Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Monroe Doctrine Under Siege: America’s new war in the backyard

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – November 18, 2025

Washington’s new militarized campaign against Venezuela, framed as a drug war, is in reality a risky attempt to blunt China’s rising influence in Latin America—and it may only accelerate the region’s shift away from the United States.

Trump vowed to end America’s endless wars. Yet he is now starting another and doing it in Latin America, the very ground where US power is already slipping. The administration’s militarised “drug war” against Venezuela is less about cartels than about toppling Maduro to blunt China’s rise in the hemisphere. But it’s a gamble that exposes Washington’s deeper weakness: the US no longer has an economic playbook to compete with Beijing’s money, markets, and infrastructure. And Latin America knows it.

America’s Worry

It’s not about drugs. Washington has a long history of using the “war on narcotics” as cover for covert operations, and in Venezuela today, the real source of alarm is China. Beijing has become Caracas’s most dependable lifeline, underwriting more than US$60 billion in loans, running oil-for-credit schemes, building joint ventures, infrastructure, and even a satellite ground station, all coming together to cement a long-term strategic presence. In 2024 alone, bilateral trade hit US$6.4 billion, with China importing US$1.6 billion in Venezuelan oil and minerals and exporting US$4.8 billion in manufactured goods.

Venezuela is far from an outlier. Across Latin America, Sino-regional trade surged to US$518 billion, with direct investment totaling US$14.7 billion, creating a sprawling parallel economic architecture of ports, refineries, mines, 5G networks, and credit lines that regional governments now treat as indispensable. Even though the US still dominates the region in cumulative FDI—over US$1 trillion—China is rapidly eroding American influence, winning leverage not through ideology or coercion, but through markets, capital, and sustained economic engagement.

For Washington, this is not commerce; it is geopolitical encroachment that directly pushes against the so-called Monroe Doctrine, turning the US “backyard” into a zone where Washington’s influence is not decisive anymore. The Monroe Doctrine, declared by President James Monroe in 1823, held that the Americas were under US influence and off-limits to outside, i.e., European, interference. Over time, it became the foundation of Washington’s dominance in the Western Hemisphere. Today, China’s deep economic and strategic footprint in Latin America is quietly—but surely—undermining that century-old principle, challenging US control in its own backyard.

Yet instead of matching Beijing’s patient economic game, the US is increasingly relying on force—missiles, warships, and military threats—to reassert influence in its own hemisphere. In Venezuela, that approach is especially dangerous: every escalation risks doing exactly what Washington fears most, driving Latin America further into China’s orbit and underscoring the stark reality that America no longer wins with markets.

The zero-sum American Mindset

That China is the real target is not irrelevant. China’s successes are seen, in a zero-sum manner, as Washington’s loses. It was always known, although it gets little mention in the ongoing US official discourse about Venezuela. Perhaps the US does not wish to complicate its ongoing trade talks with China to ‘end’ the trade war that Washington has lost. However, elements of the current US administration had already made clear, even before capturing power in the latest presidential elections, that China cannot be allowed to expand its presence in the region.

In 2024, The Economist spotlighted China’s “dramatically” growing footprint across Latin America—a shift that seems to have triggered alarm bells in Washington. The US Secretary of State (and National Security Advisor) Rubio had warned, even before assuming his current positions, that America “can’t afford to let the Chinese Communist Party expand its influence and absorb Latin America … into its private political-economic bloc.” Yet, he lamented, many regional leaders have merely shrugged. Now, Rubio appears determined to turn up the pressure—and he’s starting with Venezuela.

Beijing’s inroads stretch far beyond Caracas. Earlier this year, left‑leaning Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva joined a Latin American summit in Beijing, signaling his willingness to coordinate on key geopolitical issues, including backing China’s position on Ukraine. At the same time, China quietly opened its first major deep‑water, “smart” port in Latin America: the $3.5 billion Chancay megaport in Peru, operated by COSCO and equipped with unmanned cranes, 5G networks, and driverless trucks. Xi Jinping praised the port as a “new land-sea corridor” linking Latin America and Asia. According to Chinese state media, Chancay can cut shipping times between Peru and China by nearly 12 days while reducing logistics costs by 20%. Diplomatically too, Beijing is undeterred. When pressed on US interventionism, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian retorted in September that Latin America is “no one’s backyard,” an explicit rebuke to American regional dominance. Accordingly, in November, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning condemned Washington’s “excessive force” against boats in the Caribbean and insisted that “cooperation between China and Venezuela is the cooperation between two sovereign states, which does not target any third party.”

The Possibility of Backfire

America’s strategy therefore can—and will—backfire. It will only make regional states more open towards Beijing and more apprehensive towards the US (interventionism and unpredictability). At the 2025 China–CELAC Forum, Gustavo Petro, President of Colombia, called for a “dialogue of civilizations” and said China and Latin America should forge a new model of cooperation—not one imposed by external powers. This sentiment exists across Latin American states, including, for instance, Brazil.

What Washington must understand is that China’s patient, capital-driven strategy, combining trade, investment, infrastructure, and diplomacy, has created a durable foothold that the US cannot simply displace with missiles or threats, although it can introduce temporary disruptions only through a military approach. Still, every escalation in Venezuela risks cementing the very outcome Washington fears: a hemisphere where American influence is conditional and secondary. If the US hopes to reclaim strategic authority, it must first confront the uncomfortable truth that power in the 21st century is won with markets, credit lines, and long-term partnerships, not just force. Until it does, the Monroe Doctrine will remain a relic, and Latin America a proving ground for China’s quiet but decisive ascendancy.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs

November 18, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

On the ‘Legitimate Authority to Kill’

By Laurie Calhoun | The Libertarian Institute | November 18, 2025

“I don’t think we’re gonna necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we’re just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. Okay? We’re gonna kill them. You know? They’re gonna be like dead. Okay.”- President Donald Trump, October 23, 2025

As of today, the Trump administration has launched missile strikes on at least nineteen boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, terminating the lives of more than seventy unnamed persons identified at the time of their deaths only as “narcoterrorists.” The administration has claimed that the homicides are legal because they are battling a DTO or “Designated Terrorist Organization” in a “non-international armed conflict,” labels which appear to have been applied for the sole purpose of rationalizing the use of deadly force beyond any declared war zone.

An increasing number of critics have expressed concern over what President Trump’s effective assertion of the right to kill anyone anywhere whom analysts in the twenty-first-century techno-death industry deem worthy of death. Truth be told, as unsavory as it may be, Trump is following a precedent set and solidified by his recent predecessors, one which has consistently been met with both popular and congressional assent.

The idea that leaders may summarily execute anyone anywhere whom they have been told by their advisers poses a threat to the state over which they govern was consciously and overtly embraced by Americans in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, all presidents since then have assumed and expanded upon what has come to be the executive’s de facto license to kill with impunity. Neither the populace nor the congress has put up much resistance to the transformation of the “Commander in Chief” to “Executioner in Chief.” Fear and anger were factors in what transpired, but the politicians during this period were also opportunists concerned to retain their elected offices.

Recall that President George W. Bush referred to himself as “The Decider,” able to wield deadly force against the people of Iraq, and the Middle East more generally, “at a time of his choosing.” This came about, regrettably, because the congress had relinquished its right and responsibility to assess the need for war and rein in the reigning executive. That body politic declined to have a say in what Bush would do, most plausibly under the assumption that they would be able to take credit for the victory, if the mission went well, and shirk responsibility, if it did not.

Following the precedent set by President Bush, President Barack Obama acted on his alleged right to kill anyone anywhere deemed by his targeted-killing czar, John Brennan, to be a danger to the United States. The Obama administration commenced from the premise that the Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) granted to Bush made Obama, too, through executive inheritance, “The Decider.” Obama authorized the killing of thousands of human beings through the use of missiles launched by remote control from drones in several different countries. To the dismay of a few staunch defenders of the United States Constitution, some among the targeted victims were even U.S. citizens, denied the most fundamental of rights articulated in that document, above all, the right to stand trial and be convicted of a capital offense in a court of law, by a jury of their peers, before being executed by the state.

As though that were not bad enough, in 2011, Obama authorized a systematic bombing campaign against Libya, which removed Moammar Gaddaffi from power in a regime change as striking as Bush’s removal from power of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Rather than rest the president’s case for war on the clearly irrelevant Bush-era AUMFs, Obama’s legal team creatively argued that executive authority sufficed in the case of Libya no less, because the mission was not really a “war,” since no ground troops were being deployed. Obama’s attack on Libya, which killed many people and left the country in shambles, had no more of a congressional authorization than does Trump’s series of assaults on the people of Latin America today.

It is refreshing to see, at long last, a few more people (beyond the usual antiwar critics) awakening to the absurdity of supposing that because a political leader was elected by a group of human beings to govern their land, he thereby possesses a divine right to kill anyone anywhere whom he labels as dangerous, by any criterion asserted by himself to suffice. President Trump maintains that Venezuela is worthy of attack because of the drug overdose epidemic in the United States, a connection every bit as flimsy as the Bush administration’s ersatz linkage of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. Operating in a fact-free zone akin to that of Bush, Trump persists in insisting that the drugs allegedly being transported by the small boats being blown up near Venezuela are somehow causally responsible for the crisis in the United States, even though the government itself has never before identified Venezuela as a source of fentanyl. In truth, Trump has followed a longstanding tradition among U.S. presidents to devise a plausible or persuasive pretext to get the bombing underway, and then modify it as needed, once war has been waged.

In the 1960s, the U.S. government claimed that North Vietnam would have to be toppled in order for Americans to remain free. The conflict escalated as a result of false interpretations of the 1964 Tonkin Gulf incident, which came to be parroted by the press and repeated by officials even after the pretext for war had been debunked. The U.S. intervention in Vietnam ended unceremoniously with the military’s retreat, and no one was made less free by the outcome, save the millions of human beings destroyed over a decade of intensive bombing under a false “domino theory” of how communist control of Vietnam would lead to the end of capitalism and the enslavement of humanity.

Beginning in 1989, the country of Colombia became the focus of a new “War on Drugs,” the result of which was, for a variety of reasons too complicated (and frankly preposterous) to go into here, an increase in the use of cocaine by Americans. In the early twenty-first century, Americans were told that the Taliban in Afghanistan had to be removed from power in order to protect the U.S. homeland and to secure the freedom of the people of Afghanistan. The military left that land in 2021, with the Taliban (rebranded as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) once again the governing political authority. Many thousands of people’s lives were destroyed during the more than two decades of the “War on Terror,” but there is no sense in which anyone in Afghanistan was made more free by the infusion of trillions of U.S. dollars into the region.

Let these examples suffice to show (though others could be cited) that no matter how many times U.S. leaders insist that war has become necessary, a good portion of the populace, apparently oblivious to all of the previous incantations of false but seductive war propaganda, comes to support the latest mission of state-inflicted mass homicide. Among contemporary world leaders, U.S. officials have been the most flagrantly bellicose in this century, and they certainly have killed, whether directly or indirectly, many more human beings than any other government in recent history. This trend coincides with a marked rise in war profiteering, as a result of the LOGCAP (Logistics Civil Augmentation Program) scheme of the late secretary of Defense and Vice President Dick Cheney, whose policies made him arguably the world’s foremost war entrepreneur.

The general acceptance by the populace of the idea that conflicts of interest no longer matter in decisions of where, when, and against whom to wage war, has resulted in an increased propensity of government officials to favor bombing over negotiation, and war as a first, not a last, resort. Because of the sophistication of the new tools of the techno-death industry, and the establishment of a plethora of private military companies (PMCs) whose primary source of income derives from government contracts, there are correspondingly more war profiteers than there were in the past. Many apparently sincere war supporters among the populace are not profiteers but instead evince a confused amalgam of patriotism and pride, and are often laboring under the most effective galvanizer of all: fear.

The increasing influence on U.S. foreign policy of the military-industrial complex notwithstanding, it would be a mistake to suppose that the folly of war has anything specifically to do with the United States. The assumption of a legitimate authority to kill on the part of political leaders has a long history and has been embraced by people for many centuries, beginning with monarchic societies wherein the “received wisdom” was that rulers were effectively appointed to rule by God Almighty and therefore acting under divine authority. The fathers of just war theory, including St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, lived and wrote in the Middle Ages, when people tended to believe precisely that.

As a result of the remarkable technological advances made over the past few decades, the gravest danger to humanity today does not inhere, as the government would have us believe, in the possibility of havoc wreaked by small groups of violent dissidents. Instead, the assertion of the right to commit mass homicide by political leaders inextricably mired in an obsolete worldview of what legitimate authority implies has led to the deaths of orders of magnitude more human beings than the actions said by war architects to justify recourse to deadly force.

Today’s political leaders conduct themselves as though they are permitted to kill not only anyone whom they have been persuaded to believe is dangerous, but also anyone who happens to be located within the radius of a bomb’s lethal effects. This abuse of power and insouciance toward human life has been seen most glaringly since October 7, 2023, in the comportment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, under whose authority the military has ruthlessly attacked and terrorized the residents of not only Gaza, but also Lebanon, Syria, Qatar, Iran, and Iraq, on the grounds that militant Hamas members were allegedly hiding out in the structures being bombed.

Even as piles of corpses have amassed, and millions of innocent persons have been repeatedly terrorized by the capricious bombing campaigns, Zionists and their supporters reflexively bristle and retort to critics that Netanyahu’s intentions were always to save the hostages. It was certainly not his fault if Hamas persisted in using innocent people as human shields! As a result of this sophism, the IDF was able to kill on, wholly undeterred, massacring many thousands of people who posed no threat whatsoever. Throughout this savage military campaign, the IDF has ironically been shielded by the human shield maneuvers of Hamas.

The “good intentions” trope has served leaders frighteningly well and, like the so-called legitimate authority to kill, is a vestige of the just war paradigm, which continues rhetorically to inform leaders’ proclamations about military conflict, despite being based on an antiquated worldview the first premises of which were long ago abandoned by modern democratic societies. With rare exceptions, people do not believe (pace some of the pro-Trump zealots) that their leaders were chosen by God to do what God determines that they should do. Instead, modern people are generally well aware that their elected officials arrive at their positions of power by cajoling voters into believing that their interests will be advanced by their favored candidates, while fending off, by hook or by crook, would-be contenders who, too, claim that they will best further the people’s interests. Despite debacles such as the U.S. interventions in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Libya, the just war theory’s “Doctrine of Double Effect,” according to which what matter are one’s leaders’ intentions, not the consequences of their actions, continues to be wielded by war propagandists, undeterred by the sort of ordinary, utilitarian calculus which might otherwise constrain human behavior on such a grand scale.

The slaughter of hundreds of thousands and the harm done to millions more persons in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. government was said to be justified by the architects of the War on Terror by the killing of approximately 3,000 human beings on September 11, 2001. Similarly, the Israeli government’s slaughter of many times more people than the number of hostages serving as the pretext for mass bombing was a horrible confusion, an affront to both basic mathematics and common sense. Nonetheless, it was said to be supported by the false and sophomoric, albeit widespread, notion that “our” leaders (the ones whom we support) have good intentions, while “the evil enemy” has evil intentions. That notion is, at best, delusional, for it entails that one’s own tribe has intrinsically good intentions and anyone who disagrees is an enemy sympathizer, the absurdity of which is clear to anyone who has ever traveled from one country to another. Stated simply: geographical location has no bearing whatsoever on the moral status of human beings, what should be obvious from the incontestable fact that no one ever chooses his place of birth.

Beyond its sheer puerility, the “We are good, and they are evil!” assumption gives rise to a very dangerous worldview on the part of leaders in possession of the capacity to commit mass homicide with impunity, as leaders such as Netanyahu and Trump, along with many others, currently do. Note that the same assumption was made by Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, and every other political mass murderer throughout history. Most recently, when supporters of Israel began to characterize anyone who voiced concern over what was being done to the Palestinians as “Hamas sympathizers,” they embraced the very same framework which came to dominate the U.S. military’s efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan as people who opposed the invasions were lumped together indiscriminately with the perpetrators of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and denounced as terrorists.

It is obvious to anyone rational why dissidents become increasingly angry as they directly witness the toll of innocent victims multiply. The very same type of ire was experienced by Americans when their homeland was attacked. Yet in Afghanistan and Iraq, the idea that human beings have a right to defend their homeland was seemingly forgotten by the invaders, and little if any heed was paid by the killers to the perspective of the invaded people themselves, who inveighed against the slaughter and mistreatment of their family members and neighbors, even as it became more and more difficult to deny that the U.S. government was in fact creating more terrorists than it eliminated.

Returning to 2025, President Donald Trump continues to authorize the obliteration of a series of small vessels off the shore of Venezuela and in the Pacific Ocean. It is unclear who is behind this arbitrary designation of some—not all—boats alleged to be loaded with drugs to be sunk rather than intercepted by the Coast Guard, which until now has been the standard operating procedure—and with good reason. According to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), more than 25% of the vessels stopped and searched by the Coast Guard on suspicion of drug trafficking are found not to contain any contraband whatsoever. Senator Paul has also made an effort to disabuse citizens of the most egregious of the falsehoods being perpetrated by the Trump administration, to wit: The country of Venezuela is not now and has never been a producer of fentanyl, the primary cause of the overdose epidemic in the United States.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, a denizen of the fact-challenged Trump world, appears to delight in posting short snuff films of the Department of War missile strikes, most of which have left no survivors nor evidence of drug trafficking behind. In two of the strikes, there were some survivors, who were briefly detained by the U.S. government before being repatriated to their country of origin. The incoherence of the administration’s treatment of these persons—alleged wartime combatants, according to every press release regarding all of these missile strikes—has caught the attention of an increasing number of critical thinkers.

Senator Rand Paul has admirably attempted, on multiple occasions, to wrest control of the war powers from the executive and return it to the congress. Most recently, he drew up legislation to prevent Trump from bombing Venezuela, well beyond the scope of the AUMFs granted to George W. Bush at the beginning of the century, but the motion failed. Democratic Senator Fetterman, who voted against the bill along with most of the Republican senators, has evidently fallen under the spell of the techno-death industry propaganda according to which the president may kill anyone anywhere whom he deems even potentially dangerous to the people of the United States. Since the legislation was voted down, Trump and his team no doubt view this as a green light. The president may not have a new AUMF, but the senate, by rejecting Rand Paul’s legislation, effectively signaled that he does not need one. Fire away!

What all of this underscores is what became progressively more obvious throughout the Global War on Terror: most elected officials and their delegated advisers are not critical thinkers but base their support of even obviously anti-Constitutional practices, such as the summary execution of suspects, as perfectly permissible, provided only that the populace has been persuaded to believe that it is in their best interests. In the twenty-first century, heads of state are being advised by persons who are themselves working with analysis companies such as Palantir, which devise the algorithms being used to select targets to kill, and have financial incentives for doing so.

What began as a revenge war against the perpetrators of 9/11 somehow transmogrified into the serial assassination of persons whose outward behavior matches computer-generated profiles of supposedly legitimate targets. The industry-captured Department of War’s inexorable and unabashed quest to maximize lethality has played an undeniable role in this marked expansion of state-perpetrated mass homicide based on an antiquated view of divinely inspired legitimate authority. 

As the Trump administration prepares the populace for its obviously coveted and apparently imminent war on Venezuela, mainstream media outlets have reported a surprisingly high level of support among Americans for the recent missile strikes. According to one recent poll, 70% of the persons queried approve of the blowing up of boats involved in drug trafficking. If true, this may only demonstrate how effective the Smith-Mundt Modernization act has been since 2013, permitting the government to propagandize citizens to believe whatever the powers that be wish for them to believe. Given the government’s legalization of its own use of propaganda against citizens, we will probably never know how many of the social media users apparently expressing their exuberant support for the targeting of small boats on the assumption that they contain drugs headed for U.S. shores are in fact bots rather than persons. None of this bodes well for the future of freedom.

November 18, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ecuadorian voters say ‘No’ to return of US bases

RT | November 17, 2025

Voters in Ecuador have rejected a proposal to bring US military bases back into the country, according to the results of Sunday’s national referendum.

With around 95% of ballots counted, the official tally shows that 60.58% voted ‘No’ on President Daniel Noboa’s initiative to allow foreign troops to operate in Ecuador as part of efforts to fight organized crime and drug trafficking.

Noboa said he accepts the results. “We consulted with the Ecuadorians, and they have spoken. We fulfilled our promise to ask them directly. We respect the will of the Ecuadorian people,” he wrote on X.

US troops were stationed at an air base in the port city of Manta until 2009, when then-President Rafael Correa refused to renew the lease and banned foreign bases in Ecuador.

Noboa offered US President Donald Trump the opportunity to station troops in the country, at different times pitching Manta, the city of Salinas, and one of the islands of the Galapagos Archipelago as possible locations.

November 16, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Americans Say ‘No’ to US Military Aggression Against Venezuela

By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | November 14, 2025

Since September, the presidential administration of Donald Trump has been directing the United States military to blow up boats and kill their occupants in the Caribbean and Pacific, claiming to be thus countering Venezuela government supported “narco-terrorism.” At the same time, it has been building up a large US military force off the Venezuela shore. And the Trump administration has made clear that these actions go hand in hand with seeking to achieve its goal of removing Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro from office.

It looks like the US government is pursuing a regime change effort against the South America nation. But, the American people do not seem to be happy with this situation. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted November 7 – 12, Americans are rejecting both the ongoing US military action against the boats and the threatened US military action to overthrow Maduro.

In a Friday Reuters article discussing the poll results, Jason Lange and Matt Spetalnick detailed that only 29 percent of polled Americans answered that the US government should “kill suspected drug traffickers abroad without judicial process” — what is occurring with the US military’s serial blowing up of boats and killing of their occupants. Even fewer polled Americans — 21 percent — answered that the US government should “use military force to remove Venezuela’s president.” Substantially more polled Americans — 51 percent and 47 percent respectively — declared their opposition to the ongoing US military campaign to blow up boats and the potential use of US military force to remove Maduro from office.

November 14, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Why Invading Venezuela Won’t Be a Walk in the Park

Neoconservative strategists aren’t talking about the day after…

José Niño Unfiltered | November 3, 2025

As American warships patrol Caribbean waters and F-35 fighters prowl Venezuelan airspace, hawkish voices in Washington paint an enticing picture: A swift military operation to topple Nicolás Maduro, similar to the easy interventions in Grenada (1983) and Panama (1989). It’s a dangerous fantasy that ignores three decades of failed Venezuelan policy and fundamentally misunderstands the catastrophic difference between those brief police actions and what a Venezuela invasion would entail.

The comparison is essentially that of a neighborhood skirmish to a regional war. Venezuela is roughly 2,650 times larger than Grenada and 12 times larger than Panama, with 243 times more people than Grenada and 12 times more than Panama. The appropriate historical parallels aren’t Grenada or Panama—they’re Iraq and Afghanistan, multi-trillion-dollar quagmires that killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of civilians while advancing no genuine U.S. interests.

What regime change boosters consistently ignore is what happens the day after Maduro falls. They focus obsessively on knocking out Venezuela’s conventional military—no walk in the park, but an attainable feat—while studiously avoiding the nightmare that follows: A multi-factional civil war among heavily armed irregular forces, refugee flows dwarfing the current crisis, and a protracted insurgency that could justify further U.S. intervention and spiral into a broader conflict that could attract irregular leftist forces from the region.

As far as historical analogues are concerned, Grenada was a tiny 344-square-kilometer volcanic island—smaller than many American cities. Despite hilly terrain, the entire country could be secured quickly because of its minuscule size. Panama at 75,420 square kilometers was larger but still a narrow isthmus focused around the Canal Zone, where U.S. forces already had extensive military presence and insider knowledge based on decades of American influence in Panama.

Venezuela covers 912,050 square kilometers—featuring the Andes mountains in the west, vast central plains (llanos), dense Amazon jungle in the south, and 2,800 kilometers of Caribbean coastline. This geographic complexity creates countless opportunities for asymmetric warfare, with mountainous terrain favoring defensive operations, urban centers ideal for guerrilla resistance, and jungle regions providing sanctuary for irregular forces.

Unlike Panama where U.S. forces had extensive familiarity from decades of base presence, or Grenada, where the entire operational theater was one small island, Venezuela’s diverse terrain would require controlling vast territories to prevent insurgent sanctuaries. U.S. military planners have no established presence, no intimate geographic knowledge, and would face the same challenges that gave American forces fits in Afghanistan’s mountains, Iraq’s urban centers, and Vietnam’s jungles.

Venezuela hosts one of the most complex networks of armed non-state actors in the Western Hemisphere. Start with the colectivos—far-left paramilitary groups numbering 8,000 individuals operating in 16 states and controlling approximately 10 percent of Venezuelan cities. These aren’t poorly armed street gangs; they possess AK-47s, submachine guns, fragmentation grenades, and tear gas—much of it supplied directly by the Venezuelan government.

Colombian guerrilla organizations have also established a significant presence on Venezuelan territory. The National Liberation Army (ELN) maintains operations in 13 Venezuelan states. According to a report by Colombian media outlet Connectas, the ELN has armed cells in roughly 10 percent of Venezuela’s more than 300 municipalities. The group controls territory in the Venezuelan states of Zulia, Táchira, Apure, and Amazonas—the four states bordering Colombia—and also operates in Barinas, Bolívar, and Delta Amacuro, with a presence of roughly 1,000 fighters in Venezuela and 6,000 members in total.

Segunda Marquetalia, dissidents of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) who rejected Colombia’s peace accords, operates with an estimated 1,000 members. Other FARC dissident factions add approximately 2,000 more fighters. These groups maintain Marxist-Leninist, anti-imperialist ideologies and view the United States as the primary threat to revolutionary movements. Combined, these irregular forces are in the tens of thousands with substantial weapons, territorial control, and operational experience.

It should be stressed that Venezuela’s official military doctrine has been explicitly designed around asymmetric warfare against a hypothetical U.S. invasion since the Chávez era. The strategy assumes initial conventional defeat followed by sustained guerrilla resistance—making occupation costly and politically unsustainable.

Nevertheless, Venezuela won’t just roll over without a conventional fight. Venezuela is the number one purchaser of Russian weaponry in Latin America. It boasts mobile Russian S-300VM and Buk-M2E air defense systems (described as “by far the most formidable in Latin America” by Military Watch Magazine) and KH-31 anti-ship missiles. Additionally, Venezuela boasts 24 Su-30MK2V Flanker fighters (approximately 21 operational) capable of carrying anti-ship missiles and critically, components of Russia’s C4ISR system—integrated digital warfare networks previously shared only with Belarus.

Most significantly, Russia signed a comprehensive 10-year strategic partnership with Venezuela in May 2025, ratified in October 2025, covering more than 350 bilateral agreements on security, defense, and technology. Russian cargo aircraft have recently been landing in Caracas with additional military supplies. In October 2025, Maduro requested Russian assistance enhancing air defenses, restoring Su-30 aircraft, and acquiring missiles. The Iranians have also cooperated with Venezuela on the development of drone technology and sanctions evasion assistance.

This great power backing has no parallel in Grenada (where Soviet/Cuban support was minimal during the invasion) or Panama (where Manuel Noriega’s late attempts to seek Cuban/Nicaraguan support proved futile against American forces.

The ultimate challenge for the United States comes the day after when Venezuelan forces, colectivos, militias, and allied guerrilla groups retreat to mountainous regions, jungles, and southern plains. From there, armed groups would be able to conduct asymmetric attacks on U.S. forces and any post-Maduro government, creating multiple overlapping resistance movements.

A 2019 U.S. Army analysis concluded Venezuela presents a “Black Swan” hot spot significantly more complex than the 1989 Panama operation, noting Venezuela has “115,000 troops, in addition to tanks and fighter jets” and “thirty million people, about 20 percent of whom still support the Maduro government,” with leaders having “been preparing for asymmetrical warfare for more than a decade.” In contrast, the study noted that “[Manuel] Noriega’s Panama had only fifteen thousand troops—of which, only 3,500 were soldiers.” The study highlighted that “there is no chance that countries in the region would participate in an effort to topple Maduro.”

It’s also worth noting that Cuba has deep penetration of Venezuela’s security apparatus through secret agreements signed in May 2008 that “gave Cuba vast access to the Venezuelan military and wide freedom to spy on and reform it,” according to the Havana Times. Approximately 5,600 Cuban personnel work in Venezuelan security sectors, including 500 active Cuban military advisors. Venezuela’s Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (SEBIN) has been described as “almost a branch of the G2—the Cuban secret service—in Venezuela.”

This integration helps explain Venezuelan military loyalty despite economic collapse and has proved key in protecting the South American nation from U.S. covert operations. The Cuban intelligence network provides early warning of dissent and mechanisms for neutralizing opposition forces and other fifth columnists. For U.S. planners, any intervention would effectively fight not just Venezuela’s military but Cuba’s sophisticated intelligence apparatus with decades of experience countering U.S. operations.

Before contemplating another Latin American adventure, Washington should review its track record. Historian John H. Coatsworth documented that from 1898-1994, the United States intervened to change Latin American governments at least 41 times across 100 years, averaging once every 28 months.

The results? The 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion failed catastrophically, strengthening Fidel Castro. The 1980s Contra War in Nicaragua killed approximately 30,000 Nicaraguans, yet Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, who lost the presidency in 1990, eventually returned to power in 2007. Ortega has currently ruled as an authoritarian president, exactly what the United States tried to prevent through the proxy war it facilitated during the Reagan era.

Beyond Latin America, the United States’ second invasion of Iraq cost over $2 trillion and killed 4,500 U.S. troops while creating conditions for the rise of ISIS and rival Shiite militias across the nation. The United States’ nation-building experiment in Afghanistan cost $2.3 trillion and killed 2,461 U.S. troops, only to see the Taliban return to power after 20 years.

Perhaps most striking is how overwhelmingly Venezuelans themselves reject foreign military intervention. September 2025 polling found 93 percent of Venezuelans oppose foreign military intervention, with only 5 percent supporting it. October 2025 polling showed this increased to 94 percent opposition.

This creates a paradox: Polling demonstrates 64 percent to 90 percent of Venezuelans wanting some form of democratic transition yet 93 percent to 94 percent reject foreign military intervention. When presented with peaceful alternatives, 63 percent have supported a negotiated settlement to remove Maduro, making negotiation by far the most popular option.

The Venezuelan opposition itself is deeply divided, with prominent figures like two-time presidential candidate Henrique Capriles—who remains in Venezuela—explicitly rejecting intervention. “Most people who want a military solution and a US invasion do not live in Venezuela. They don’t even understand the consequences of it,” Capriles said in an interview with the BBC. In an interview with The New York Times, he posed a pointed question: “Name one successful case in the last few years of a successful U.S. military intervention.”

As far as stateside is concerned, 62 percent of Americans also oppose invading Venezuela, with only 16 percent supporting such action, per YouGov polling.

Here’s what neoconservatives don’t discuss: Knocking out Venezuela’s conventional military is attainable. U.S. technological superiority would likely produce a relatively swift conventional victory. But then what?

A decapitation strike removing Maduro wouldn’t stabilize Venezuela—it would detonate it. Consider the armed actors positioned to fill the vacuum such as the colectivos with heavy weapons controlling urban neighborhoods; ELN fighters with decades of guerrilla experience; Segunda Marquetalia combatants; thousands of other FARC dissidents; and remnants of defeated military units retreating to mountains and jungles.

The result will likely be a multi-factional civil war. Various armed groups would compete over oil, gold, and minerals. Colectivos would defend urban territory. ELN and FARC dissidents would establish rural sanctuaries. Criminal organizations would exploit the ensuing chaos. The 20 percent of Venezuelans supporting Maduro ideologically would provide a substantial resistance base.

Such a conflict would trigger a massive refugee crisis. Venezuela has already had nearly 8 million people flee since 2015. Military intervention triggering civil war could produce millions more refugees, destabilizing Colombia, Brazil, Trinidad, Guyana, and the entire Caribbean basin. Moreover, many of these refugees would wash up on American shores—a prospect Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his cheap labor-addicted Republican cohorts in Florida would embrace with open arms.

Any U.S.-backed government would face prolonged insurgency, requiring sustained American military occupation, not the swift operation regime change boosters promise, but years or decades of counterinsurgency. Ironically, this could be dangerous even for María Corina Machado or whatever U.S. puppet is installed, as pro-regime forces remain heavily armed and motivated, while countless other militants will start carving out their own statelets nationwide. Not exactly an ideal climate for a prospective U.S. client regime to operate in.

Perhaps most underestimated would be backlash among Latin America’s radical Left. Since the end of the Cold War, leftist movements have been relatively pacified because the United States hasn’t taken direct, kinetic action in the regime. But when Marines enter the mix, this will galvanize nationalist sentiment throughout the region.

The ELN maintains strong ideological affinity with Venezuela’s state ideology of Chavismo and sees itself leading the struggle against American imperialism. Colombian guerrillas already recruit Venezuelans. U.S. intervention would dramatically accelerate recruitment. One could see foreign fighters form international brigades to fight American forces and the puppet government they try to prop up.

Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro already condemned U.S. strikes as “acts of tyranny.” Full-scale invasion would trigger denunciations across the region, breathe new life into dormant anti-American movements, and create a generation of Latin American leftists radicalized by direct confrontation with U.S. military power. External actors like Iran, Russia, and China—who all have their own set of grievances with the United States—would pounce on this chaotic environment to further inflame tensions and poke Uncle Sam in the eye.

Comparing Venezuela to Grenada or Panama is fundamentally misleading propaganda. Those were brief police actions against micro-states in political chaos with minimal armed opposition, limited territory, no great power backing, and some regional support.

After 30 years of escalating intervention—coups, sanctions, economic warfare—Maduro remains in power while Venezuela has deepened ties with Russia, China, and Iran. The humanitarian crisis has worsened. Multiple coup attempts strengthened authoritarian control.

The historical record is unambiguous: U.S. military interventions consistently fail to achieve stated objectives. Initial conventional victories give way to protracted insurgencies, state collapse, refugee crises, and strategic disasters costing trillions. Venezuela would be worse because of its size, geography, complex array of armed actors, ideological polarization, and strategic importance to U.S. adversaries such as Russia, China, and Iran, who are all itching to get back at the United States.

Neoconservative strategists are engaging in dangerous wishful thinking. They promise a swift operation followed by grateful Venezuelans welcoming democracy. Reality would be years of counterinsurgency, multi-factional civil war, massive refugee flows, regional destabilization, and a strategic quagmire.

Invading Venezuela won’t be a walk in the park. It would be a quagmire defining American foreign policy for a generation. After 30 years of failure, perhaps it’s time to try something radically different: Diplomacy, engagement, and respect for sovereignty. The alternative is catastrophe, something Donald Trump’s “America First” movement never voted for.

November 4, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Pressure against Venezuela as hybrid war against Russia and China

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 31, 2025

A common vice found among geopolitically anti-imperialist analysts and journalists is the attempt to explain all international conflicts by the “single cause” of the imperialist quest for natural resources — almost always oil. This is how the Iraq War is classically explained, for example: “Big Oil” would have used the Bush administration to open markets, once closed, through bombing and territorial occupation.

This type of clearly materialist explanation stems from an evidently Marxian premise, insofar as it aims to treat all social, cultural, and political phenomena as epiphenomena before the preponderant and structural reality of economic transformations and interests.

Like a good part of the 19th-century pseudo-scientific efforts to reduce reality to a single principle (as was the case with Freudianism and Positivism), this economist materialism also does not hold up under the hammer of critical analysis.

Just as an example, in the Iraqi case, the generic materialist explanation does not withstand the empirical discovery that the major U.S. oil companies were, in fact, already on a path of dialogue with the counter-hegemonic countries of the Middle East and, precisely for that reason, tried unsuccessfully to pressure for non-intervention and the pacification of American-Iraqi relations.

Nonetheless, the “oil myth” persists in the study of the Middle East. So we are not surprised that it is appealed to once again to explain the U.S. pressure on Venezuela. The narrative says that Trump’s pressure on Maduro, and the threats to overthrow his government, are due to Trump’s interest in Venezuela’s 300 billion barrel reserves — the largest in the world.

The problem with this narrative, however, is that according to all indications, Maduro would have offered to close extremely advantageous partnerships with the U.S. for the exploitation of Venezuelan oil, given that the current level of extraction in Venezuela is minimal. From a material perspective, the deal would be quite interesting for the U.S. oil industry, as the country consumes a vast amount of oil and its reserves are “only” the ninth largest in the world.

Everything indicates, however, that Trump would have rejected the offer of a deal.

The U.S., apparently, wants something that is worth more than the largest oil reserve in the world.

This is where geopolitical science comes in.

Generally, geopolitics is confused with “geo-economics,” in the sense that many people believe they are seeing a “geopolitical analysis” when they see an attribution of economic causes to some international conflict. But geopolitics is, fundamentally, the science that studies the correlation between geography and power. In this sense, resources can enter into geopolitical analyses, but only as part of a general context.

And in the Venezuelan case, even the very important and abundant oil is of secondary importance in the conflict with the U.S.

More important than oil, for the U.S., is to guarantee hemispheric hegemony — especially in the Americas. It is about, as defined in an arrogant and classic manner, the U.S. “backyard,” a space in which the U.S. elite in the 19th century decided to no longer tolerate any European presence.

Let’s fast forward 200 years. How are the international relations of Ibero-American countries?

China is the main commercial partner for most countries in the region, several of which have joined the Belt & Road Initiative (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, etc.). Some countries in the region (Brazil, Bolivia, Cuba) have also joined BRICS, which works towards the de-dollarization of international trade. Specifically Russia, in turn, has developed military ties — which consist of supplying equipment and conducting exercises — especially with Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, with a military rapprochement also with Bolivia and, to a lesser extent, Peru and Brazil.

In a context where pressure on the U.S. in other regions of the world is growing, it is dangerous for U.S. hegemony to see the growth of Russian-Chinese influence in its “backyard.”

Venezuela is a significant and priority target there because it is precisely the country with the deepest strategic relations with Russia and China. Venezuela is one of the main sources of oil for China, while at the same time Caracas seems to play a relevant role in the multifaceted Russian strategy of “pushing” for multipolarity by strengthening countries around the world that try to challenge the hegemonic order.

To confirm this thesis, we would need to analyze U.S. relations with the rest of the continent to verify if there is any movement by the U.S. to try to pull countries in the region away from Russia and China.

And it seems very clear: the strategy of rapprochement with Brazil is based precisely on an effort to pull the country out of the “Chinese orbit.” The U.S. also pressured Mexico to remain outside the New Silk Road. The U.S. increased its presence in Ecuador and pressured Milei to abandon plans for a Chinese base in its territory. Examples abound to indicate that we are facing a broad continental offensive whose goal is to update the Monroe Doctrine for the 21st century.

It is not, therefore, about oil, but about hegemony.

October 31, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Sen. Rand Paul Slams Strikes on Boats in Caribbean as ‘Extrajudicial Killings’

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | October 27, 2025

Senator Rand Paul blasted President Donald Trump’s strikes on alleged drug traffickers as unconstitutional and illegal.

“A briefing is not enough to overcome the Constitution. The Constitution says that when you go to war, Congress has to vote on it. … The drug war, or the crime war, has typically been dealt with through law enforcement,” Paul said on Fox News Sunday. “And so far they have alleged that these people are drug dealers … and we’ve had no evidence presented. So at this point we would call them extrajudicial killings.”

So far, the Department of War has bombed ten boats it claims are smuggling narcotics into the US. Nine of the strikes have been on vessels in the Caribbean, against alleged cartels linked to Venezuela. The White House has not provided evidence that the ships were carrying drugs.

“So far, they have alleged that these people are drug dealers. No one said their name. No one said what evidence. No one said whether they’re armed. And we’ve had no evidence presented,” Paul said.

One survivor of a strike was released by Ecuador, finding he was not engaged in wrongdoing when the boat was attacked. One family member said a victim of a US strike was a fisherman, and not working for a cartel.

Trump has discussed expanding the strikes into Venezuela and has given the CIA approval to conduct lethal operations against cartels. Secretary of State Marco Rubio claims that Venezuelan President Maduro is the leader of a cartel designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

If Trump elects to expand the war, he told reporters that he will brief Congress on the plans. He went on to say he did not have to discuss the matter with the Legislator and has not sought a Declaration of War.

The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to Declare War. However, the principle of preventing the President from unilaterally declaring war has been eroded over time. Congress has not declared war since World War 2 II. The last Authorization for Use of Military Force was passed in 2002 for the Iraq War.

Senator Paul has teamed up with Democratic Senator Tim Kaine to push a War Powers Resolution that would stop Trump from launching a war with Venezuela.

October 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

US to send world’s largest aircraft carrier to Latin America; Venezuela warns of dangerous prelude

Press TV – October 25, 2025

The United States has decided to deploy the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, and five accompanying destroyers to Latin America, prompting Venezuela to condemn the pending provocation as reckless and unlawful.

The move, which marks one of the most aggressive American naval buildups in the hemisphere in decades, was announced by a Pentagon spokesperson on Friday.

The official claimed that the expanded US regional interference aimed to “detect, monitor, and disrupt illicit actors and activities.”

The decision has raised fears of an imminent attempt to destabilize or even invade Venezuela under fabricated pretexts.

Analysts and international observers have also cautioned that the scale of the deployment far exceeds anti-narcotics operations.

The Gerald Ford strike group will join some 6,000 US sailors and Marines already stationed aboard eight warships in the region, bringing total American military personnel in the area to more than 10,000.

The escalation follows Donald Trump’s recent admission that he had authorized CIA operations inside Venezuela and was “mulling land attacks.”

The US president has repeatedly made baseless accusations that President Nicolás Maduro’s government was linked to criminal groups “invading” the US through drugs and immigration, allegations repeatedly dismissed by international agencies and even US intelligence assessments.

Since September, Washington has launched several strikes against civilian and fishing vessels in the Caribbean, alleging drug links without offering evidence.

According to United Nations officials and international law experts, these attacks violate both US and international law and constitute extrajudicial executions.

Venezuelan authorities have vowed to defend national sovereignty with full resolve.

“Interpret it however you want: the Armed Forces will not allow a government here that is subservient to the interests of the United States,” said Foreign Minister Vladimir Padrino.

Calling the US deployment “the most significant military threat in the last 100 years,” Padrino reaffirmed Caracas’s commitment to peace and reiterated that Venezuela would not tolerate any aggression.

October 25, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

China Slams Remarks by US Ambassador to Panama About Canal

Sputnik – 06.10.2025

BEIJING – The Chinese embassy in Panama on Monday criticized the remarks by US Ambassador to Panama Kevin Marino Cabrera about Beijing’s alleged meddling in matters concerning the Panama Canal.

On Sunday, Cabrera said in an interview with the Contrapeso newspaper that China had “malign” influence on the Panama Canal, accusing Beijing of cyberattacks and corruption and threatening visa cancellations for those who cooperate with Chinese enterprises.

“The statements of the US Ambassador about China have no factual basis and scientific justification, they are aimed at provoking conflict between China and other countries in the region. Depriving these countries of their diplomatic independence serves the geopolitical interests of the United States, causing more criticism and opposition,” the Chinese embassy said in a statement.

China adheres to the principle of “joint consultation, joint construction and joint use” in mutually beneficial cooperation with all countries, the statement read.

“The projects of Chinese companies in Panama and other Latin American countries make a significant contribution to social-economic development. High-quality Chinese goods at a low price are popular. The US ambassador’s statement casts doubt on the ability of countries in the region to think sensibly and ridicules the local population,” the embassy said.

Beijing urges Washington to put aside arrogance and bias and “focus on the matters that truly contribute to the development of the countries of the region and the well-being of their peoples,” the embassy added.

October 7, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

US strikes another vessel off Venezuela, killing four

Al Mayadeen | October 3, 2025

The United States has escalated its military campaign in Latin America, carrying out yet another deadly strike off the coast of Venezuela under the false pretext of fighting narcotics trafficking.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the latest strike in a post on X, celebrating the destruction of a small vessel that US officials claimed was carrying drugs. A video accompanying the post showed the boat erupting into flames, a scene observers say reveals Washington’s growing reliance on extrajudicial force and its willingness to kill without evidence, trial, or accountability.

“Four male narco-terrorists aboard the vessel were killed in the strike,” Hegseth wrote, asserting that it “was conducted in international waters just off the coast of Venezuela while the vessel was transporting substantial amounts of narcotics — headed to America to poison our people.” He vowed, “These strikes will continue until the attacks on the American people are over!!!!”

The latest strike brings the death toll to at least 21 people across four attacks in recent weeks, none of whom have been positively identified as traffickers. Washington has offered no independent proof linking the victims to drug networks, raising concerns that the US is unilaterally executing individuals in foreign waters under a fabricated pretext.

This new military doctrine stems from President Donald Trump’s declaration that the United States is now in “armed conflict” with drug cartels, reclassifying them as “terrorist organizations”, a move legal scholars have condemned as an attempt to bypass international law. A Pentagon notice sent to Congress, obtained by AFP, claimed: “The president determined these cartels are non-state armed groups, designated them as terrorist organizations, and determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States.” The same document described alleged smugglers as “unlawful combatants”, stripping them of legal protection under the Geneva Conventions.

Rights groups have warned that such terminological manipulation echoes past US practices, from the “war on terror” to the invasions of Panama and Iraq, where legal gray zones were exploited to justify preemptive violence and regime change.

Political Theater and Extrajudicial Killings

The Trump administration has openly celebrated these operations as demonstrations of strength rather than law enforcement. Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, declared that traffickers had been “turned into stardust.” On Truth Social, Trump himself echoed the narrative, writing: “A boat loaded with enough drugs to kill 25 TO 50 THOUSAND PEOPLE was stopped, early this morning off the Coast of Venezuela, from entering American Territory.”

But independent analysts and international law experts argue that the campaign bears all the hallmarks of a covert regime change operation. The strikes come amid an unprecedented US military buildup near Venezuela, including the deployment of F-35 warplanes to Puerto Rico, marking the largest show of force in the Caribbean in more than three decades. Venezuela’s Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino condemned the presence of US jets near Venezuelan airspace as “a provocation” and “a threat to our national security.”

October 4, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

New war power bill gives Trump sweeping authority to attack dozens of nations: Report

The Cradle | September 23, 2025

Legislation has been drafted that would give US President Donald Trump unchecked power to wage war against drug cartels as well as any nation he says has harbored or aided them, the New York Times (NYT) reported on 23 September, citing people familiar with the matter.

If passed, the legislation would allow the US president to deem as “terrorists” any groups that have trafficked in drugs or financed drug-related enterprises. The president would then have the authorization to use military force against such groups and any governments allegedly harboring them.

The US military carried out attacks this month on three boats that Trump claims were smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea. The strikes killed 17 people and were widely criticized as illegal. Human Rights Watch (HRW) called the strikes “unlawful extrajudicial killings.”

NYT notes that the draft legislation appears to be modeled on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that Congress granted former US president George W. Bush to launch the so-called “War on Terror” after the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

While theoretically passed to allow the US to target Al-Qaeda and its hosts in Afghanistan, the broad nature of the AUMF allowed the Bush, Obama, and first Trump administrations to invade Iraq and to target Islamic militant groups in Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen many times over a period stretching decades.

Neither the AUMF nor the new draft legislation being considered names a specific enemy. The president is therefore empowered to attack any group, anywhere, in an open-ended war.

NYT stated that this raises the question of whether Congress was giving Trump the “authority to wage a regime change war in Venezuela.”

In addition to striking the three boats, Trump has ordered additional US warplanes and naval ships to the Caribbean, while also accusing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of leading a drug cartel.

In July, Trump signed a still-secret order directing the Pentagon to begin using military force against certain Latin American criminal gangs and drug cartels, NYT added.

The Institute for Responsible Statecraft stated that the legislation could be used to justify US military intervention in at least 60 countries.

In comments given to NYT, Harvard Professor Jack Goldsmith called the draft legislation “insanely broad,” essentially “an open-ended war authorization against an untold number of countries, organizations, and persons that the president could deem within its scope.”

Earlier this year, the White House added a long list of Latin American drug cartels to the national “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” (FTO) list, giving the US the pretext to launch military action against many groups in dozens of different countries if the draft legislation is passed.

September 24, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Donald Trump corrects Victor Hugo: “Those who live are those who surrender”

By Lama El Horr – New Eastern Outlook – September 20, 2025

The torment that Washington and its satellites inflict on the peoples of the world is so outrageous that it reveals the disarray of the supremacist bloc, which seems to be playing its final card: The resuscitation of a wrecked Empire.

This playbook for restoring fallen hegemony consists of “negotiating” with Beijing through a means of coercion dear to Washington: blackmail. This is done by orchestrating, directly or through proxies, state terrorism of unbridled savagery in every corner of the world where the supremacy of the Euro-Atlantic oligarchy is threatened. In other words, in every corner of the world.

The ensuing funeral ceremonies, also orchestrated by the Axis of the Fallen Hegemon, aim to impose as an irreversible reality the losses of territory, fundamental rights, and power that these destructions and killings are supposed to inflict on the BRICS, the global South, and, of course, China.

“Give me the moon,” Trump asks Xi

Observing the conflagration of conflicts surrounding China, there is no doubt that Washington has raised its level of aggression a notch. The nature of the crises encircling Chinese territory indicates that the US administration has moved from “courteous” blackmail to “martial” blackmail.

“Courteous” blackmail is a traditional coercive tool used by Washington. It might look something like this: “China will be able to strengthen its cooperation with the European Union if it renounces buying Russian energy,” and aims, in this case, to kill two birds with one stone, i.e., to subjugate both Beijing and Moscow.

But this type of blackmail also manifests itself in more ambiguous ways: this is the case with Trump’s announcement of an agreement with Armenia, which has reportedly ceded the development and management of the Zangezur corridor to Washington for a period of 99 years. It goes without saying that such an agreement, if confirmed, can only arouse the fears of Beijing and Moscow and the categorical rejection of Tehran, since it leaves open the threat of an American presence in the South Caucasus. Admittedly, this may be a warning to Beijing and Moscow regarding their security collaboration with Iran: “If you strengthen Tehran’s defense capabilities against Israel, we will deploy troops between Armenia and Iran.” But it may also be that Washington has drawn a parallel with South America: “If China goes ahead with the bio-oceanic rail corridor project, which is supposed to link Brazil to the port of Chancay via Bolivia, there will be a NATO presence on Iran’s northwestern borders”—with all the security implications that such a deployment would entail for Iran, for the North-South corridor, and for the BRI network in Central Asia.

When this “polite” blackmail fails to achieve the set objective, Washington changes its modus operandi. Most recently, for example, Trump asked his satellites to outsource pressure against Beijing: “The G7/NATO/EU bloc must impose sanctions on China and India to force them to turn their backs on Russia.”

But the American modus operandi can also involve resorting to “martial” blackmail. This type of blackmail is more complex than the previous one. While it also involves coercion, it relies on brute force, and it is not always easy to discern the actors or their true level of involvement.

Suddenly, a succession of violent events occurs in more or less strategic areas, which seem to reshuffle the cards of the regional geopolitical chessboard. This is the case of the countless military assaults in West Asia—Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran, and Qatar. It is also the case, in South and Southeast Asia, of the India/Pakistan or Cambodia/Thailand conflict; of the declaration of martial law by former President Yoon in South Korea; of the color revolutions in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal; of the sporadic riots in Mongolia; of the war of attrition in Myanmar; or of the insurrection in Indonesia, a member of the BRICS, on the eve of the Tianjin summit.

From these upheavals, in which Washington’s involvement through regional and local channels has been widely demonstrated (see the work of Brian Berletic), Washington’s ulterior motives become apparent. Although the terms of this “martial” blackmail are never fully acknowledged, it is easy to guess its content:

  • If you ostracize the dollar in your trade with the BRICS and Africa, we will undermine the BRI infrastructure all around your borders;
  • Give us shares in your strategic companies, or we will escalate the trade war against Chinese technology and the maritime industry;
  • We demand the lion’s share of the New Polar Silk Road, or failing that, we will form a military alliance with Somaliland and Taiwan;
  • Stay away from South America and Venezuela, or we will provoke “incidents” on your borders, like in Qatar and Poland, to strengthen the defenses of the countries hosting our military bases.

And so on. These muscular blackmails—in this case, fictions, even if they are inspired by reality—are based on objectives so extreme that they are completely out of reach. They therefore resemble far-fetched threats. Yet, the Axis of the Fallen Hegemon continues to resort to these methods of intimidation, no doubt because they provide it with an excellent pretext to pursue its real objective, which is to intensify hostilities against China.

The objective, in fact, is not the resolution of crises, but their intensification, the Atlantic bloc being convinced that the spread of chaos is the only means within its reach to restore its supremacy. Moreover, the United States is all the less inclined to renounce subjugation by war, or “peace through strength,” as it demonstrates daily through its Israeli clone, its true ambition: to annihilate any desire for diplomacy – even if it means bombing the place where the negotiations are to be held.

For Washington, mourning must precede death

In the midst of these hostilities, it is important not to lose sight of the ultimate goal of the Empire in its death throes: to shift toward a fait accompli by decreeing the death of struggles that are still ongoing. The objective is therefore to push China—and, with it, the rest of the world—into confusing the destruction and killings caused by Atlanticist savagery with defeat.

Clearly, the imperialist bloc is going through a phase of such acute megalomania that it is incapable of making rational decisions. The slightest sign of life from its geopolitical adversaries is perceived as an existential threat. One need only look at the unspeakable abominations that torment the Palestinian people, and that torment us all, to realize how worrying it is to leave the fate of humanity in the crime-hungry hands of the Axis of the Fallen Hegemon.

Under these circumstances, it is up to China, the BRICS, and the Global South to restore what can be restored of human dignity, since “Those who live are those who struggle.”

Lama El Horr, PhD, is the Founding Editor of China Beyond the Wall. She is a geopolitical consultant and analyst specializing in Chinese foreign policy and geopolitics

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

September 20, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »