imposing their political systems on countries in the Western Hemisphere:

It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference.

Sadly, the Monroe Doctrine has been desecrated and ignored by a bevy of Presidents, starting with President Polk in 1848. Instead of defending Mexico and our Central and South American neighbors from foreign interference, we have repeatedly behaved as an authoritarian dictator. Mexico declared independence from Spain on 16 September 1810. Thirty-six years later, the US provoked a war with Mexico by annexing Texas and manufacturing a border crisis in service of a broader expansionist project. Maybe we should christen this kind of behavior as the Polk Doctrine, i.e., only we, the US, have the right to decide what kind of government the people and nations in the Western hemisphere can have. The Monroe Doctrine was intended to combat foreign interference by imperial powers… The US has bastardized that doctrine and now uses it as an excuse to feed our own imperial ambitions. Venezuela is just the latest casualty.

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

US Actions in Venezuela Threaten Global Supply Chain Stability – Chinese Foreign Ministry

Sputnik – 07.01.2026

BEIJING – The US military operation against Venezuela has threatened the stability of the global supply chain and the economic situation in the country, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said on Wednesday.

Earlier in the day, the ABC TV channel reported, citing sources familiar with the White House’s position, that the US had required Venezuela to “agree” to an exclusive partnership with the US on oil and give preference to Washington in the sale of heavy oil. US President Donald Trump has previously called himself a key figure in the governance of Venezuela after the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by US forces.

“The blatant use of force against Venezuela has seriously affected Venezuela’s economic and social order and threatens the stability of the global supply chain. China strongly condemns this,” Mao said.

Cooperation between China and Venezuela is cooperation between sovereign states, protected by international law and the laws of both countries, Mao added when asked about Beijing’s plans to protect its energy interests in Venezuela.

On January 3, the US launched a massive attack on Venezuela that led to the capture of Maduro and his wife. The presidential couple was flown to New York to be tried under US laws on charges of “narco-terrorism.” On Monday, the Venezuelan Supreme Court temporarily transferred the presidency to Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, who was sworn in before the National Assembly.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has expressed solidarity with the Venezuelan people, calling for Maduro and his wife to be released and for the situation not to be allowed to escalate further. Following Moscow, Beijing called for the immediate release of Maduro and his wife, stressing that the US actions violate international law. The North Korean Foreign Ministry has also criticized the US actions.

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Daniel Davis: Chaos & More Wars After the Attack on Venezuela

Glenn Diesen | January 6, 2026

Lt. Col. Daniel Davis is a 4x combat veteran, the recipient of the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling, and is the host of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive YouTube channel. Lt. Col. Davis discusses why the illegality of the attack on Venezuela will fuel uncertainty, chaos and more wars.

Daniel Davis Deep Dive:    / @danieldavisdeepdive  

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/

X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen

Patreon:   / glenndiesen  

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…

Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Don-roe Doctrine? A close look at a 200‑year scourge across Latin America under US’ shadow

Global Times – January 6, 2026

The US’ sudden military operation against Venezuela and the forcible seizure of the country’s president has dominated headlines worldwide since Saturday. The operation is viewed by global media and observers as a real-life example of the Monroe Doctrine in action, under which the Trump Administration claims that the Western Hemisphere is its sphere of influence.

Focus on the Monroe Doctrine intensified further after US President Donald Trump invoked the doctrine to defend the strike on Venezuela at a press conference on Saturday amid mounting international condemnation. “All the way back, it dates back to the Monroe Doctrine,” Trump stated at the press conference, according to a Sunday report by ABC News. “The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we’ve surpassed it by a long shot. They’re calling it the ‘Don-roe Doctrine’ now,” he added.

Trump’s version of Monroe Doctrine, centered on “America First,” is a geopolitical strategy for the US to impose hegemonic control over the Western Hemisphere. Its core objective is to reconsolidate Latin America as America’s “backyard” through exclusive cooperation, extract regional resources, and ultimately serve US economic interests and consolidate its global hegemony, Xu Yanran, an associate professor at the School of International Relations, Renmin University of China, told the Global Times.

At a press conference on Monday, when asked for response to the sphere of influence concept – the Monroe Doctrine, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian reiterated China’s stance to “oppose hegemony and power politics.”

What exactly is the Monroe Doctrine? What role has it played in shaping US-Latin America relations over the past 200 years? And what does the doctrine’s resurgence mean for the region and the world? To answer these questions, the Global Times has launched a two-part series to decode the doctrine – a scourge that has haunted Latin America for 200 years – and to expose the US’ long-standing interventionist schemes in various fields across the region. In the first installment, we examine the doctrine’s historical evolution, draw comparisons between the Trump and original versions, and explore its potential implications for both the region and the wider world.

Shadow over the Western Hemisphere

The Monroe Doctrine was articulated by President James Monroe in 1823 to oppose European interference in Latin America. In the early 1900s, former US president Theodore Roosevelt expanded the doctrine to justify military intervention across the region. As a result, US Marines were sent into Santo Domingo in 1904, Nicaragua in 1911, and Haiti in 1915, according to an article on the website of the US National Archives and Records Administration.

In addition to direct intervention, the US also undertook dollar diplomacy – supposedly replacing bullets for dollars – aimed at expanding US financial capital in Latin America and fostering regional dependency on the US. The imposition of Panamanian independence and the construction of the canal are prominent examples of this policy, as are the numerous armed interventions in Central America, according to a paper released in 2020 by International Organisations Research Journal published by the National Research University Higher School of Economics in Russia.

With these practices, the Monroe Doctrine, originally designed to prevent other major world powers from meddling in Latin America, evolved into a pretext for the US to turn the region into its so-called “backyard.”

More grievously, in the aftermath of World War II, the US leveraged the Central Intelligence Agency for decades to infiltrate and meddle in the political affairs of Latin American nations. This trapped some countries in prolonged political instability and social deprivation, gravely derailing their paths toward modernization, Sun Yanfeng, director of Latin American research at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, told the Global Times.

One notable example occurred in December 1989, when the US invaded Panama, overthrowing Manuel Antonio Noriega’s regime and seeking long-term control over the Panama Canal. Noriega surrendered to the US authorities on January 3, 1990, the same date of the forcible seizure of Maduro.

While the US continues to pursue its “America First” agenda under the banner of the Monroe Doctrine, people across Latin America have gradually awakened. Resistance against US aggression, intervention, economic colonization and ideological control has steadily grown in the region since the 1990s after a number of anti-US left-wing forces successively came to power in several Latin American countries. At the same time, more Latin American countries have sought to pursue autonomous diplomatic policies and actively expand cooperation with both regional partners and countries beyond the hemisphere, opening up new space for their own development, according to a paper published on the Journal of Latin American Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in April 2020.

It is against this backdrop that the Monroe Doctrine was widely described by experts and politicians as outdated. The US administration also appeared to acknowledge the shift. In November 2013 during a speech at the Organization of American States, former secretary of state John Kerry said that “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over,” according to Fox News.

However, the Monroe Doctrine began to re-emerge at the forefront of the US policy agenda during Donald Trump’s first term, as Washington sought ways to address mounting domestic pressure and external challenges, according to another paper released in October 2025 by the Institute of Latin America Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

During the Biden administration, policy directions and agenda priorities hinted at the emergence of a new Monroe Doctrine. Following the inauguration of Trump’s second term, this new version has surged back into prominence and entered a phase of full-scale implementation, the paper said.

‘Far more radical’

In the 2025 National Security Strategy, the Trump administration vowed to enforce a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, according to a document released on the White House website.

The core goal of the shift is to secure US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere amid the country’s declining power and to build a US-led regional order that excludes non-regional players, Sun said.

To achieve its goal in the Western Hemisphere, the Trump administration has sought to remove Venezuela, a standard-bearer of the anti-US camp in the Western Hemisphere and “a thorn in the US side,” according to Sun.

On the other hand, this year coincides with both the US midterm elections and the country’s 250th anniversary. Plagued by domestic political struggles, the Trump administration is in urgent need of a high-profile political achievement to strengthen its position, Sun said.

Another reason behind the shift is the Trump administration’s perception of a growing “threat” as Latin American countries, especially major ones, are opening up their economies not only to the US but to a broader range of partners, and in some cases forming competitive ties with the US, according to Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Therefore, the US does not hesitate to employ coercive means, even overt military force, to expand its economic control over Latin America, and this is the core of the so-called Don-roe Doctrine, Lü said.

He noted that the Don-roe Doctrine is notably characterized by the primacy of “might makes right,” a guiding principle rooted in the era of colonialism.

“Compared with the original Monroe Doctrine, Trump’s version is far more radical. It has shifted from ‘defense’ to ‘offense,’ proactively interfering in the internal affairs of Latin American countries through hegemonic means and even directly violating the interests of sovereign states,” Xu explained to the Global Times.

Against global trends

According to Reuters, Trump claimed at a Saturday press conference that his administration would “run” Venezuela “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” which experts contacted by the Global Times said is clearly illegal.

After the forcible seizure of Maduro, the Trump administration also took jabs at other Latin American leaders, including Gustavo Petro of Colombia and Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico, according to The New York Times.

While the Trump-version Monroe Doctrine may appear to be a strategic pivot in which the US is shifting the focus of its security strategy to the Western Hemisphere, the underlying intent of great-power competition is actually growing stronger.

Pan Deng, director of the Latin America and Caribbean Region Law Center of China University of Political Science and Law, told the Global Times that the Venezuela incident marks a major shift in US policy toward Latin America – moving away from relative neglect over the years and back onto a path of high-profile intervention and coercive pressure.

In fact, the two Trump administrations have launched a series of targeted operations to “take down Latin American countries one by one.” On the political front, the first Trump administration placed Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, and the subsequent sanctions inflicted a severe blow to Cuba’s economy.

Economic weapons have also been wielded frequently to repeatedly threaten to impose additional tariffs on Latin American countries. In terms of plundering regional resources, seizing strategic assets and even territorial expansion, the Trump administration has repeatedly made public threats to rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America” since returning back to the White House.

The US may have announced the end of the Monroe Doctrine, but the fact is, for the past more than 200 years, hegemonism and power politics, which is intrinsic in the Doctrine, is far from being abandoned, Lin Jian made the remarks at another press conference in August 2024, responding to protest in several Latin American countries against US interference in their internal affairs.

The US’s hegemonism and power politics runs counter to the unstoppable historical trend of Latin American countries staying independent and seeking strength through unity. Such approaches will win no support and be consigned to the dustbin of history, Lin noted.

Sun told the Global Times that while the US is once again attempting to extend its “long arm” into Latin America, the region is no longer what it once was. In recent years, Latin American countries have worked to strengthen unity and weather shared challenges. They have actively seized opportunities arising from the development of the Global South and expanded cooperation with countries in Asia and Africa.

During the seventh summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States in 2023, the bloc released the Declaration of Buenos Aires, sending a strong message in favor of regional cooperation and integration, and in opposition to foreign interference.

Li Haidong, a professor at the China Foreign Affairs University, also warned a probable spillover effect of the resurgence of Monroe Doctrine from Latin American to the other regions, which could trigger greater global instability and deliver a subversive blow to the international order and established rules.

However, at the same time, it may also generate a sense of urgency that pushes more countries to strengthen solidarity, coordination, and cooperation. This applies not only to Global South nations, but also to other countries that may similarly intensify efforts to uphold multilateralism, safeguard peace, and defend international law and rules, Li said.

January 6, 2026 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Brazil’s Ambassador to the OAS Denounces US Military Action Against Venezuela as a Global Threat

teleSUR – January 6, 2026

During an address to the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS), Benoni Belli, Brazil’s ambassador to the organization, described the United States’ military action against Venezuela as “a very serious attack against Venezuela’s sovereignty and a threat to the entire international community.”

The Brazilian diplomat warned that the bombings of Venezuelan territory and the kidnapping of its president represent an unacceptable violation of international law. “The current situation is grave and evokes times we thought were behind us, which are once again devastating Latin America and the Caribbean,” Belli stated.

Belli rejected the logic that “the ends justify the means,” arguing that such reasoning lacks legitimacy and allows the strongest powers to impose their will on sovereign nations. “These acts open the possibility that the strongest will define what is just or unjust, disregarding national sovereignty,” he emphasized.

The ambassador’s statement highlights the geopolitical implications of a unilateral military intervention, and warned that it undermines multilateralism and fosters a global order based on the law of the strongest.

January 6, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Real Counter to US Nabbing Maduro: Quit Buying American Arms

Sputnik – 06.01.2026

On January 3, the US launched a massive attack on Venezuela, capturing Maduro and his wife and taking them to New York. US President Donald Trump announced that Maduro and Flores would face trial for allegedly being involved in “narco-terrorism” and posing a threat, including to the US.

The Global Majority in Latin America, Africa, and Asia should hold the United States to account by stopping purchases of US weapons, including F-16s, F-35s, and halting collaboration with companies like Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and Raytheon, former UN independent expert Alfred de Zayas told Sputnik.

“US businesses are vulnerable,” he explained.

De Zayas was shocked by “the brazenness” of the US kidnapping Nicolas Maduro, which comes “in total impunity, and I do not see the ‘good guys’—Canada, the UK, the Europeans—coming out in defense of Venezuela and international law,” the ex-UN expert stressed.

He condemned the abduction of Maduro as a US “assault on civilization” and “retrogression in the idea of international peace and security.”

De Zayas pointed to an array of precedents pertaining to the US “assault on international law,” including the fact that George H.W. Bush bombed Panama in 1989 and “had President Noriega arrested and subjected to a show trial.”

Also, Bill Clinton bombed Yugoslavia in 1999, destroying the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, while George W. Bush and the Coalition of the Willing invaded Iraq in 2003, which led to the death of about one million Iraqis.

Additionally, Barack Obama orchestrated the 2014 coup against Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, the expert recalled.

“No one was ever held accountable” for these actions, de Zayas concluded.

January 6, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

US ‘creating enemies’ by humiliating rivals – analyst

RT | January 5, 2026

The US administration is making enemies around the world by taking harsh steps such as seizing the leaders of sovereign nations, American journalist and political analyst Bradley Blankenship has told RT.

The comments come a day after Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was kidnapped along with his wife, Cilia Flores, during a US raid on Caracas. Washington accuses the Venezuelan leader of narco-trafficking and weapons offences, allegations he has denied.

“When you humiliate a sovereign head of state live on television, you create the conditions for the population to resist you,” Blankenship told RT on Monday. “That is what we are seeing in Caracas. When you drag a sovereign leader through New York in an open white van, you only create enemies. That is what the United States is doing.”

He said such actions risk galvanizing resistance inside Venezuela and beyond. “This is how you lose,” Blankenship said. “You do not break people’s will. You harden it.”

Blankenship, the founder of the Northern Kentucky Truth and Accountability Project, argued that Washington’s seizure of Maduro has elevated him into a powerful political symbol rather than weakening his movement.

“Maduro’s role is more symbolic than instrumental,” Blankenship said, describing him as a continuation of the Chavista political project rather than a revolutionary figure on the scale of Simon Bolivar, Fidel Castro or Che Guevara. “But he is definitely a symbol for Venezuelans as someone who resisted American imperialism,” he added.

According to Blankenship, Washington’s approach is already having wider repercussions. By carrying out the operation against Venezuela, the US has threatened multiple countries, such as Colombia, Mexico, Greenland, Cuba and Canada, as well as others across several continents.

“This is how you create enemies,” he said. “Not only abroad, but at home as well.”

Blankenship also pointed to signs of internal dissent within the US security apparatus, noting that details of the Venezuela operation were leaked to major American newspapers before it took place. “The fact that it leaked shows internal dissent,” he said, adding that similar divisions have emerged during previous US military actions.

Video

January 5, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Video, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »