Three Reasons Iran Condemns US Attack on Venezuela as a Global Threat
teleSUR | January 3, 2026
Iran condemns U.S. attack on Venezuela as a flagrant breach of international law and a dangerous escalation that threatens the foundations of the global order. On January 3, 2026, the Islamic Republic of Iran issued a forceful statement in response to Washington’s large-scale military operation on Venezuelan soil—an assault that, according to the White House, resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.
From Tehran’s perspective, this is not merely a regional crisis. It is a systemic rupture with implications that extend far beyond Latin America. The Iranian Foreign Ministry framed the offensive as a textbook case of unilateral aggression, echoing historical patterns of imperial intervention that have long destabilized the Global South. In doing so, Iran positioned itself not only as a regional power but as a principled voice defending the sanctity of state sovereignty against military hegemony.
The gravity of Iran’s condemnation lies not just in its rhetoric but in its legal grounding. Tehran explicitly cited Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. According to Iran, the U.S. strikes—reportedly targeting civilian infrastructure alongside military installations—constitute an “unequivocal act of aggression” that must be met with immediate international censure and legal accountability.
Iran Condemns US Attack on Venezuela as Illegal Under International Law
The Iranian Foreign Ministry’s statement, released on Saturday, January 3, 2026, pulled no punches. “This criminal, cowardly, and terrorist act by the United States violates every principle of international coexistence,” the document declared—words that closely mirror those used by Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello in Caracas hours earlier.
Iran emphasized the illegality of targeting civilian infrastructure, including electrical grids and residential zones, actions it described as potential war crimes under the Geneva Conventions. Tehran rejected any justification based on regime change or alleged humanitarian concerns, stressing that only the UN Security Council holds the legitimate authority to authorize the use of force—and even then, only as a last resort.
The International Court of Justice has repeatedly affirmed that unilateral military interventions, regardless of motive, violate the core tenets of the UN Charter. Iran’s stance aligns with this jurisprudence, positioning the U.S. operation not as an isolated incident but as part of a broader erosion of multilateralism. “When powerful states bypass the Security Council,” the statement warned, “they don’t restore order—they incite chaos.”
Crucially, Iran also underscored Venezuela’s inherent right to self-defense and resistance against foreign occupation—a principle enshrined in both international law and the historical consciousness of post-colonial states. By doing so, Tehran reinforced its long-standing advocacy for the Global South’s right to political autonomy, free from external coercion.
Iran Joins Global South Coalition Against U.S. Military Aggression
While Western media have focused on the tactical details of the U.S. operation, Iran’s diplomatic response underscores a deeper geopolitical realignment. Tehran’s condemnation places it firmly within a growing coalition of nations—including Russia, China, Cuba, and Colombia—that view the attack as a direct threat to regional peace and global legal norms.
Iran and Venezuela have cultivated close strategic ties for over two decades, particularly through their shared membership in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and their mutual opposition to U.S.-led sanctions regimes. In this context, Iran’s statement is both principled and pragmatic: it defends a key ally while reinforcing its own narrative as a champion of anti-imperialist sovereignty.
As a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement, Iran has consistently opposed unilateral military interventions—from Iraq to Libya to Syria. The current crisis in Venezuela is seen through that same lens: not as a domestic political issue, but as a test of whether international law applies equally to all nations, or only to the weak.
Notably, Iran called on all UN member states to fulfill their “legal and moral duty” by demanding an immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of U.S. forces, and accountability for those responsible for planning and executing the operation. It also urged the Security Council to invoke Chapter VII—not to authorize further force, but to sanction the aggressor and protect the sovereignty of the victim.
This stance resonates across Latin America, where leaders like Gustavo Petro of Colombia and Miguel Díaz-Canel of Cuba have echoed Iran’s concerns. Even within traditionally neutral countries like Uruguay, political figures from the ruling Frente Amplio—such as Rafael Michelini—have echoed Tehran’s alarm, warning that “the prairie of Latin America has been set on fire.”
Geopolitical Context: Iran’s Message to the World
Iran’s condemnation of the U.S. attack on Venezuela carries layered implications. At a time when Tehran faces its own threats of military action—particularly from Israel and hardliners in Washington—its vocal defense of Caracas serves as both a warning and a mirror. By highlighting the illegality of unilateral force, Iran seeks to reinforce norms that could one day protect its own sovereignty.
Moreover, the timing is significant. With Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and strategic location, the U.S. incursion risks triggering a wider confrontation involving Russia, China, and other non-Western powers. Iran’s intervention in the diplomatic arena aims to prevent escalation while strengthening South-South solidarity.
In essence, Iran is not just defending Venezuela—it is defending a vision of international order based on equality, mutual respect, and adherence to law, rather than power projection and regime change. In an era of resurgent great-power rivalry, that message carries weight far beyond the Middle East or Latin America.
Conclusion: A Sovereignty Line in the Sand
Iran condemns U.S. attack on Venezuela not out of blind allegiance, but as a matter of principle rooted in decades of anti-imperialist foreign policy. In a world where unilateralism increasingly masquerades as “strategic necessity,” Tehran’s statement is a stark reminder that sovereignty remains the bedrock of international peace.
Whether the UN will act—or whether the Global South can mount a coordinated response—remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: Iran has drawn a line in the sand, and it stands not alone, but alongside a growing bloc of nations determined to uphold the Charter that Washington now appears to have discarded.
Trump tells India to stop purchasing Iran oil, buy Venezuelan instead
Press TV – February 1, 2026
US President Donald Trump has told India to stop purchasing oil from Iran and instead supply its energy demands by buying crude from Venezuela.
“India is coming in, and they’re going to be buying Venezuelan oil as opposed to buying it from Iran. So, we’ve already made that deal, the concept of the deal,” Trump told reporters on board Air Force One on Saturday.
Earlier, Trump had threatened to slap fresh tariffs on India if New Delhi did not halt its purchase of oil from US adversaries.
However, New Delhi had resisted the threat, reminding the US president that Washington had no authority to determine the trading relations of other nations.
Trump is openly saying that he has taken full control of Venezuela’s oil industry following the US forces’ kidnapping of the South American country’s president, Nicolas Maduro.
Under the pretext of leading a cartel of drug and gun traffickers, Maduro was abducted from the presidential palace in Caracas last month and transferred to a prison facility in New York pending trial.
In the meantime, Trump has announced that the United States is controlling the proceeds of Venezuela’s oil sales. The Latin American country is among the top oil producers with the biggest proven reserves in the world.
“This Oil will be sold at its market price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social earlier last month.
Legal experts say Trump’s claim to Venezuela’s oil reserves is unlawful. There is expert consensus that Venezuela’s oil proceeds belong solely to its people.
Venezuela under siege: Why US escalation could destabilize an entire region
By Leila Nezirevic | Al Mayadeen | December 28, 2025
Washington’s confrontation with Venezuela has entered a dangerous new phase. What began years ago as sanctions aimed at pressuring President Nicolás Maduro’s government has now escalated into naval interdictions, oil tanker seizures, and open discussion of military action — a shift that risks destabilizing not only Venezuela but much of Latin America.
In recent weeks, the United States has intensified its campaign by intercepting Venezuelan oil shipments at sea, effectively enforcing what officials describe as a “blockade” of sanctioned vessels. Caracas has denounced the move as piracy and a violation of international law, while Washington frames it as a legitimate enforcement of sanctions and a counter-narcotics operation.
Yet behind the legal arguments and political messaging lies a deeper strategic shift, one that signals a return to a more coercive US posture in Latin America, with potentially profound consequences.
To understand the implications of this escalation, alngside current regional developments and historical precedents, this article draws on an in-depth interview with veteran journalist and leading Latin America expert Richard Lapper.
A sharp escalation at sea
The most visible sign of Washington’s new approach has been its actions in international waters. US naval forces have seized and disabled Venezuelan oil tankers accused of violating sanctions, while additional vessels remain under surveillance. These measures go beyond financial penalties and diplomatic pressure, marking one of the most forceful uses of maritime power against Venezuela in decades.
Caracas has condemned the seizures as an illegal blockade and accused Washington of weaponizing sanctions to strangle its economy. Venezuelan officials argue that the actions violate international maritime law and set a dangerous precedent for global trade.
Legal experts remain divided. While the US claims it is acting within the scope of sanctions enforcement, critics argue that interdicting vessels in international waters — especially without multilateral backing — risks undermining established norms of freedom of navigation.
Richard Lapper, also an author of several books, including Lula!: The Man, The Myth and a Dream of Latin America, is blunt in his assessment. “This is a breach of international law,” he says. “But I don’t think that really matters for the Trump administration. This is about exerting power.”
The return of the Monroe Doctrine
According to Lapper, Washington’s Venezuela policy reflects a broader reassertion of hemispheric dominance reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine — the 19th-century principle that Latin America falls within the United States’ exclusive sphere of influence.
For decades, US policy toward the region oscillated between overt intervention and softer approaches centred on democracy promotion and economic reform. That balance now appears to be tilting decisively toward coercion.
“This is a fairly clear restatement of a traditional US approach,” Lapper explains. “It says: this is our region, and we are going to exert our power.”
He points to recent US involvement in Honduras as emblematic of this shift. Washington strongly backed political actors aligned with its interests, even when they carried significant legal and ethical baggage. In doing so, the US signalled that strategic loyalty now outweighs democratic credentials.
From sanctions to military pressure
For years, sanctions were Washington’s primary tool against Venezuela. Initially justified as a way to pressure the Maduro government toward democratic reforms, the measures expanded to target the country’s oil industry — the backbone of its economy.
While sanctions inflicted economic pain, they failed to dislodge Maduro. Instead, Venezuela’s political system hardened, opposition forces fragmented, and millions of citizens left the country.
Now, sanctions are being reinforced by overt military pressure.
Trump has publicly refused to rule out armed conflict with Venezuela. While a full-scale invasion remains unlikely, Lapper, warns that limited military escalation is a real possibility.
“I don’t think war in the sense of large ground troop deployments is likely,” he says. “But significant military escalation — including drone strikes or targeted attacks on government assets — could happen.”
Such an approach would mirror recent conflicts elsewhere, where technologically advanced militaries sought to degrade adversaries without committing troops on the ground.
Yet Venezuela is not a small or easily controlled state. It is geographically vast, with difficult terrain and powerful non-state actors operating in rural areas.
“Venezuela is a big country,” Lapper cautions. “It would be very difficult for any external power to secure control of the entire territory.”
Drugs, terror labels, and political framing
Washington has justified some of its actions by framing Venezuela as a major hub for drug trafficking, alleging links between senior officials and organized crime networks such as the so-called “Cartel of the Suns.”
There is little dispute that narcotics pass through Venezuela en route to North America. The question is whether this justifies the current escalation — or whether it serves as political cover.
“You have to take the drug stuff with a pinch of salt,” Lapper says. “A lot of drugs do go through Venezuela, but to what extent Maduro himself is at the centre of this is highly contested.”
He notes the inconsistency of US drug policy, pointing to cases where Washington has quietly abandoned its tough stance when political interests demanded it.
“It’s a convenient wrapper for the policy,” Lapper argues. “But the real objective is regional domination.”
A changing political landscape in Latin America
The escalation against Venezuela is unfolding amid a broader political realignment across Latin America. After the so-called “pink tide” of left-wing governments in the early 2000s, the region has swung sharply to the right.
Conservative and far-right leaders now dominate in countries such as Argentina, El Salvador, and Chile, while left-wing governments face mounting pressure elsewhere.
“These are the leaders setting the regional mood,” Lapper says, pointing to figures like Argentina’s Javier Milei and El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele. “Not the Lulas and Chavezes of the past.”
This shift has two implications. First, it reduces regional resistance to US pressure on Venezuela. Second, it creates an environment in which hardline security approaches are politically fashionable.
Ironically, however, overt US intervention can still backfire. In Brazil, for instance, perceived external interference has boosted nationalist sentiment and temporarily strengthened President Lula’s standing.
Venezuela’s economic collapse: Sanctions
One of the central debates surrounding Venezuela concerns responsibility for its economic collapse. Washington argues that sanctions are a response to authoritarianism and corruption. Caracas insists that sanctions themselves are the root cause of suffering.
“Sanctions make things worse, Venezuela was producing three million barrels a day in the late 1990s,” Lapper notes. “Now it produces around a million. It used to be a major force in OPEC. It isn’t anymore.”
However, he also pointed out that even without sanctions, Venezuela would face deep structural challenges. With sanctions, those challenges have become existential.
Humanitarian fallout and migration pressures
The human cost of Venezuela’s crisis is staggering. Roughly one-fifth of the population has left the country, creating one of the largest displacement crises in modern history.
Escalating sanctions and blockades are likely to worsen this trend.
Within Venezuela, reduced oil revenues mean fewer imports, higher inflation, and deeper reliance on informal and illicit economic activities. Outside the country, neighbouring states struggle to absorb waves of migrants.
Brazil, which shares a long land border with Venezuela, has a direct interest in preventing further destabilisation. It has attempted to mediate politically, but with little success.
“Brazil wants stability,” Lapper says. “But its soft diplomacy hasn’t been effective.”
As conditions deteriorate, migration pressures are likely to intensify — not only toward neighbouring countries, but eventually toward the United States itself.
International allies and a shrinking safety net
Venezuela is not entirely isolated. Cuba remains its most important security ally, receiving subsidized oil in exchange for intelligence and political support.
Russia and China provide diplomatic backing, but neither appears eager to dramatically escalate its involvement.
“I don’t see Russia or China rushing to Venezuela’s aid,” Lapper says.
If US pressure cuts off oil supplies to Cuba, the effects could be destabilizing across the Caribbean. Cuba is already facing severe economic strain, with blackouts and protests becoming more frequent.
The risk, analysts warn, is a cascading crisis affecting multiple states simultaneously.
Lessons from past US interventions
History offers sobering lessons. US military interventions in Latin America have had mixed results at best. While short operations in Panama and Grenada succeeded tactically, longer engagements — such as Haiti — produced prolonged instability.
Elsewhere, particularly in the Middle East, US interventions over the past three decades have often exacerbated conflict rather than resolving it.
“The US does not have the staying power,” Lapper says. “There isn’t domestic support for long, messy interventions.”
That reality limits Washington’s options.
Sanctions alone have failed. Full-scale invasion is politically untenable. High-tech, limited strikes remain a temptation — but one fraught with risk.
What lies ahead for Venezuela?
Looking toward 2026, Lapper sees no easy resolution.
“I don’t see the end of the Maduro regime at the moment,” he says. “Escalation would have to be quite significant for that to happen.”
The most likely scenario, he argues, is continued stalemate: a current government clinging to power, an economy under siege, and a population increasingly forced to flee.
“There’s a lot of explosive material piled up in Venezuela,” Lapper observes. “But right now, there’s nothing to blow it up.”
Whether Washington’s escalating pressure will eventually trigger change — or simply deepen chaos — remains an open and deeply consequential question.
US Navy effectively becomes a tool of modern piracy
By Drago Bosnic | December 24, 2025
The political West has been conducting an unprovoked aggression against the entire world for at least half a millennium at this point. Whether through direct attacks and occupation or various forms of colonialism (that lasts to this day), the world’s most aggressive power pole has been a threat to every other country on this unfortunate planet. Although certainly not the only one, the primary tool of Western power projection have been navies, which is hardly surprising given the political West’s thalassocratic nature. Through naval supremacy, Western (primarily Anglo) powers have spread their colonial empires to virtually every corner of the world, exterminating the native populations along the way and settling in their lands.
Entire continents (such as North America and Australia) were secured through brutal genocide of the locals who now live in small, scattered communities (so-called “reservations/reserves”). The genocidal campaign continued throughout the Atlantic and Pacific, where numerous islands and maritime trade routes remain in Western hands to this very day. Controlling these areas is key to maintaining its stranglehold over global trade, as seen during the latest US attacks on inbound and outbound Venezuelan shipping. However, the Pentagon seems to be expanding this aggression to other countries trading with Caracas, including China, which is a major importer of Venezuelan commodities (particularly crude oil).
Namely, the US Navy and Coast Guard hijacked the “Centuries”, an oil tanker carrying up to two million barrels of Venezuelan crude to China. According to military sources, American forces, operating MH-60T helicopters and reportedly including a Maritime Security Response Team, led the raid. The oil belongs to the Chinese Satau Tijana Oil Trading company. In December alone, this is the third such incident where US naval assets effectively engaged in piracy, as these civilian ships were hijacked in international waters. The Chinese Foreign Ministry condemned the illegal raid, slamming it as a “serious violation of international maritime law and an illegal interference in legitimate global trade”.
This is an attempt to continue the policy of economic strangulation of Venezuela after the sanctions failed to produce the desired result (a color revolution that would bring a pro-American puppet regime to power). It comes less than a week after US President Donald Trump formally ordered the “total and complete blockade” of Venezuela, claiming that its government is now designated as a “foreign terrorist organization” (FTO). In his signature manner of communicating through the unchecked use of superlatives, Trump also bragged that the US Navy “completely surrounded” Venezuela with “the largest armada ever assembled in the history of South America”. Considering Caracas’ already difficult position, this is effectively a declaration of war.
Namely, Venezuela has a highly complex geographical and geopolitical position that makes lands routes largely unusable. Its coastline is the main lifeline that enables trade with the rest of the world, so Washington DC’s decision to engage in piracy against Caracas is a clear indicator that it doesn’t want to allow any sovereign nations to exist in the Western Hemisphere (especially now that the new US National Security Strategy and the restructuring of the Pentagon’s commands is putting an emphasis on the resurgent Monroe Doctrine). Venezuela is probably the most fiercely independent Latin American country, making it the No. 1 target for warmongers and war criminals in the monstrous American oligarchy.
What’s more, considering the fact that these pirates, thugs and goons in suits are terrified of China and its unprecedented development, they wouldn’t want to miss an opportunity to hurt Beijing’s interests. The Chinese economy, the world’s largest and most powerful since 2014, needs a constant supply of critical resources (particularly natural gas and oil). The US is unable to prevent Russia and other multipolar powers from trading with China, so it’s focused on disrupting this with other, more vulnerable countries, such as Venezuela. This is precisely why Beijing perceives the US, its vassals and satellite states as the primary threat to Chinese shipping and maritime trade (and naval security interests in general).
Obviously, the most glaring example of this is China’s breakaway island province of Taiwan, where a US puppet government is escalating tensions and jeopardizing Beijing’s basic national security interests. However, the Asian giant certainly understands that this is only one segment of the Western so-called “China containment” strategy that seeks to limit its ability to conduct unimpeded trade with the world. This is why China keeps building an ever stronger navy that can respond to such challenges. Namely, the US-led political West will undoubtedly continue to conduct its unprovoked aggression against the entire world unless prevented through the use of the only language it understands – force and violence.
It should be noted that this isn’t some spontaneous reaction to Beijing’s growth. And it’s certainly not limited only to the Trump administration. Namely, starting in the early 2010s, Barack Obama launched the so-called “Pivot to Asia” initiative to build up US/NATO presence in the Asia-Pacific. This continued during Trump’s first term, as well as the troubled Biden administration. In practice, this means that the warmongering American oligarchy pulls the strings regardless of who’s president. The Pentagon has increasingly stressed the need to launch “distant blockade operations”, the strategic goal of which is to cut off Chinese trade. This would give the US-led political West significant leverage over Beijing.
The same goes for Russia, whose shipping has been under attack for years, particularly when the Neo-Nazi junta is not doing so great on the battlefield in NATO-occupied Ukraine. Although the political West is attributing these attacks to the Kiev regime, it’s difficult to imagine the latter could conduct such operations thousands of kilometers away without ample Western support (if not direct orders and participation). This form of piracy gives the US, its vassals and satellite states perfect “plausible deniability”, meaning they can disrupt Moscow’s and Beijing’s economic interests without the need to engage Russian and Chinese militaries directly. This is precisely how piracy was used geopolitically until the early 18th century.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
US war hawk senator calls for seizure of Russian oil tankers
RT | December 22, 2025
US Senator Lindsey Graham has urged Washington to ramp up restrictions against Russia, including sanctioning China over its energy imports from Moscow and seizing tankers carrying Russian oil.
Last month, US President Donald Trump proposed a roadmap to resolve the Ukraine conflict, which Kiev and its European backers have rejected as favoring Russia, while stalling settlement efforts with counterproposals and accusing Moscow of delaying peace.
In an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Graham, a longtime Russia hawk, echoed that stance, claiming that Moscow has “rebuffed all our efforts” to end the conflict and would not sign a peace deal “until we increase pressure.”
“If [Russian President Vladimir Putin] says no this time… sign my bill that has 85 co-sponsors and puts tariffs on countries like China, who buy cheap Russian oil,” Graham said, referring to a bill he authored that would authorize tariffs of up to 500% on imports from countries that continue to buy Russian energy products. “Seize ships that are carrying sanctioned Russian oil like you’re doing in Venezuela. If Putin says no, we need to dramatically change the game,” the Republican added.
Moscow has criticized Western sanctions, warning that they violate international law and harm global economic stability. While Trump earlier floated sanctioning Russia’s trading partners amid frustration over stalled peace efforts, he has so far gone no further than imposing an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods over New Delhi’s trade with Moscow. India denounced the move as unjustified.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has cautioned against additional secondary sanctions or tariffs on major buyers of Russian oil, citing the risk of global energy price spikes. Even the EU, despite expanding its Russia sanctions to 19 packages, has avoided penalizing third-country partners.
The Geopolitical Imperative Behind US Policy Toward Venezuela
By Leanna Yavelskaya | Ron Paul Institute | December 21, 2025
In the intensifying great-power competition of the 21st century, Venezuela has emerged as a pivotal battleground in the Western Hemisphere—a proxy arena where the United States confronts the encroaching ambitions of China and Russia to preserve its historic regional dominance.
Conventional explanations for Washington’s unrelenting pressure on Caracas, citing resource acquisition or counternarcotics imperatives, crumble under scrutiny amid America’s strategic primacy, energy independence, and the broader architecture of multipolar rivalry.
US policy toward Venezuela is fundamentally a defensive maneuver in the superpower contest, aimed at denying Beijing and Moscow a strategic foothold in America’s backyard. Venezuela’s vast oil reserves—the world’s largest—might superficially suggest energy motives, yet the United States, now the globe’s top petroleum producer and exporter, no longer depends on Venezuelan heavy crudes. Sanctions have deliberately slashed imports, while any genuine resource priority would favor diplomatic normalization over confrontation. Historical US behavior reinforces this: when energy security truly matters, Washington opts for pragmatic deals, not escalation. The current standoff, therefore, serves deeper geopolitical ends—blocking rival powers from entrenching influence proximate to US shores.
The counternarcotics rationale fares no better. Venezuela transits cocaine but plays minimal role in the fentanyl epidemic ravaging America. Washington’s dollar hegemony and financial levers could dismantle trafficking networks without military brinkmanship, yet global drug flows persist due to strategic tolerances. Venezuela’s marginal position in this trade renders anti-drug rhetoric an inadequate justification for the extraordinary measures deployed, including naval blockades and tanker seizures.
The core driver is Venezuela’s alignment with US adversaries, transforming it into a potential forward base for China and Russia in the Americas. Beijing has poured billions in loans-for-oil, infrastructure projects, and discounted crude purchases—securing long-term resource access while propping up the regime against Western isolation, even as recent US escalations test this lifeline. Moscow has supplied arms, intelligence, and diplomatic shielding, positioning Venezuela as a counterweight to US hegemony, much as it leverages proxies elsewhere. These partnerships challenge enduring American doctrines: the Monroe legacy rejecting extra-hemispheric powers in the Americas, and Cold War precedents like the Cuban Missile Crisis, where Soviet encroachment provoked crisis.
No US administration—Democratic or Republican—has tolerated a peer rival gaining decisive leverage in Latin America. The Trump administration’s 2025 campaign, with carrier groups, strikes on vessels, and a declared blockade of sanctioned tankers, underscores this zero-tolerance posture amid Maduro’s disputed reelection and pleas for Russian and Chinese aid. Venezuela embodies the frontline of eroding US unipolarity: proximity magnifies threats, just as China dominates the Indo-Pacific or Russia its near abroad.
This is no mere bilateral dispute over democracy or drugs—it is a superpower clash over spheres of influence in a fragmenting world order. Caracas’s geopolitical pivot toward Beijing and Moscow directly contests Washington’s hemispheric primacy. The United States will not permit rival superpowers to consolidate enduring control on its doorstep, a contest that will shape power balances in the Americas and beyond for decades. As great-power rivalry intensifies, Venezuela’s fate signals whether the US can stanch encroachment in its traditional domain or cede ground in the new multipolar era.
Leanna Yavelskaya is a freelance civilian journalist who focuses on geopolitical analysis, with particular emphasis on Eastern Europe.
Venezuela’s Drug-running Hobbyists
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | December 22, 2025
The absurdities keep piling up to justify increasing United States aggression against Venezuela in the name of fighting the war on drugs.
An organization that the US government’s own intelligence reporting says is not a drug cartel controlled by the Venezuela government has been relentlessly propagandized as directed by Venezuela’s president to send fentanyl and cocaine to America despite those substances actually primarily coming from other countries.
Plus, the US military has been since early September blowing up small boats and killing all the occupants, claiming the boats are transporting drugs as part of Venezuela’s “narco-terrorism” threat. No proof is ever offered about the boats and their crews. And the destructive force employed eliminates any evidence. “Just trust us” seems to be the motto of the enormous US military force pursuing a macabre hunt at sea.
Saturday, after US military forces boarded and seized a second oil tanker that had left Venezuela, came a new ridiculous drug war rooted argument for the continuing ramping up of aggression. Why was the tanker seized? US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem provided this explanation at Twitter: The seizure was part of the US government’s fight against the “illicit movement of sanctioned oil that is used to fund narco terrorism in the region.”
Got that? Noem is saying that these Venezuelan narco-terrorists, the combating of whom has become a primary focus of the massive US military, cannot even make ends meet through their drug enterprise. Instead, the drug running is all just a hobby funded by other activities typically pursued by ordinary businesses such as using tankers to transport oil.
We are supposed to be afraid of these guys? Drug cartels are known for members being able to buy fancy homes and cars with the proceeds of their drug activities. By contrast, the Venezuelan drug threat that supposedly calls for the US military to go all out in threatening the nation of Venezuela apparently can’t even operate in the black. Oil shipping is a needed activity for members to pay their rent and stop repo men from towing away their Kia Fortes.
Its involvement in shipping oil, Noem indicates, funds the purportedly uniquely menacing Venezuela drug cartel’s hobby of participating in the global illicit drug trade. Enough already with the drug war propaganda that keeps ascending further into goofiness. Withdraw the US military force deployed to threaten Venezuela and call it a day.
The Rise of the Isaac Accords: How Israel is Redrawing South America’s Political Landscape
This is not neutral cooperation. It is political conditionality.
By Freddie Ponton | 21st Century Wire | December 15, 2025
Foreign influence in the Global South rarely arrives in uniform. It comes disguised as ethics, stability, and shared values, only revealing its true cost once the rules are set. In Latin America, such a transformation is now underway. A new architecture of alignment is being quietly assembled, presented as moral course correction but functioning as a geopolitical filter. At its core lie the Isaac Accords, a project deliberately modelled on the Abraham Accords. Where the latter normalised Israel’s position in the Middle East through elite deals brokered by Washington, the Isaac Accords aim to reorder Latin American politics by locking governments, economies, and security institutions into Israeli and U.S. strategic orbit.
The Accords are not simply about Israel’s image or diplomatic isolation. They operate as a filter of legitimacy: governments that align are embraced, financed, and promoted; those that resist are marginalised, sanctioned, or framed as moral outliers. Venezuela, long aligned with Palestine and the broader Axis of Non-Alignment, sits squarely in the crosshairs.
This article examines how the Isaac Accords function in practice, why figures such as Javier Milei and María Corina Machado have become central to their rollout, and what this strategy reveals about Israel’s ambitions in South America, not as a neutral partner, but as an active geopolitical actor working in tandem with U.S. power.
The Isaac Accords: A Latin American Reboot of the Abraham Model
The Isaac Accords did not emerge in a vacuum. They are consciously modelled on the Abraham Accords, which rebranded Israel’s regional integration in the Middle East as “peace” while bypassing Palestinian self-determination entirely. The lesson Israeli and U.S. policymakers appear to have drawn is simple: normalisation works best when imposed from above, through elite alignment, financial incentives, and security integration.
The Accords are administered through a U.S.-based nonprofit, American Friends of the Isaac Accords, and financially seeded through institutions closely linked to Israeli state and diaspora networks. Their stated aim is to counter antisemitism and hostility toward Israel. Their operational requirements, however, reveal a far broader ambition.
Countries seeking entry are expected to:
- Relocate embassies to Jerusalem, recognising Israeli sovereignty over a contested city
- Redesignate Hamas and Hezbollah in line with Israeli security doctrine
- Reverse voting patterns at the UN and the OAS, where Latin America has historically voted in favour of Palestinian rights
- Enter intelligence-sharing agreements targeting Chinese, Iranian, Cuban, Bolivian, and Venezuelan influence
- Open strategic sectors: water, agriculture, digital governance, security, to Israeli firms
Israel’s own diplomats have described the Isaac Accords as a way to pull “undecided” Latin American states into Israel’s orbit at a moment when European public opinion has become less reliable. In other words, the Global South is being repositioned as Israel’s strategic rear guard.
The role of Javier Milei in Argentina illustrates how this model operates. Milei has not merely improved relations with Israel; he has embraced it as an ideological reference point. He has pledged to move Argentina’s embassy to Jerusalem, framed Israel as a civilisational ally, and positioned himself as the Isaac Accords’ flagship political figure.
Co-Founder and Chairman of The Genesis Prize Foundation Stan Polovets presents prize to 2025 Laureate Javier Milei on June 12 in Jerusalem. (Source: American Friends of Isaac Accords)
That role was formalised in 2025 when Milei became the Genesis Prize Laureate, an award frequently described as the “Jewish Nobel Prize.” The Genesis Prize is not politically neutral. It is explicitly awarded to figures who strengthen Israel’s global standing and its ties with the diaspora. Milei’s decision to donate the prize money directly back into the Isaac Accords ecosystem symbolised how moral recognition, political allegiance, and financing now operate as a single circuit.
This is alignment rewarded, visibly, materially, and publicly.
As reported by AP in August, the Isaac Accords are set to extend to Brazil, Colombia, Chile, and potentially El Salvador by 2026, as stated by the organizers, the American Friends of the Isaac Accords.
Recent New York Times reporting situates Brad Parscale’s involvement in the Honduran election within Numen, a Buenos Aires–based political consultancy he co-founded with Argentine strategist Fernando Cerimedo, highlighting how transnational firms operate beyond traditional regulatory scrutiny. Critics warn that Numen’s methods reflect a broader global political influence ecosystem that often draws on data-driven targeting, psychological profiling, and digital amplification techniques associated with Israeli-linked political technology and messaging firms that have operated in elections worldwide.
When combined with U.S. political endorsements, strategic pardons, and offshore consulting structures, this model raises serious concerns about how advanced data analytics and covert messaging infrastructures are used to shape voter behavior in vulnerable democracies, eroding electoral sovereignty while remaining largely insulated from accountability.
Venezuela, Palestine, and the Manufacturing of Illegitimacy
If the Isaac Accords require a moral antagonist, Venezuela fulfils that role perfectly.
Since Hugo Chávez severed diplomatic relations with Israel in 2009, in response to Israel’s assault on Gaza, Venezuela has positioned itself as one of Palestine’s most consistent supporters in the Western Hemisphere. Chávez, and later Nicolás Maduro, framed Palestinian resistance not as terrorism but as an anti-colonial struggle, aligning Venezuela with much of the Global South rather than the Atlantic bloc.
Under the Isaac Accords’ logic, this position is intolerable.
Opposition to Israel is no longer treated as a political stance but as evidence of extremism or antisemitism. Zionism and Judaism are deliberately conflated, allowing criticism of Israeli state policy to be reframed as hatred. This narrative provides the moral justification for isolation, sanctions, and, potentially, regime change.
Maria Corina Machado in Venezuela, Thursday, July 25, 2024. (Source: AP – Matias Delacroix)
Into this context steps María Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition figure most warmly received by Israeli and U.S. political networks. Machado’s alignment with Israel is not rhetorical or recent. In 2020, her party, Vente Venezuela, signed a formal inter-party cooperation agreement with Israel’s ruling Likud Party, led by Benjamin Netanyahu. The agreement committed both parties to shared political values, strategic cooperation, and ideological alignment.
This is a remarkable document. It ties a Venezuelan opposition movement directly to a foreign ruling party, well before any democratic transition, and signals how a post-Maduro Venezuela is expected to orient itself internationally.
DOCUMENT: Vente Venezuela signs cooperation agreement with Israel’s Likud party – Agreement signed by María Corina Machado and Eli Vered Hazan, representing Likud’s Foreign Relations Division (Source: Vente Venezuela)
Machado has since gone further, pledging to:
- Restore full diplomatic relations with Israel
- Move Venezuela’s embassy to Jerusalem
- Open Venezuela’s economy to privatisation and foreign investment
- Align Venezuela with Israel and the United States against Iran and regional leftist governments
Her narrative rests on a crucial claim: that Venezuela itself is not anti-Israel, only its government is. According to this framing, Venezuelans are inherently pro-Israel and pro-West, their “true” preferences suppressed by an illegitimate regime.
In a November interview with Israel Hayom, Machado asserted that “The Venezuelan people deeply admire Israel.”
This argument is politically useful and historically thin. Venezuelan solidarity with Palestine predates Maduro and reflects a wider Latin American tradition of identifying with colonised peoples. To erase that history is to deny Venezuelans their own political agency.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has repeatedly accused the Venezuelan government of fomenting “anti-Israel” and anti-Semitic rhetoric. Yet, a closer look tells a different story. Caracas’ statements are largely expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination, combined with pointed criticism of Israeli state policies. By framing these positions as attacks on Jews or Israel itself, the ADL distorts the narrative, turning principled political stances into a perceived moral failing. This tactic underscores a broader pattern in which international organizations can paint Global South governments as rogue actors whenever they resist the gravitational pull of Israeli and U.S. influence, subtly laying the groundwork for diplomatic pressure or intervention.
DOCUMENT: Mini report from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), formerly known as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, accuses Venezuela of fuelling an incendiary anti-Israel and anti-Semitic environment.(Source (ADL)
Security, Economics, and the Cost of Obedience
Beneath the moral language of the Isaac Accords lies a familiar architecture of control: security integration, economic restructuring, and ideological discipline.
Israel is a leading exporter of surveillance technologies, border systems, cyber-intelligence platforms, and urban security tools, many developed under conditions of occupation and internal repression. In South America, these systems are marketed as solutions to crime and narcotrafficking, but their real function is often political: expanding state surveillance capacity during periods of transition.
Security cooperation creates dependency. Once intelligence-sharing, training, and doctrine are integrated, political autonomy narrows. Policy divergence, particularly toward China, BRICS, or non-aligned partners, becomes risky.
The economic dimension is equally strategic. Israeli firms are deeply involved in water rights, desalination, agrotechnology, digital governance, and infrastructure, sectors that determine long-term sovereignty. These investments are typically tied to privatisation, deregulation, and long-term concessions, transferring control of strategic resources away from the public sphere.
Venezuela is the ultimate prize. A post-sanctions transition would open one of the world’s most resource-rich economies to restructuring. Machado’s commitment to rapid privatisation aligns seamlessly with this vision, raising an unavoidable question: who benefits from “democracy” when it arrives pre-packaged with foreign economic priorities?
This strategy is inseparable from U.S. power. The Trump administration’s framing of global politics as a permanent war on terror and narcotrafficking, a framing echoed by figures like Marco Rubio, has provided cover for sanctions, covert operations, and extrajudicial violence across the Caribbean and Pacific. Israel’s partnership reinforces this logic, supplying both technology and moral framing.
Conclusion: The Global South and the Right to Choose
The Isaac Accords are not simply about Israel’s diplomatic standing. They are about reordering South America’s political horizon at a moment when the Global South is rediscovering multipolarity.
Israel’s role in this process is active, strategic, and consequential. Through political patronage, economic leverage, security integration, and narrative control, it is shaping which governments are deemed legitimate and which are disposable.
For South America, and the wider Global South, the warning is familiar. When alignment is framed as morality, dissent becomes deviance. When sovereignty is conditional, development serves external interests. When history is rewritten, intervention soon follows.
Non-alignment was never about isolation. It was about the right to choose. That very right, today, is being quietly renegotiated, and the cost of refusing may soon become very clear.
US-led regime change in Venezuela angering MAGA
Al Mayadeen | December 3, 2025
United States President Donald Trump’s suggestion of an imminent land strike against Venezuela has jolted the America First movement he built on avoiding foreign entanglements, sparking divisions among his supporters and reviving debates reminiscent of the war on Iraq, part of what supporters describe as “forever wars”.
On Tuesday, Trump hinted not only at an intervention in Venezuela but also at possible attacks against other countries. The remarks rattled anti-interventionists, a core Make America Great Again (MAGA) constituency, who fear that toppling Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro could mire the US in a years-long conflict, destabilize the region, and damage both Trump’s legacy and the movement’s political brand.
Republicans redraw the lines on intervention
Despite his long-standing criticism of US interventions, some Republican allies are now defending the possibility of military action. They argue that operations within the Western Hemisphere are more defensible than the West Asia wars they once denounced, and contend that the US is not seeking “regime change” but an adjustment in Venezuelan leadership without reshaping its political structure.
“He’s not trying to play God with what regime is in which country,” said Alex Gray, former National Security Council chief of staff.
Gray argued the move represents a refocusing of US strategy toward “core American interests,” describing Venezuela as central to hemispheric security.
Pressure mounts as US military presence grows
The administration insists it is not pursuing regime change; instead, it continues to level baseless accusations against the Venezuelan president, describing him as a leader of a “drug cartel”.
Still, the scale of US deployments, including a carrier strike group and roughly 15,000 troops, and Trump’s reported private ultimatum to Maduro last week, have amplified expectations of imminent action. Two people familiar with the call said Trump threatened Maduro, demanding he step down or face the “consequences.”
“No one is more bullish than the president on this,” another individual familiar with internal discussions told Politico, adding that the initiative “comes from the top.”
MAGA skeptics warn of Iraq-style pitfalls
For anti-interventionist MAGA figures, the moment represents a deep ideological test. Many had hoped for an administration focused exclusively on domestic priorities. Now they hope any action resembles the recent limited aggression on Iran, where the US bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities in June.
“Let’s not turn into George W. Bush and before you know it, we’re in charge of Venezuela,” said a former senior Trump advisor.
Boots on the ground and nation-building remain “red lines” for the America First movement.
Vice President JD Vance, once a fierce critic of foreign interventions, has shifted as well, defending limited strikes on Iran while framing any action in Venezuela as essential to combating “narco terrorists in our own hemisphere.”
Concerns over fallout, regional stability
Opponents of interference in Venezuela argue that Maduro’s removal could spark migration surges, empower criminal networks, or disrupt global energy markets, consequences that evoke the results of the US invasion of Iraq.
Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia Group noted Trump never campaigned on regime change, calling unilateral intervention “a NeoCon idea… discredited around the world.”
Still, some conservative realists believe Trump may ultimately avoid escalation. Curt Mills of The American Conservative said Trump may yet decide a full-scale conflict would be “a disaster in the making.”
At a Cabinet meeting, top officials emphasized a simple America First litmus test. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a staunch backer of military action in the Latin American country, stated, “Is it going to make us richer? Is it going to make us safer? If it is, he is for it.”
The U.S. pressure strategy on Venezuela and the reconfiguration of power in the Americas
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 2, 2025
The growing tension between Washington and Caracas once again sheds light on the role of the United States in the continent and on the nature of the hybrid threats employed by the White House when it faces governments that reject its strategic dominance. Although a direct military operation against Venezuela has not yet been confirmed, there are clear indications that the U.S. keeps this possibility open — or at least uses it as an element of geopolitical coercion. To understand the current scenario, it is essential to examine the interaction between structural factors, such as the Monroe Doctrine, and contextual variables linked to the present orientation of U.S. foreign policy.
Objectively, one cannot rule out that the U.S. may consider specific, even if limited, military actions against Venezuela. Closing the airspace, increasing electronic warfare operations, or intensifying airstrikes against vessels near Venezuelan waters may function as preparatory steps within a typical hybrid war model. However, a large-scale ground incursion would be extremely unlikely. Venezuela’s geography — marked by dense jungles, mountains, and vast areas that are difficult to access — makes any prolonged occupation a strategic gamble of high cost and low probability of success. Moreover, the existence of a civilian militia numbering in the millions would act as a force multiplier of resistance, raising the political and military price of an intervention.
Thus, if Washington does in fact opt for military measures, it would likely take the form of selective airstrikes, limited amphibious operations in the Caribbean, or acts of sabotage against critical infrastructure. It would be less a conventional war and more a calibrated effort of attrition — typical of U.S.-supported regime change campaigns since the post–Cold War era.
However, the current pressure on Caracas cannot be interpreted merely as an automatic continuation of the Monroe Doctrine, as many mainstream analysts often claim. Although this principle — which historically legitimized U.S. domination over the hemisphere — remains an ideological backdrop, the contemporary context demands a different analytical lens. The international system is undergoing an accelerated transition toward multipolarity, and Trump’s United States, aware of its relative loss of influence, has begun to recalibrate its strategic priorities.
In this scenario, Latin America reemerges as a zone of “geopolitical compensation.” Faced with the relative decline of U.S. influence in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and even the Asia–Pacific, Washington seeks to reaffirm its dominance in the Americas as a way to maintain internal cohesion and external relevance. The hostility toward Venezuela must be understood within this strategy: it is not primarily about oil, nor ideology, but about structural repositioning in a world where the monopoly of Western power is eroding.
This move also directly serves the interests of the U.S. military–industrial complex, which requires permanent tension hotspots to justify high levels of funding. By reinforcing the narrative that “threats” are emerging within the western hemisphere itself, Washington legitimizes expenditures, mobilizes regional allies, and attempts to prevent Latin American countries from deepening ties with Eurasian powers.
Yet this posture may generate the opposite effect. The U.S. insistence on treating Latin America as its “strategic backyard” tends to accelerate the region’s search for autonomy. There is already an observable rise in South–South cooperation, integration efforts among Latin American states, and the growing willingness of local governments to diversify their geopolitical partnerships.
Venezuela, despite its internal difficulties, symbolizes part of this process. Resisting external pressure has become not only a matter of state survival but also a sign of the new distribution of power in the international system. The aggressive U.S. stance reveals, paradoxically, not its strength, but its difficulty in accepting the emerging multipolar configuration that is consolidating across all continents.
Maduro Delivers Defiant Message After Trump Told Venezuelan Leader to Flee
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | December 1, 2025
On a phone call held between Donald Trump and Nicolas Maduro, the President ordered the Venezuelan leader to flee his country. Following leaks about the phone call, Maduro issued a defiant public address.
The Miami Herald reported on Sunday that during the phone call held last week, Trump told Maduro, “You can save yourself and those closest to you, but you must leave the country now.” The sources said Trump offered Maduro and his family safe passage from Venezuela only if he offered his immediate resignation.
The Venezuelan leader appears to have rejected Trump’s deal. On Sunday, at the end of his public remarks, Maduro chanted that Venezuela is “indestructible, untouchable, unbeatable.”
Over the past week, the concerns that the US could begin military operations inside Venezuela have peaked. Washington has engaged in a massive military buildup in the Caribbean. The Pentagon has destroyed about two dozen boats in the region, claiming the vessels were carrying narcotics.
Multiple outlets have reported that the White House is discussing expanding operations into Venezuela. Trump added to the fear of a new war when he told troops on Thanksgiving the operations inside Venezuela would “begin soon” and posted on Truth Social that Venezuelan airspace was closed.
Officials told the Miami Herald that the call was a last ditch effort to avoid a war in Venezuela.
The strikes on drug boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific are unconstitutional, illegal, and war crimes. Expanding the strikes to inside Venezuela, or conducting a regime change in Caracas, would shatter the constraints the Constitution places on Presidential war powers.
Featured Video
The Iran War has destroyed fertilizer markets and farmers everywhere, almost
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Study Buried For Four Years Shows Crime Lab DNA Testing Is Severely Flawed
By Tim Cushing – TechDirt – September 27, 2018
DNA is supposed to be the gold standard of evidence. Supposedly so distinct it would be impossible to convict the wrong person, yet DNA evidence has been given far more credit than it’s earned. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The Iran War has destroyed fertilizer markets and farmers everywhere, almost
- Capitulate or Die: The Gaza ‘peace process’ and Western propaganda
- FSB Blows Lid on Western Plot to Hack Russian Officials’ Phones — But Here’s the Shocker
- Do Palantir’s bosses have blood on their hands over the Starobelsk massacre?
- US Eyes Spreading its Nuclear Footprint Deeper into Europe – Report
- Kiev admitted it launched drones at NATO member – media
- Russia Raises Alarm Over Ukraine’s Surging Black Sea Terrorist Activity
- ‘Luring Russia into war’
- Russia accuses France and the UK of piracy over cargo ship seizure
- Hungarian PM Magyar claims that he has obtained billions in EU funds, but what strings are attached?
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli settlers, soldiers, gov’t go all out against West Bank Palestinians – Daily Update
- A Slow-motion Execution of the West Bank Health System
- The Palestinian journalists held in Israel’s ‘cemeteries for the living’
- Super PAC Network Backing Connie Chan Received Hundreds of Thousands from AIPAC
- Israel’s Solution to the Gaza Problem Is Well Underway
- UK Bans Prominent Commentators Over Their Statements on Israel
- Israel’s killing machine deepens its invasion into Lebanon – Daily Update
- ‘To call it a ceasefire is a joke’: Israeli soldiers share rare accounts from Gaza with AP
- Israeli Espionage: How Israel and its American agents stole US uranium
- From Paul Findley to Thomas Massie: How the Israel Lobby Purges Republican Dissenters
- No Tricks Zone
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
- Germany’s AfD Party Calls Debunked Climate Scenarios “Greatest Fraud In Human History”
- Researchers Find Rapid Global Warming Phase At End Of Last Ice Age (Ca.18,000 Years Ago)
- Even The DNA Of Single-Celled Plankton Can Upend Alarmist Arctic Sea Ice Melt Claims
- Scandal: Although Climate Panic Is Canceled By IPCC, Europe’s Policymakers Continue With Their Crushing Policies
- How Once Hardcore Climate Alarmist Lucy Biggers Realized It Was All A Scam, Brainwashing
- German Expert: “No Climate Crisis” …”Warming Generally Better For Humanity”
Aletho News 