Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Did the U.S. achieve a regime change in Venezuela?

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 12, 2026

Shortly after the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the event was quickly disseminated as a typical “regime change” operation against its new target and enemy, Venezuela. Critics and supporters of Bolivarianism flooded social media with posts announcing the “end” of Chavismo.

Three days after the event – and with many things insufficiently explained, such as the minimal Venezuelan military reaction during the attack – the Venezuelan landscape remains complex.

First, let’s look at the factual reality: Chavismo still governs in Caracas. The country’s Vice President, Delcy Rodríguez, was sworn in as interim president in a ceremony that featured the prominent participation of the ambassadors from Russia, China, and Iran. She does so, by all appearances, with the consensus of her brother Jorge Rodríguez, who leads the National Assembly, Defense Minister Padrino López, and Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello. Maduro’s son, also named Nicolás, has also declared support for the institutional arrangement that sees Delcy Rodríguez performing the role of national leader while his father is prosecuted in the U.S.

Was there an expectation that things would unfold differently?

Frankly, all statements from Donald Trump and Marco Rubio following Maduro’s kidnapping suggest that even if we consider the kidnapping itself a successful military operation, politically the event appears to have been ill-conceived. The U.S. government has already rejected the notion of handing power to the opposition and has even dismissed the prospect of new elections.

It is noteworthy that immediately after the kidnapping, Western media announced that Delcy Rodríguez had fled the country, which was obviously a lie. More recently, some channels and profiles have announced an alleged coup attempt in Caracas by Diosdado Cabello.

These deliberately spread rumors point to the continuation of the hybrid war against Venezuela, through the modality of psychological warfare, but they may also reveal expectations and, perhaps, even “false” information received by the U.S. about the situation in Venezuela.

Perhaps, indeed, the U.S. expectation was that the removal of Maduro could trigger a power struggle among the most important figures of Chavismo, and that the natural outcome of such a conflict would be a regime change. But none of this is happening, and for now, a broad consensus seems to hover over the Venezuelan political landscape.

It is also plausible that the U.S. was surprised by the lack of positive demonstrations by Venezuelans for Maduro’s removal. In Venezuela, one only sees protests criticizing the U.S. imperialist action. Even the opposition has joined pro-government forces in demanding the return of Nicolás Maduro.

This represents a significant problem.

Over the past few years, the U.S. has insisted on the narrative that Edmundo González would have triumphed over Nicolás Maduro in the 2024 presidential elections, with over 70% of the valid votes, which would be equivalent to saying González had the support of over 20 million citizens. Where are these people? Why were there no celebrations in Venezuela for Maduro’s kidnapping? It’s no use resorting to the “repression” thesis. “Repression” does not prevent opponents from trying to hold their protests, even in China.

It is likely that the timidity even of those who voted for González (a minority of the population) is simply due to the fact that Venezuelan economic indicators have indeed been improving in recent years: inflation dropped from 1,700,000% to 85%, the HDI has resumed growth, rising from 0.660 to 0.705, the unemployment rate fell from 33% to 6%, GDP growth of 6.5% (9% in the third quarter alone), and so on. Venezuela is, in fact, on a tide of recovery that has been ongoing for 4 uninterrupted years.

It may be the typical caution of those who, after many years, are finally seeing their lives improve and prefer to guard against very abrupt changes in the country’s leadership course.

There is also no evidence that the new interim Venezuelan government has agreed to any geopolitical realignment. Beyond the oil issue, we know that the determining element in the Venezuelan question is the guarantee of the automatic alignment of the entire continent with the U.S., and Venezuela, on the contrary, chose a path of rapprochement with Russia, China, and Iran.

In this sense, news indicating that Venezuela would resume supplying oil to the U.S. does not mean much. Venezuela has always wanted to sell oil to the U.S. and has indeed been selling oil to the U.S., both under the Chávez and Maduro governments, after a period of interruption due to sanctions.

The real question is whether the U.S. will manage to convince Venezuela to stop selling oil to its allies, as well as to break military ties and diplomatic alignments. Only then could one speak of a U.S. victory.

For now, however, we are facing a classic U.S. modus operandi: lots of pyrotechnics, little substance, zero prognostication.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

UK believes it can seize any tanker under Russia sanctions – BBC

RT | January 12, 2026

The British government believes it has found a legal way for its military to seize any vessels in UK waters that it suspects of being part of a so-called ‘shadow fleet’, state broadcaster BBC has reported.

The move is expected to target Russia, Iran and Venezuela, all of whom the UK claims use third-party vessels to circumvent Western sanctions, according to the report.

Britain’s 2018 Sanctions and Money Laundering Act initially allowed London to impose sanctions in line with UN Security Council resolutions but was later expanded to allow entities London has accused of human rights violations to be targeted.

The law states that the government can detain “specified ships” in its territorial waters or prevent them from entering. This can affect vessels going through the English Channel – one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. It also says that any ships can be targeted, except for those of the navies of foreign nations. The legislation does not explicitly mention the use of military force, though.

According to BBC, it is unclear when the UK could launch an operation targeting a foreign vessel. The British military have not boarded any vessels so far, the broadcaster said, adding that the UK did aid the US in seizing the ‘Marinera’ oil tanker last week.

The ship was intercepted in international waters northwest of Scotland. Moscow, which granted the tanker a temporary sailing permit, condemned the seizure as a gross violation of international rules.

Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Western governments have imposed sweeping sanctions on Russia, targeting its oil trade and what they call its “shadow fleet” in particular.

According to BBC, London has imposed restrictions against more than 500 suspected “shadow fleet” vessels. The UK also imported oil products from refineries processing Russian crude worth £3 billion ($4.04 billion) over a period between 2022 and the second quarter of 2025, according to a June report by the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA). That generated £510 million ($687 million) in revenue for Moscow.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , | 1 Comment

Why America’s Oil Giants Aren’t Eager to Invest in Venezuela in Wake of Maduro’s Abduction

Sputnik – 12.01.2026

The significant capital investment required ($100B) and the need to wait up to 15 years to make a profit are the biggest factors hindering oil majors like Exxon, ConocoPhillips and Chevron from returning to the Venezuelan market, says international oil economist Dr. Mamdouh G. Salameh.

“US oil majors will have to wait a very long time before benefiting from Venezuela’s oil largesse… Moreover, they feel embarrassed to be complicit” in this form of “daylight thievery with legal implications for them,” the expert told Sputnik.

In fact, the companies would probably be happy enough dealing with the existing “sovereign and national [government] in the country openly,” free of Washington’s threats of regime change.

Efforts by the White House to ban third parties from engaging with Venezuelan oil revenues constitutes not “only a total imposition of control over Venezuela’s oil but a daylight robbery,” Salameh stressed.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Illegal Occupation | , | Leave a comment

Pirates of the Caribbean

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 12, 2026

So many things are happening in such a short space of time that it is difficult to keep track of them all. Certainly, one of the most “entertaining” is the return of piracy, which the United States of America inaugurated at the beginning of 2026.

We are talking about a new and particularly controversial phase of their economic and strategic pressure policy: the direct seizure of oil tankers on the high seas, believed to be involved in the transport of crude oil on behalf of states subject to unilateral U.S. sanctions, in particular Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. This practice, which Washington presents as a legitimate enforcement activity against illegal trafficking, is raising profound questions about international maritime law and the balance between state sovereignty, freedom of navigation, and the use of force.

From the Caribbean to the icy North Seas, the most emblematic case is that of the oil tanker Mariner, seized a few days ago after a long chase in the North Atlantic by the U.S. Coast Guard, while the ship was being joined by Russian naval forces. According to U.S. authorities, the ship was part of the so-called shadow fleet, an informal network of oil tankers that operate through frequent changes of name, flag, and management company in order to evade sanctions regimes. This operation is accompanied by other significant seizures or interceptions, including the tankers Sophia, Skipper, and Centuries, stopped in various maritime areas on similar charges of sanctioned oil trafficking and fraudulent use of flags of convenience. In short, a cinematic-style raid. Donald “Sparrow” Trump has found a new hobby.

As for the Mariner, to be fair, it is a VLCC oil tanker built in 2002. Its gross tonnage is over 318,000 tons, making it one of the largest types of oil tankers used in the global crude oil trade. In terms of age and technical characteristics, it is an ordinary working ship, designed to operate for 25-30 years, provided it passes inspections. Since its construction, the ship has not had a stable “nationality.”

Over the course of more than twenty years, it has changed its name, flag, and owners several times, a practice typical of tankers operating in sanctioned and semi-sanctioned segments of the market. The ship was successively named Overseas Mulan, Seaways Mulan, Xiao Zhu Shan, Yannis, Neofit, Timimus, Bella 1, and finally Marinera. Each name change was accompanied by a change of jurisdiction or management company. The flags also changed regularly. The ship flew the flags of the Marshall Islands, Liberia, Palau, and Panama. According to international databases, there was a period when the ship flew the flag of Guyana, indicating an incorrect or unconfirmed registration. This episode was subsequently used as a formal pretext for intervention by the U.S. Coast Guard.

After the persecution began, the ship obtained temporary registration under the flag of the Russian Federation with Sochi as its port of registry, as recorded in official ship registers. The history of the ship’s ownership and management also indicates its commercial rather than state nature. Over the years, the ship has been managed by companies registered in Asia and offshore jurisdictions, including structures linked to Chinese and Singaporean operators. Between 2022 and 2023, the owner and manager of the ship was Neofit Shipping Ltd, then Louis Marine Shipholding ENT. Since the end of December 2025, the owner and commercial operator of the ship has been the Russian company Burevestmarin LLC. This is a private entity, not linked to state-owned oil companies and not part of any “state fleet.”

In recent years, the ship has been used in the classic sanctions evasion scheme linked to the Iran-Venezuela-China routes. A crucial turning point came in mid-December 2025, when the United States announced an effective maritime blockade of Venezuela. The tanker, then called Bella 1, had left the Iranian port in November and was approaching the Venezuelan coast just as these measures were introduced. The attempt to enter the port was interrupted by the U.S., after which the ship set course for the Atlantic Ocean. The composition of the crew also clearly shows the commercial nature of the ship. Most of the sailors on board are Ukrainian citizens, while there were also Georgian citizens and only two Russians on board. The Mariner proved to be a convenient demonstration target for the U.S. as part of its new strategy of forcibly disrupting Venezuelan oil routes.

The owner’s attempt to hide under the Russian flag was a logical commercial move, but it did not change the intentions of the U.S. Russia was formally involved in the situation as the flag state and because of the presence of Russian citizens in the crew. The ship was not of strategic value to Russia and was not part of its oil logistics. Any escalation around a private tanker, which had been operating for decades on gray routes, would have made no rational sense.

From Washington’s point of view, the legitimacy of such actions rests on two main pillars. The first is the extraterritorial application of U.S. sanctions: seized tankers are considered assets directly involved in violations of Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) regulations and are therefore subject to confiscation. The second pillar is the doctrine of the stateless vessel, according to which a ship that cannot credibly prove its nationality—due to irregular registrations, false flags, or contradictory documentation—loses the legal protection guaranteed by the flag state and can be stopped by any other state on the high seas.

Bye-bye Law of the Sea

It is precisely this second point that is the focus of much of the legal debate. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes that, on the high seas, a ship is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state. Exceptions to this principle are limited and strict: piracy, slave trade, unauthorized radio transmissions, absence of nationality, or express authorization from the UN Security Council. The extension of these exceptions to the application of unilateral sanctions, not approved by the United Nations, is a highly contested interpretation.

Russia and China have reacted harshly to the seizures, calling them a blatant violation of international law and, in some cases, an act comparable to state piracy. Moscow argues that the seized tankers were flying regular flags and that the use of force against commercial vessels in peacetime, outside a UN mandate, constitutes a breach of the maritime legal order. Beijing, for its part, has emphasized the illegitimate nature of unilateral sanctions and the risk that such practices create dangerous precedents, normalizing the armed interdiction of commercial shipping.

The implications of this new phase are significant. On the legal front, there is growing tension between a law of the sea based on the neutrality of routes and freedom of navigation, and a power practice that tends to transform economic sanctions into instruments of military coercion. On the geopolitical front, there is a risk of maritime escalation, with possible countermeasures by the affected states and a progressive militarization of global energy routes.

On the other hand, all this is consistent with what the U.S. administration is doing: creating rapid chaos that distracts the world, while surgically targeting certain elements within the American system and, on the other hand, applying the Donroe Doctrine and establishing control over the Western Hemisphere.

The seizure of oil tankers is not just an isolated episode of conflict between states, but a sign of a deeper transformation of the international order. The U.S. has set out with conviction and has no intention of stopping. If this practice were to become established, international maritime law would risk being very quickly stripped of its fundamental principles, leaving room for a logic of force in which naval supremacy replaces shared legality. The issue, therefore, is not only about the seized ships, but the entire future of global maritime governance.

The U.S. has said it: Venezuela is American property and from now on will be its new backyard. Greenland will be next.

Piracy elevated to the rank of military strategy and international relations.

And remember: in just 11 months of government, since the beginning of his second term, Donald Trump has bombed seven sovereign countries: Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen, Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela. He has kidnapped one head of state (Maduro) and threatened to kill three others: Khamenei, Petro, and Rodriguez. He has threatened to invade five countries: Iran, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, and Greenland (i.e., Denmark). He has done everything in his power to prevent the international community from passing resolutions against Israel and its prime minister Netanyahu during and after the massacres in Gaza.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense, who is not misled by political preconceptions, can draw the most basic conclusions from these actions.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

What Does Venezuela Have to Do with Israel?

It may have friends that Netanyahu does not like

By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • January 9, 2026

It is interesting to observe how United States foreign policy, such as it is, often appears to have an Israeli back story that explains at least in part how Donald Trump’s mindless aggression against much of the world is driven by Zionist imperatives rather than actual American interests. Ukraine is supported by Israel and the US Israel Lobby in part because the roots of many diaspora and Israeli Jews are “Kazarian,” i.e. they derive from that part of Eastern Europe. Plus, Ukraine’s acting head of state Volodymyr Zelensky is a Jew whose mother and father reportedly live in Israel in a posh residence paid for by the money stolen by their son from US and European donations to Kiev to fight Russia. Also, the Jewish antipathy towards Moscow in large part derives from the belief that Imperial Russia was the source of many pogroms in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. That narrative fails, however, to mention how Russian Jews turned Bolshevik and, becoming enforcers of the Communist Revolution, subsequently got their revenge a hundred-fold on Russian and other Eastern European Christians.

And, of course, it has been frequently observed how US policy in the Middle East is essentially dictated by war criminal Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who de facto controls both Trump and the US Congress. The Israel Lobby also has significant input into what goes on at state and local government levels and has considerable control over what appears in the national media, which they increasingly own thanks to the efforts of Jewish billionaires like Larry Ellison. This ability to use money to manipulate politics and government has been manifested in the ability to suppress free speech in the United States when the topic is Israel’s abhorrent behavior towards the Palestinians and its other neighbors. Criminalizing antisemitism, which includes any criticism of Israel, has become the crime du jour to silence opposition to pro-Zionist agendas at both federal and state levels and it has also been used to eliminate Palestinian support at universities and through the job market. Beyond that, the US State Department is now demanding access to the social media of visa applicants so that those who are supporters of the Palestinian cause can be blocked from entry into the United States. This is what Jewish power in America is all about.

It is interesting to note the somewhat unexpected Israeli and Jewish hand in recent US aggression directed particularly against Venezuela. There are several main reasons for the Venezuela hit. Caracas developed a close relationship with Iran through its negotiations over BRICS and has unambiguously sided with Palestine in denouncing the Zionist war crimes and crimes against humanity. This clearly was impressed upon Donald Trump and his consiglieri by the Israelis and members of the Israeli Lobby like Miriam Adelson and Laura Loomer who have full access to the president and who no doubt were able to convince the Orangeman that he would be able to benefit by striking against an ally of a common enemy of the US and Israel with one fell swoop.

Trump could and did plead nevertheless that he was only applying his heavily promoted “corollary to the Monroe Doctrine,” which he inevitably dubbed the “Donroe Doctrine,” and which was explicit in the new National Security Strategy. But he surely knew that he would also at the same time be satisfying the demands of his Jewish donors and Netanyahu himself, who undoubtedly raised the issue of Venezuela with the president and his staff on his recent visit to Florida.

So the possibility that there just might be a relationship between Venezuela and Iran has become something that is exploitable by the Israel Lobby and also by Trump. On his recent visit, Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to identify the issue and no doubt also personally pushed for Trump to do something right away. Bibi also appeared on US television and told one interviewer that Iran is “exporting terrorism… to Venezuela. They’re in cahoots with the Maduro regime… this has got to change.” The Israelis also see ties between Caracas and both Hamas and Hezbollah, a claim that has been echoed in the US national-Zionist-at-all-times media.

To cite only one example of how it works, Fox News has published an article claiming Maduro’s Venezuela has become “Hezbollah’s most important base of operations in the Western Hemisphere, strengthened by Iran’s growing footprint and the Maduro regime’s protection.” Ultra-Zionist US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, not to be outdone, later doubled down, stating publicly that the US overthrow of Maduro was good news for Israel because of Venezuela’s partnership with Iran and Hezbollah.

The New York Times meanwhile has soft-pedaled its news coverage of the Caracas attack and instead has featured several prominent Zionist opinion contributors who have argued that for those Middle Eastern connections alone Venezuela has deserved everything that it has so far received at the hands of the US military. The always reliable Israeli firster Bret Stephens opined that There Were Good Reasons to Depose Maduro citing the Venezuelan Vice-and-Acting President Delcy Rodríguez having “claimed Maduro’s capture had ‘Zionist undertones,’ suggesting that her grip on reality may not be what the [Trump] administration hopes.”

And on the same day in The Times there appeared good old reliable Elliott Abrams in his A Defense of US Intervention in Venezuela claiming that he knows things about the threat posed by Venezuela that no one else seems to be aware of aside from him and his Zionist buddies. He states that “… they have invited into Venezuela Cuban thugs, and Hezbollah and Iran, as well as Russia and China. So, it’s a security issue for the whole region, again, including for the United States. For Hezbollah, for example, and Iran, we know that the Maduro regime gave them blank passports so that agents of Iran and Hezbollah could be moving around Latin America and elsewhere under false identities. We know that Iran has helped not only give drones to the Venezuelan military, but helped them learn how to build drones. We know from the Israeli experience with Iran, drones can go a very long distance now. We’re talking about drones that can hit not only Puerto Rico, but hit the continental United States. When I was in the State Department doing this about five years ago, Iran was contemplating giving intermediate-range missiles, which could reach the United States, to the Maduro regime in Venezuela. So this is an actual security threat in Latin America and to us.”

So Israel and its friends were no doubt delighted when Donald Trump decided to attack Venezuela and kidnap its president Nicolas Maduros. Netanyahu personally thanked Washington after the Venezuela attack took place, tweeting that “Congratulations, President @realDonaldTrump for your bold and historic leadership on behalf of freedom and justice. I salute your decisive resolve and the brilliant action of your brave soldiers.”

Perhaps this extra agenda in support of Israel explains why Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodriguez has herself gone on television to say her country will not be “cowed” by Washington. As Bret Stephens maintains, she also believes that “Venezuela is the victim and target of an attack of this nature, which undoubtedly has Zionist undertones. It is truly shameful.” To be sure there is one thing that is true, that as Venezuela is critical of Israeli war crimes, its government has broken diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv and recognized Palestinian statehood. It might therefore very plausibly be suggested that Netanyahu, speaking for his government, which in return has been openly supporting regime change in Venezuela, played the decisive role in convincing his pliable tool Trump to move on Caracas sooner rather than later when they met recently in Mar-del-Lago.

So the attack on Venezuela has opened the door to all kinds of complications and intrigue. Given the ability of the Israelis to manipulate an ignorant and confused Trump, who now claims his policies are guided only by his “morality” rather than “international rule of law,” the next developments will almost certainly include a joint Israel-US attack on Iran. And when that initiative has run out there will certainly be still more enemies of Israel to confront. And what will be the benefit for the average American when all the costs and deaths are counted after it is all over? As usual, “Nothing!”

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org

January 11, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Halliburton Executive Contradicts Trump on Venezuela Sanctions, Exposing Economic Hypocrisy

Trump’s own 2019 sanctions — not business decisions — forced Halliburton to abandon Venezuela

teleSUR | January 10, 2026

A now-viral video has reignited global scrutiny over Washington’s coercive economic policies. Speaking directly to camera, asenior company official clarified a critical fact often omitted in U.S. political discourse: “We didn’t leave Venezuela by choice or due to operational issues. We were forced out by the sanctions imposed by Trump’s own administration in 2019.”

The statement, originally shared by Venezuelan journalist Joan Contreras and widely disseminated by the investigative outlet Misión Verdad, delivers a rare insider account from within one of America’s most powerful oil service corporations. It directly challenges recent claims by former President Donald Trump – who, amid speculation about his return to office in 2025, has floated the idea of “immediately lifting sanctions” to allow U.S. oil firms back into Venezuela.

But as the Halliburton executive makes clear, the very policies Trump championed are what expelled these companies in the first place. Far from being a neutral market withdrawal, Halliburton’s exit was a direct consequence of U.S. Treasury Department directives that criminalized financial and commercial transactions with Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).

This revelation underscores a long-standing contradiction in U.S. foreign policy: sanctions billed as tools for “democracy promotion” end up punishing American corporations while deepening humanitarian suffering abroad. In Venezuela’s case, the human cost has been staggering – yet the corporate toll is now coming full circle.

Halliburton Executive Reveals Coercive Reality

The executive’s testimony aligns with documented history. In January 2019, during Trump’s first term, the U.S. imposed sweeping sanctions on PDVSA, effectively freezing its U.S.-based assets and prohibiting any American entity from engaging in oil-related transactions with the company. For Halliburton—a firm that had operated in Venezuela for over six decades and provided critical drilling, well completion, and reservoir management services—the order was unambiguous: comply or face crippling fines and legal penalties.

“We had no option,” the executive explained. “Continuing operations would have meant violating U.S. law. The Treasury made it clear: work with PDVSA, and you’re out of the U.S. financial system.”

These sanctions were part of a broader “maximum pressure” campaign that included secondary sanctions targeting non-U.S. entities, asset freezes, and visa bans. By 2020, nearly all major American oil service firms—including Schlumberger and Baker Hughes—had suspended Venezuelan operations, despite having profitable contracts and functional infrastructure on the ground.

Experts consulted by teleSUR emphasize that this episode reveals the self-defeating nature of unilateral sanctions. “Washington claims it wants U.S. companies to dominate global energy markets,” said Dr. Elena Martínez, an international trade analyst at the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO). “But by weaponizing finance, it pushes its own corporations out of strategic territories—opening the door for Russia, China, and Iran to step in.”

Indeed, since 2019, PDVSA has forged new technical and commercial alliances with Rosneft, CNPC, and Iranian firms, gradually restoring production capacity despite ongoing U.S. restrictions. In 2025, Venezuela reported its highest oil output in five years—proof that economic siege does not equate to control.

Geopolitical Context: Sanctions as a Double-Edged Sword in Global Energy Politics

The Halliburton admission arrives at a pivotal moment in global energy realignment. As the world transitions toward multipolarity, U.S. sanctions are increasingly seen not as instruments of power, but as accelerants of de-dollarization and alliance diversification. Countries targeted by Washington – from Venezuela to Iran to Russia – are deepening trade in local currencies, building alternative payment systems, and reducing reliance on Western financial infrastructure.

For American oil giants, this shift carries long-term strategic costs. While short-term compliance with sanctions may avoid legal trouble, it cedes influence in some of the world’s largest hydrocarbon reserves. Venezuela alone holds the largest proven oil reserves on Earth – over 300 billion barrels – mostly in the heavy crude of the Orinoco Belt, a region where Halliburton once held technological dominance.

Moreover, the hypocrisy exposed by the executive’s statement undermines U.S. credibility in multilateral forums. When Washington presents sanctions as “peaceful tools,” yet they result in $130 billion in estimated Venezuelan economic losses since 2015 (according to Caracas), and simultaneously force U.S. firms out of lucrative markets, the narrative collapses under its own weight.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures has repeatedly condemned such policies, noting they violate international law and disproportionately harm civilians. Yet the Halliburton case shows even corporate elites are not immune—suggesting that sanctions function less as precision tools and more as blunt instruments of economic warfare with indiscriminate fallout.

Regionally, this dynamic strengthens Latin American calls for sovereignty. Brazil’s Lula, Colombia’s Petro, and Mexico’s Sheinbaum have all criticized U.S. sanctions as relics of interventionism. If American businesses themselves acknowledge the damage, regional resistance will only grow.

Corporate Testimony Undermines U.S. Political Narratives

Trump’s recent suggestion that lifting sanctions would “bring U.S. oil companies rushing back” ignores a fundamental reality: trust has been broken. After being compelled to abandon decades of investment overnight, firms like Halliburton face enormous legal, financial, and reputational risks in re-entering Venezuela—even if sanctions ease.

Furthermore, the geopolitical landscape has shifted. PDVSA no longer depends solely on Western technology. With Russian drilling equipment, Chinese refining partnerships, and Iranian logistical support, Venezuela has built a resilient, sanctions-resistant oil ecosystem. U.S. firms may find the door not as open as they imagine.

The Venezuelan government has consistently maintained that sanctions constitute a flagrant violation of international law, amounting to collective punishment of its civilian population. From medicine shortages to power grid failures, the humanitarian impact is well-documented. Yet the Halliburton video adds a new dimension: even the architects of U.S. corporate power are casualties of this policy.

As speculation grows about potential partial sanctions relief in 2026 – possibly tied to electoral conditions or oil-for-debt deals – the executive’s message serves as a sobering reminder: coercion begets fragmentation, not compliance.

Conclusion: When Sanctions Backfire on Their Own Enforcers

The viral testimony of a Halliburton executive does more than correct the historical record—it exposes the internal contradictions of U.S. foreign policy. The Halliburton executive contradicts Trump on Venezuela sanctions not to defend Caracas, but to defend truth: American companies didn’t flee Venezuela because of chaos or mismanagement. They were pushed out by Washington itself.

In doing so, the U.S. not only harmed millions of Venezuelans but also weakened its own strategic position in the global energy arena. As the world moves toward multipolarity, such self-inflicted wounds may prove harder to heal than any military defeat.

For now, the video stands as a rare moment of corporate candor—and a powerful indictment of a policy that sacrifices both people and profits on the altar of hegemony.

January 11, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Economics | , | Leave a comment

Wary US Oil Giants Dodge Venezuela Investment Pitch

Sputnik – 10.01.2026

American oil majors left a White House meeting without signing up for a fast money push into Venezuela’s oil sector following the capture of the country’s legitimate President Nicolas Maduro, reports Axios.

The Trump administration has floated a $100 billion investment figure, promising “security” and “direct deals” with the US. But executives kept their distance.

  • Exxon CEO Darren Woods bluntly called Venezuela “uninvestable” under current legal and commercial conditions
  • ConocoPhillips’s Ryan Lance stressed the need to talk with banks — likely including the US Export-Import Bank – on how to restructure debt “to deliver the billions of dollars that are required to restore their energy infrastructure”
  • Chevron — the only US major still operating in Venezuela — stuck to cautious language, focusing on employee safety and “compliance with all laws and regulations applicable to its business, as well as the sanctions frameworks provided for by the US government”

A handful of independents reportedly signaled interest, but with Venezuela’s output at around 800,000 barrels per day – still far below its past peaks – and legal risks front of mind, Wall Street’s oil titans aren’t exactly racing back in.

Getting back to the 3.5 million barrels per day level of the late 1990s could require much more than $100 billion worth of investment over a significant number of years, according to analysts cited by the outlet.

Oil prices are currently low, with WTI crude hovering around $59 per barrel, which also plays a significant factor in the reluctance — major investments in Venezuela’s heavy crude projects would require much higher sustained prices to justify the risks and capital investments.

January 10, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , | Leave a comment

US hijacks fifth oil tanker in Caribbean waters as Washington tightens blockade on Venezuela

The Cradle | January 9, 2026

The Wall Street Journal reported on 9 January that US naval forces boarded and seized control of the oil tanker Olina, expanding Washington’s campaign against vessels linked to Venezuelan crude shipments.

The theft was carried out after a “prolonged pursuit” by the US Coast Guard, according to the report, citing unnamed US officials and data from the maritime tracking firm Vanguard.

The Olina was intercepted in the Caribbean Sea near Trinidad, after previously traveling from Venezuela and returning to the region.

US authorities describe the Olina as part of a so-called “shadow fleet,” a label used by Western governments to criminalize oil tankers that move crude outside US and EU control mechanisms.

The vessel was previously named Minerva M and has been embargoed by the US, EU, UK, and others for carrying Russian oil in breach of earlier restrictions.

The takeover of the Olina marks the fifth tanker stolen by the US in recent weeks, including the Marinera, formerly known as Bella 1, which was sailing under a Russian flag when it was taken.

Washington frames the move as part of a broader effort to control Venezuelan oil flows.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said this week that the US is enforcing “the blockade against all dark fleet vessels illegally transporting Venezuelan oil,” accusing them of “stealing from the Venezuelan people.”

The reported action comes amid rising tensions between Washington and Moscow, and as US President Donald Trump pushes for tighter enforcement of the Venezuelan oil trade.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro faces trial after being abducted by US forces in Caracas on 3 January.

According to a recent report by AFP, three tankers chartered by Chevron were transporting Venezuelan oil to the US, as Washington’s blockade caused crude stocks inside Venezuela to swell.

The transfers followed comments by US President Donald Trump claiming Caracas would hand over tens of millions of barrels of embargoed crude, while analysts warned that rising onshore and offshore storage levels point to a growing export bottleneck driven by the blockade.

January 9, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

One Hundred People Killed in US Attack on Venezuela – Interior Minister

Sputnik – 08.01.2026

CARACAS – One hundred people were killed in the US attack on Venezuela, the Latin American country’s Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello said.

“Venezuela was the victim of a barbaric, treacherous attack… so far there are 100 dead and a similar number of wounded,” Venezuela’s Interior, Justice and Peace Minister Diosdado Cabello said, adding that among those killed were civilians — including “people who were in their homes.”

Cabello also said the current priority is the return of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, and stated that both suffered injuries during their kidnapping.

He described the aggression as a shock to a population that “was in no situation that required a military attack,” saying it has left “a wave of terror.”

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

Venezuela to Buy Only US-Made Products Under New ‘Oil Deal’ – Trump

Sputnik – 08.01.2026

WASHINGTON – US President Donald Trump said Venezuela would only purchase American-made products as part of a “deal” with Washington to sell the Latin American country’s oil.

“I have just been informed that Venezuela is going to be purchasing ONLY American Made Products, with the money they receive from our new Oil Deal. These purchases will include, among other things, American Agricultural Products, and American Made Medicines, Medical Devices, and Equipment to improve Venezuela’s Electric Grid and Energy Facilities. In other words, Venezuela is committing to doing business with the United States of America as their principal partner,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

He said it is a “wise choice,” and a good thing for Venezuelans and Americans.

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

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »