❈ ❈ ❈

A Geopolitical Analysis of the Imperialist Buildup Against Venezuela: A Conversation with Ana Esther Ceceña

Cira Pascual Marquina

[Ana Esther Ceceña is a Mexican economist and geopolitical analyst known for her expertise in Latin American affairs. She serves as the director of the Latin American Observatory of Geopolitics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). Her scholarly work explores the dynamics of power, sovereignty, and resistance, with a focus on strategic resources and the global capitalist system.

In this interview, carried out in Caracas during the recent “Colonialism, Neocolonialism, and the Territorial Dispossession by Western Imperialism” (October 2-4), Ceceña offers an incisive analysis of Venezuela’s role in contemporary global geopolitics. She discusses the implications of the recent U.S. military escalation in the Caribbean, the strategic significance of Venezuela’s resources, and the broader geopolitical conflicts involving major global powers. Ceceña also reflects on the resilience of the Venezuelan people and their struggle for sovereignty amidst external pressures.]

● ● ●

Cira Pascual Marquina (CPM): A Pentagon leak published recently by Politico suggests that Washington could be pivoting away from China toward “protecting the homeland and the Western Hemisphere,” effectively reviving the old Monroe Doctrine under new terms. How do you read this apparent strategic turn?

Ana Esther Ceceña (AEC): The United States has long identified four countries—Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran—and a non-state entity—Al-Qaeda and its derivatives—as its main enemies. These remain the strategic adversaries for the U.S.

The U.S. has been following this program closely, primarily confronting China but also engaging via proxy conflicts with the others: a war against Iran through Israel (which recently escalated to direct attack) and a war against Russia through Ukraine.

However, to confront these strategic enemies, Washington needs to control the American continent. That is why we now see the hemisphere becoming its main priority. Latin America, with its natural resources and geographic advantages, including its relative insularity, has always been central to U.S. military strategy. However, a period of intensification is opening up. Their idea is that as long as the U.S. controls the Americas, it effectively cannot be attacked on its territory. It’s as if the U.S. were surrounded by a moat.

However, the correlation of forces in the continent has been changing: China, Russia, and even Iran—three of their five so-called enemies—are already in the region. China is making large-scale commercial agreements and infrastructure investments with most countries in the hemisphere, building ports and establishing trade routes. China is already here, competing in the US’s own “backyard.”

Meanwhile, Russia provides military support to Venezuela and maintains a strong presence in Cuba. This is a huge problem for the United States, particularly because Russia now has more advanced military technology than the U.S. in many respects. Its missile production is faster, cheaper, and more efficient, while the U.S. military industry is lagging behind.

The presence of these powers in the Americas weighs heavily on Washington.

Another key reason for the U.S. focus on the continent is economic: without the oil, minerals, and even the labor force of Latin America, it simply cannot sustain itself. It needs territorial footholds and access to extract the region’s resources for its own reproduction.

CPM: Alongside the intensified imperialist military buildup against Venezuela, the United States has just issued a license allowing Trinidad and Tobago to exploit offshore gas in Venezuelan boundary waters, while Exxon’s illegal drilling in disputed Essequibo waters continues unabated. How do these moves fit into the broader campaign of resource plunder and military pressure against Venezuela?

AEC: It’s not entirely clear what the White House is planning, but it appears to be preparing for multiple scenarios. Positioning military assets around Venezuela is strategic for controlling international transport routes: from there, U.S. forces could intercept vessels and effectively impose a total blockade both inward and outward, cutting off the country’s ability to export its resources. Such a move would have devastating consequences for Venezuela’s economy.

In the Essequibo case, the U.S. is already deeply involved through ExxonMobil, which continues extracting oil despite the ongoing territorial dispute. Washington will not give up that foothold. Even as litigation drags on, Exxon is pumping and storing as much as possible. At the same time, the U.S. may seek to undermine Venezuela’s own production capacity, potentially by targeting refineries or other strategic facilities.

It’s still not clear how this strategy intersects with Chevron’s operations in Venezuela. However, as one of the United States’ flagship oil corporations, Chevron’s continued presence serves U.S. strategic interests and even supports supply chains linked to the Essequibo extraction. Yet any escalation or attack on Venezuela’s oil infrastructure could jeopardize those same arrangements, exposing contradictions within the U.S. approach.

As for the natural gas exploitation along the maritime border between Trinidad and Venezuela, we’ll have to see how the situation develops. The entire regional oil landscape is extremely tense: frictions are mounting with Brazil, and Mexico is also facing intense pressure from Washington.

Mexico extracts oil but lacks the capacity to refine it, so most of its crude ends up in the United States, both through legal channels and via an extensive black market. In fact, a major scandal has erupted over the illegal siphoning of oil from pipelines, which we call “huachicol” in Mexico. Along transport routes, criminal networks tap into ducts to extract crude that is later sold, often across the border. The scale of this illegal trade now surpasses that of legal flows, revealing a highly organized operation with clear counterparts on the U.S. side.

Going back to Venezuela, however, I want to highlight that it represents a problem for the U.S. that surpasses oil: Venezuela is a sovereign country with a transformative project and a combative people. That’s of huge concern to the U.S.

CPM: That was precisely my next question. The imperialist aggression is often reduced to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, but in reality, what’s at stake goes far beyond natural resources. There’s also a political project that poses a challenge to U.S. hegemony. Could you tell us about that?

AEC: Venezuela’s resources go far beyond oil. It has gold, access to the Amazon basin, and strategic proximity to the Panama Canal. However, Venezuela’s most extraordinary resource is the consciousness of its people.

Venezuela remains a profoundly Chavista country, marked by geopolitical consciousness and a collective commitment to defending its sovereignty. The role of the military here differs fundamentally from that in countries like Mexico: it is not an invasive force but a people’s army. Many have joined the armed forces as a conscious act of popular defense of national sovereignty. This unity between the people and the military is integral to a broader social and political project that continues to forge its own alternative path.

The experience of the communes, for example, is crucial. There’s nothing like this level of authentic popular democracy anywhere else. Venezuela poses a huge challenge to the United States because it’s not only resilient but also inspiring and it could be contagious.

Venezuela is not isolated. Across the world, new anti-colonial movements such as those in the Sahel are rising. There, people once considered powerless are now standing up. If they can, why not others? Venezuela is part of this broader tide of popular emancipation. At the same time, international initiatives like BRICS are charting new forms of cooperation among nations that challenge the existing global order.

CPM: Would you agree with those who argue that U.S. imperialism is facing a crisis of hegemony?

AEC: Absolutely! The U.S. is in serious trouble. The loss of terrain in economic terms is most obvious: they aren’t able to bring manufacturing back, and the U.S. dollar is no longer the exclusive global currency. In short, if the United States is acting somewhat erratically, that’s because it is struggling to maintain global political and military dominance.

CPM: Is the U.S. also losing ground militarily?

AEC: Yes, significantly. As I mentioned before, Russian military technology is now superior in many respects, and China, North Korea, and Iran have also developed powerful capabilities. Each excels in different areas, and together they form a formidable bloc. Also, their armies are much larger than the U.S. China’s recent military parade revealed a massive, technologically advanced force.

CPM: The Bolivarian Government, which broke diplomatic relations with Israel in 2009, has been steadfast in its solidarity with the people of Palestine, and it has not hesitated in calling the genocide by its name. How do you situate the genocide in Gaza within this global geopolitical context?

AEC: There’s a global competition underway for control of key trade routes for oil, resources, and goods. A central factor to explain what is going on in Palestine is the U.S. proposal for a commercial corridor linking India to the Mediterranean via West Asia, designed to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative. This corridor would pass through Israel and necessarily across Gaza, making Gaza strategically important as a potential alternative to the Suez Canal.

Additionally, Gaza’s coastal waters contain significant gas deposits discovered relatively recently. Since then, Israel has sought to reduce Gaza’s maritime boundaries, while British companies, backed by the UK government, have moved in to exploit these resources. That’s one reason for Britain’s complicity in the ongoing conflict.

Palestinians are struggling against a colonialist project, but they are also dealing with direct imperialist interests: natural resources and strategic geography. And once more, we see the same actors: the big corporations and the main powers of the “collective West,” namely the U.S., Britain, and occasionally France or Germany. Israel serves as the regional platform for their operations, doing the dirty work of territorial cleansing.

Another largely ignored case is Sudan, on the Red Sea. It’s also being torn apart by war and mass displacement. Sudan’s location is crucial geopolitically and for trade routes and, like Venezuela, it’s rich in oil.

When you look at an oil reserves map, you can see a clear belt stretching from Central Asia to West Asia through Africa and reaching Venezuela… and where are most conflicts unfolding? Along that corridor. Venezuela sits at the western end of this chain.

CPM: Going back to Venezuela, how far do you think U.S. imperialism’s current military escalation will proceed?

AEC: It’s difficult to say. Washington is now threatening not only air and naval operations but also potential ground incursions. A direct invasion, however, would entail full-scale war, which U.S. forces are unlikely to undertake. More feasible are surgical operations such as attacks on oil facilities or key infrastructure.

They have already attempted regime-change operations similar to the Noriega-style “extraction” of Maduro, but these efforts failed. Venezuela’s high level of organization makes such actions extremely difficult. That said, they are likely to continue attempting smaller-scale incursions along the coast.

The situation isn’t easy for Venezuela, as it cannot rely fully on support from the continent, which is fragmented. Nevertheless, the country retains allies and, most importantly, it has the strength of its people, who are organized, actively participate in the militia, and are prepared to defend the nation.

US military deployment near Venezuela (Aljazeera)

[Cira Pascual Marquina is Political Science Professor at the Universidad de Bolivariana de Venezuela in Caracas and is staff writer for Venezuelanalysis.com. Courtesy: Venezuelanalysis, an independent website produced by individuals who are dedicated to disseminating news and analysis about the current political situation in Venezuela.]

❈ ❈ ❈

15 Million Venezuelans Enlist to Defend Their Country Amid U.S. Threats

Rodrigo Durão Coelho

[Since late August, the Caribbean Sea near Venezuela’s coast has become a stage of tension. With a significant military presence, the United States has attacked vessels navigating international waters. At least 27 people have been killed in what President Donald Trump claims are operations against drug cartels, classified by him as terrorist organizations, and he has accused Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro of leading the drug trade.

None of these accusations have been supported by concrete evidence. Venezuela has responded by mobilizing troops along its borders and arming civilians to resist a possible U.S. advance. Caracas maintains that Washington’s real goal is to overthrow the government and install opposition figure María Corina Machado as head of state.

Brasil de Fato (BdF) spoke with Carlos Ron, former Venezuelan vice foreign minister and the country’s chief negotiator in Washington. He described the atmosphere in Caracas as “normal, but cautious,” and explained Venezuela’s defense plans and the likelihood of a U.S. attack.]

● ● ●

BdF: What is the atmosphere like in Caracas amid these threats from Donald Trump?

Carlos Ron – For now, the country is functioning normally. There’s no panic in the streets; people are trying to live their daily lives, even though everyone is aware that we are under U.S. siege. Venezuelans have lived under hostility from Washington for 26 years, and we know its record of violence and intervention in Latin America.

We hope no invasion happens, but if it does, the Venezuelan people are ready to resist and defend the country. There’s no panic, this is also part of Washington’s psychological warfare, a method to spread fear and confusion. People understand well the nature of the enemy we face.

BdF: Is it possible that this is just another U.S. pressure tactic rather than a real threat? Is there still room for a negotiated solution?

We’ve seen this kind of military mobilization before. Something similar happened in Brazil in 1964 with Operation Brother Sam, when the U.S. threatened military intervention to back a coup against President João Goulart. What we’re witnessing now is a modern version of that strategy, an attempt to create the conditions for a coup from within Venezuela’s own armed forces rather than a direct invasion.

But this is unrealistic. The Venezuelan military is loyal to the Constitution and national defense, not to coup plotting. Trump today is different from the Trump of his first term: his current team, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is even more aggressive toward Venezuela, Cuba, and the region. Their goal remains regime change, though they still prefer to provoke internal chaos before resorting to an invasion.

BdF: How was María Corina Machado’s recent Nobel Peace Prize received in Venezuela?

It’s seen as part of a broader regime-change strategy. The Trump administration is using the so-called war on drugs as a pretext to escalate pressure on Venezuela, and giving this award to María Corina, someone who has openly called for sanctions and even foreign military intervention, fits perfectly into that plan.

She’s one of the most divisive figures in Venezuelan opposition politics, constantly undermining national dialogue and questioning the entire democratic system. Supporting someone who congratulated Netanyahu amid the genocide in Palestine and calling her a “peace” figure exposes the political nature of this prize, it’s about legitimizing a potential replacement for President Maduro.

BdF: How representative is she of the opposition? Are there anti-Bolivarian forces that still reject imperialist influence?

Absolutely. The opposition is diverse. In the last parliamentary elections, several opposition parties performed better than María Corina’s extremist faction. Some leaders have criticized Trump’s military threats and the U.S. operations in the Caribbean.

A new National Council for Peace and Sovereignty has been created, bringing together people from sports, business, media, and even opposition governors, like the one who won the most votes in the last regional elections, who reject foreign intervention. Historic opposition parties such as Acción Democrática, though anti-Bolivarian, also oppose any U.S. military action. There’s broad consensus in Venezuela that interventionism is unacceptable.

BdF: The U.S. claims its military presence in the Caribbean is to combat drug trafficking, even though most cocaine to the U.S. travels through the Pacific, not the Caribbean. How is that seen in Venezuela?

Everyone here sees it for what it is: a pretext for regime change. Venezuela doesn’t cultivate coca or produce cocaine, nor does it traffic fentanyl, as Trump claims. The attacks on civilian vessels are alarming, fishermen have been detained or harassed by U.S. forces.

This violates international law: ships are being bombed or intercepted without any due process. Many of the victims weren’t even Venezuelan, some were from Trinidad and Tobago, Colombia, or Ecuador. The narrative of “Venezuelan terrorists” or “drug traffickers” doesn’t hold up. Even the United Nations has condemned these covert U.S. operations for violating human rights and risking regional escalation.

BdF: Is Venezuela taking this issue to the UN or other diplomatic channels?

Yes. Our ambassador has already taken the matter to the UN Security Council, and several UN experts have condemned Washington’s actions as illegal and dangerous. They warned that these covert operations threaten international peace and violate the UN Charter.

There’s also domestic pushback inside the U.S., lawyers and some members of Congress are questioning Trump’s policy for breaking both U.S. and international law. President Maduro continues to advocate for dialogue, but the U.S. government has shut down communication channels.

There’s growing discomfort even within Trump’s own base, including MAGA supporters, who historically opposed endless foreign wars. International pressure, legal criticism, and calls for diplomacy could help de-escalate the situation.

BdF: Could Trump be bluffing to strengthen his negotiating position, as he often did in his first term?

Unlikely. What’s really happening is a broader geopolitical move: the U.S. is losing influence to China and Russia and wants to reassert control over Latin America, its resources, governments, and strategic alliances.

Look at the pattern: intervention in Haiti, sanctions on Brazil’s Supreme Court, the expulsion of President Petro from the UN General Assembly, and renewed hostility toward Cuba and Venezuela. It’s all part of a regional strategy to reestablish dominance over the hemisphere. That’s why dialogue is difficult right now.

We remain cautious. Not panicked, but vigilant.

BdF: What is the current state of Venezuela’s Armed Forces? How is the volunteer enlistment working?

It’s not conscription, it’s voluntary. In the first round, eight million Venezuelans enlisted to join the defense forces; now that number has reached 15 million. These volunteers form a reserve militia ready to act if the nation faces external threats.

The Venezuelan army has diversified its military technology, moving away from dependence on U.S. equipment. Ours is a peaceful country with over 200 years without war, but the people are ready to defend their homeland and families.

This isn’t about defending Maduro, it’s about defending Venezuela. Internal issues are for Venezuelans to solve, not foreign armies.

BdF: How are these militias trained?

Training takes place across the country, usually on weekends, and includes basic weapons use as well as logistics and medical support. The mobilization has also fostered a sense of unity, external threats often strengthen internal cohesion.

BdF: Do Venezuelans expect stronger support from President Lula and Brazil?

Yes, many hope for a firmer stance from Lula and other Latin American leaders. So far, Brazil’s position, that Venezuela’s sovereignty must be respected and foreign intervention is unacceptable, has been important.

If the situation escalates, it will be crucial for all regional presidents to take a clear stand against U.S. intervention. Latin America must act as a united bloc to address shared challenges, but Washington will always try to sow division to maintain control over the continent.

[Rodrigo Durão Coelho is a journalist with extensive communication experience in outlets of great importance in the Brazilian press, as well as in the British press, working mostly of his carreer for BBC. Courtesy: Brasil de Fato, a progressive Brazilian online newspaper and a radio agency, based in Sao Paulo, Brazil.]

❈ ❈ ❈

Imperial Double Standards: Warfare for Venezuela and Welfare for Argentina

Francisco Dominguez, Roger D. Harris and John Perry

Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution has been in the vanguard of the Global South. In contrast, President Javiar Milei’s government in Argentina represents the logical, though absurd, consequence of extreme neoliberalism, which he calls “anarcho-capitalism.”

Western Hemispheric geopolitics reflect the weakening of U.S. hegemony and an emerging multipolarity, especially with China’s entry as a major regional trading partner. U.S. imperialism’s response, started well before Trump, has been to weaponize the dollar, impose illegal and crippling economic sanctions, and levy arbitrary tariffs. When these fail, the recourse is to military aggression.

U.S. War Secretary Pete Hegseth announced preparations for war with China. Washington has concluded that it must put a halt to multipolarity to maintain its global supremacy. Thus, the Trump administration is simultaneously rushing to rescue Milei’s government while hurrying to overturn Venezuela’s under their President Nicolás Maduro.

Role of Venezuela under Chavismo

Venezuela is a beacon of national sovereignty and social progress. It has consistently opposed imperialist aggression, not just in Latin America, but globally. Under the movement known as “Chavismo” it aimed for Latin American integration and the pooling of its huge natural resources, offering an independent pathway to development to withstand U.S. imperialism.

Consequently, it has been under attack, enduring U.S.-financed far-right violence, destabilization, a U.S.-led asphyxiating economic blockade, assassination attempts on the president and leading Bolivarian officials, mercenary attacks, coups and terrorism—the full arsenal of Washington’s aggressive toolkit.

Role of Argentina under Milei

In 2023, anti-establishment anger propelled libertarian populist Javier Milei to the Argentine presidency. His Trump-like “chainsaw plan”—radical spending cuts and a war on government institutions and services—fitted with the orthodoxy dictated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Milei closed 13 government ministries, including those for education, labor and social security. Foreign lenders welcomed Milei’s elevation of austerity to a moral imperative.

Milei is still favored by the IMF. But while his unwillingness to devalue the peso helped cut inflation, it slowed economic growth and reduced the country’s capacity to sustain its huge debt. Argentina is now over $450 bn in the red. Employment fell steeply, while poverty soared to affect 53% of the population in 2024 (allegedly reducing since then). Budget cuts raised the cost of basic needs.

Corruption scandals emerged. A close political associate of Milei admitted receiving “donations” from a narco-entrepreneur. A US$4.6 bn crypto scandal followed; the largest ever crypto-theft. Milei’s left opposition demanded his impeachment, and a judge launched a fraud probe. Later, Milei’s sister was accused of receiving hefty bribes. On top of this came the crushing defeat for Milei’s libertarian party in the Buenos Aires provincial elections in September.

All that has triggered a run on the peso and a new economic crisis.

Trump’s recent decision to bail out Milei’s predictably disastrous economic performance is consistent with the profligacy of IMF-US lending to right-wing Argentine governments. In April 2025, the Buenos Aires Times reported that the IMF praised Milei’s efforts and projected that the Argentine economy would grow faster than the global average. In fact, Milei tipped the country into recession and sent millions of people into poverty in the first months of his government.

In short, Milei’s “narco-capitalist” government is not only corrupt but has savaged Argentina’s economy. Milei represents the logical culmination of Argentina’s ruling class servitude to U.S. geopolitical objectives, even extending to his enthusiastic support for genocide in Gaza. Slavishly supporting anything Trump does or says, Argentina was one of only ten countries to vote with the U.S. against the UN’s two-state solution for Israel-Palestine.

IMF wages financial war against Venezuela

The IMF is a key institution through which the U.S. enforces its imperial dominance, part of an architecture shaped largely by Washington. Often functioning as a financial arm of U.S. foreign policy, it rewards compliant right-wing regimes such as those of Argentine presidents Macri and Milei, while punishing independent governments like Venezuela’s that are striving for socialism.

An example is the IMF response to the 2002 coup against Venezuela’s democratically elected President Hugo Chávez. The IMF publicly stated its readiness to collaborate with coup-monger Pedro Carmona, whose “government” abolished the constitution and key democratic institutions. Within hours after Chávez was kidnapped, the IMF’s Thomas Dawson said: “we stand ready to assist the new administration in whatever manner they find suitable.” Fortunately for democracy, the coup lasted only 47 hours. The people spontaneously rose up and returned their rightful president to his office.

More recently, during the Covid-19 crisis, IMF chief Kristalina Georgieva announced an emergency response which could disburse US$50 bn to developing countries and US$10 bn to low-income countries at a zero-interest rate. Venezuela had tried to exercise its “special drawing rights” for US$5 bn to combat the pandemic. This required IMF officials to engage in acrobatics to justify rejecting Venezuela’s request. The real reason was the U.S. government’s farcical recognition of Juan Guaidó as “interim president.”

U.S.-IMF props up rightist Argentina

In 1999-2002, when Argentina had a right-wing government, the IMF overestimated GDP growth. Then, conversely, in 2003-2015 when Argentina had left-wing governments under the Kirchners, the IMF underestimated the strength of the country’s economic recovery. IMF debt was paid off, Argentina’s notorious external debt fell sharply, no new IMF loans were granted.

But for the past decade, its politics have revolved around chronic economic crises and persistent IMF influence. Across three presidencies, Argentina swung from market liberalization (Macri, who succeeded the Kirchners), to state intervention (Fernández), to radical austerity (Milei). Right-wing Mauricio Macri acquired a US$57 bn loan, the largest in the fund’s history. The IMF itself admitted the bailout “was not fit for purpose.” The country is now on its twenty-third IMF bailout, a global record. It is the fund’s biggest debtor, owing a “staggering” $41.8 bn.

US aggression against Venezuela

The U.S. finds it intolerable that Venezuela—a “threat” of a good example—has successfully resisted U.S. policy of “maximum pressure.” Its military build-up against Venezuela is an escalation from hybrid to open warfare aimed at suppressing an alternative model of sovereignty and social justice, with the possible bonus of reclaiming control over the country’s oil resources.

Trump has deployed a fleet of warships, F-35 stealth fighter jets, and several thousand marines. Washington is positioning military forces in Puerto Rico, has a substantial military presence in Guyana, and asked Grenada to deploy U.S. military forces in its territory. Trump has declared the U.S. to be at war with drug cartels, potentially extending to those supposedly inside Venezuela itself. Commentators, including officials of the Bolivarian government, conclude that a U.S. military strike seems imminent.

Washington’s justification is a monumental lie: Venezuela is alleged to be a narco state, led by the non-existent Cartel de los Soles. Rubio and Trump falsely accuse the Bolivarian government of shipping hundreds of tons of drugs into the U.S. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has consistently reported that up to 92 percent of the cocaine produced in Colombia and Ecuador reaches the U.S. through the Pacific (Venezuela’s entire coastline faces the Caribbean Sea).

Trump and Milei

In sharp contrast to the economic punishment being meted out to Venezuela, Trump’s “favorite president” is getting a bailout for the economy he that has destroyed. Milei is promised a direct purchase of pesos with dollars, together with a $20 bn central bank “swap line.” Milei swiftly thanked Trump for his “vision and powerful leadership.”

Washington openly admits its ideological motives. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the U.S. should help conservatives win elections in Latin America. He tweeted: “The success of Argentina’s reform agenda is…in the strategic interest of the United States.” Praising Argentina’s “strong and stable” economy, he failed to address why it would collapse without U.S. support.

The bailout appears to have several undeclared aims. One, according to the New York Times, is to help rich investors whose bets could falter if Argentina’s economy sinks. The same source claims that U.S. officials are also pushing Argentina to scale back its ties with China and want access to its uranium and lithium supplies. The rescue plan may even involve dollarizing Argentina’s economy.

Nearly half of Argentinians (44%) see the deal as more likely to benefit the U.S. than their own nation, while 36% have a negative view of Milei’s relationship with Washington. The irony of Trump’s economic lifeline for Milei is that it may kill off his chances of political survival.

Neoliberal misery vs multipolar-oriented sovereign development

Bolivarian Venezuela and Milei’s Argentina present two starkly different paths for Latin America—Venezuela’s sovereign defiance of U.S. imperialism and Argentina’s deepening subservience and dependency. One suffers imperial “hybrid warfare” while the other gains imperial “welfare.”

Washington uses coercive tools—sanctions, economic warfare, and military threats—to preserve hemispheric dominance. Venezuela embodies resistance and regional integration. Argentina, under Milei, epitomizes the collapse into “narco-capitalism,” social devastation, and foreign subjection.

Ultimately, neoliberal austerity brings only poverty and dependency, while multipolar cooperation among Global South nations offers a viable path toward genuine independence, equitable development and resistance to imperial domination. U.S. military actions against Venezuela violate international law and rest on unfounded claims. Latin America is a declared Zone of Peace. To respect that and allow the people their right to live without fear of war, the U.S. must withdraw its forces.

[UK-based Francisco Dominguez is with the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign. Roger D. Harris is with the Task Force on the Americas, the US Peace Council, and the Venezuela Solidarity Network. Nicaragua based John Perry is with the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition and writes for the London Review of Books, FAIR, and CovertAction. Courtesy: LA Progressive, an online portal founded by Dick and Sharon whose mission is to provide a platform for progressive thought, opinion and perspectives on current events.]

❈ ❈ ❈

From Baghdad to Caracas: A Washington Manual on Sanctions and War

Manolo De Los Santos

Over the last several weeks, Washington has escalated threats and hostilities against Venezuela, and US President Donald Trump openly confirmed that he authorized the CIA to carry out covert action against the country. These actions are concerning and represent a serious intensification of the war drive against the Caribbean country, and they also confirm what many have been saying for years, the US is heavily invested in what happens in Venezuela and is not afraid to use all tools at its disposal to impose its interests.

“Can anyone really believe the CIA hasn’t already been operating in Venezuela for 60 years?” Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro asked, after Trump announced the authorization of CIA activity in his country.

The answer, when viewed through the historical record of two centuries, confirms a pattern of continuous interference aimed at asserting US dominance over the entire hemisphere. The escalating threats of war emanating from the Trump administration against Caracas represent not a new policy, but the culmination of a longstanding project of regime change, one that bears profound and disturbing similarities to the drive for war against Iraq under the Bush administration.

Washington has always viewed Latin America and the Caribbean through the lens of the Monroe Doctrine, unilaterally reserving the region for US geopolitical dominance. The last two hundred years confirm a pattern of repeated, aggressive intervention. The most notorious recent examples, where US involvement spanned political support, intelligence operations, and direct military intervention, include the 1954 coup against Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, the 1965 invasion of Dominican Republic that thwarted the return of a progressive government led by Juan Bosch, the 1973 coup that dismantled Salvador Allende’s socialist project in Chile, the 1983 plot to overthrow the government of Maurice Bishop and the invasion of Grenada, and the repeated overthrow of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1991 and 2004. The 2009 coup in Honduras against the government of Mel Zelaya continued this tradition.

However, Venezuela has become the definitive target, facing more US-backed attempts at regime change than any other Latin American country in the last quarter-century. The obsession with reclaiming control over the country began shortly after Hugo Chávez’s election in 1998, a victory that signaled a radical shift away from US-sponsored neoliberal policies and the beginning of a period of major transformations from poverty reduction to regional integration led by a wave of left governments in Latin America. Washington actively supported numerous efforts to remove Chávez, notably a military coup in 2002 that was defeated by a mass uprising and the crippling 2002–2003 oil lockout aimed at shutting down the country’s most important source of revenue.

Under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, millions of dollars were funneled to drive Venezuela’s right-wing groups, often lacking a social base, into direct confrontation with the Venezuelan government through tactics that ranged from assassination plots to terrorist actions. This funding stream supported groups and leaders who, while posing as democratic opposition or non-governmental organizations, have consistently advocated for the violent removal of the country’s democratically elected government. One notable recipient of US funds, María Corina Machado, the far-right leader who was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, built her political career on decades of advocacy for US and Israeli foreign intervention.

The pattern of support for regime change continued after Chávez’s suspicious death in 2013, which prompted many to wonder about a CIA plot. After the election of Nicolás Maduro, the Obama administration backed a violent protest wave in 2014, called guarimbas, marked by racist lynchings of Black supporters of the government by right-wing mobs. Maduro faced another sustained period of US-backed violent protests in 2017. A 21-year-old Afro-Venezuelan Orlando Figuera, was attacked and burned alive in Caracas by opposition activists in May 2017.

Economic siege intensified

In 2015, President Obama escalated rhetorical and economic pressure by declaring Venezuela an “extraordinary and unusual threat to US national security.” This charge was widely recognized as having no factual basis and was initially rejected even by some Venezuelan opposition leaders. Yet, the declaration provided the legal pretext for the imposition of sanctions, which initiated the collapse of the oil industry and devastated the Venezuelan economy.

Within a year of Trump’s first term, the US imposed even harsher sanctions, directly targeting Venezuela’s oil sector. Prior to the 2017 sanctions, the average monthly decline in oil production was approximately 1%. Following the August 2017 executive order to block Venezuela’s access to US financial markets, the rate of decline plummeted, falling at more than three times the previous rate. The August 2019 sanctions created the “legal” framework to seize billions in Venezuela’s foreign assets and specifically targeting the state oil company PDVSA and prohibiting exports to the US market, which previously absorbed over a third of Venezuela’s oil, delivered a catastrophic shock.

The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) documented that these sanctions caused the Venezuelan state to lose between USD 17 billion and USD 31 billion in potential oil revenue. This loss of hard currency directly reduced the state’s capacity to import food, medicine, and essential goods, increasing mortality rates and creating a real humanitarian crisis. The intensification of US sanctions, particularly those beginning in 2017, contributed to Venezuela experiencing the largest economic contraction in recorded Latin American history, with its Gross Domestic Product shrinking by an estimated 74.3% between 2014 and 2021.

The Iraq playbook, updated: sanctions as economic warfare

The first Trump administration applied a policy of “maximum pressure” to topple Maduro, formalizing the goal of regime change with unparalleled aggression. Apart from the application of punishing oil sanctions, it also led to the farcical backing of Juan Guaidó’s self-declaration as president in January 2019. This also led to the deployment then of US warships and the designation of the Maduro government as a “narco-terrorist” entity, echoing the pretexts for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This culminated in the subsequent financing of Operation Gideon, an inept maritime invasion by US-backed mercenaries in May 2020 that is now remembered as a “bay of piglets”.

The rhetorical parallels between the two campaigns are striking. In 2003, the Bush administration justified war on the basis of fabricated claims regarding Saddam Hussein’s possession of “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) and alleged links to terrorism. Similarly, the Trump administration has sought to justify military and covert action in Venezuela by invoking the “narco-terrorism” narrative. Both were attempts to transform a political conflict into a pre-emptive security threat requiring military response.

Yet, the most profound similarity lies in the strategy of economic strangulation used against both nations. From 1990 until the 2003 invasion, comprehensive multilateral sanctions were imposed on Iraq, devastating its civilian population while failing to remove Saddam Hussein. These measures placed severe restrictions on Iraq’s oil exports and strictly controlled the import of goods. The effect was a humanitarian catastrophe, with studies estimating that the sanctions contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children under the age of five due to malnutrition and a lack of clean water and medicine. Former Assistant Secretary of the United Nations, Denis Halliday, who resigned in protest, called the sanctions “genocidal.” The policy’s brutality was infamously summarized by then-US Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright, who, when asked if the deaths of half a million Iraqi children were “worth it,” replied, “We think the price is worth it.”

The sanctions on Venezuela, particularly those imposed in 2019 targeting the oil industry, replicated this collective punishment strategy with even greater initial severity. Unlike Iraq, which eventually received some relief through the UN-administered Oil-for-Food Program (despite US and UK efforts to block vital humanitarian supplies under a “dual-use” rationale), the Venezuelan government was immediately cut off from its primary source of foreign exchange. The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) argued that the sweeping nature of the 2019 sanctions created a near-total trade embargo that was possibly “more draconian” than the pre-war Iraq sanctions, noting the absence of any comparable humanitarian mechanism to mitigate the loss of billions in oil revenue.

Hegemony and the ideological challenge

The US interest in Venezuela extends beyond just taking control of the world’s largest oil reserves. The primary objective is ideological and political: overthrowing an independent government in Venezuela that has been both a source of support for other progressive governments and a stumbling block for US plans to impose far-right governments in the region. Venezuela’s government represents a node of resistance, and its successful overthrow would reassert the dominance of US foreign policy in the region, sending a clear message to other nations considering charting an independent political and economic course. The threat of intervention is thus not only about economics, but about defending the ideological integrity of the Monroe Doctrine in the 21st century.

The latest round of escalation of hostility toward Venezuela under Trump represents an acute and dangerous phase, marked by recent extrajudicial strikes in the Caribbean and explicit threats of land strikes. So far, at least 32 people have been killed in at least seven such attacks since early September. Some of the victims have been confirmed as citizens of Colombia and Trinidad and Tobago. The administration has accused the victims of being “narcoterrorists” without providing concrete proof, with their families asserting those killed were fishermen.

The campaign against Venezuela is fundamentally a continuation of a two-century effort to maintain imperial control over the region. Trump’s mad, relentless drive to topple Nicolás Maduro as part of a historical compulsion to assert dominance, not only through sanctions and support for internal unrest, but now through extrajudicial killings at sea and threats of land operations, has brought the region to the brink of a massive conflict. Such a war would not only be a disaster requiring a vast deployment of troops, but would almost certainly destabilize all of Latin America and spill far beyond Venezuela’s borders. However, a majority of the American people have shown they oppose using military force to invade Venezuela and a bipartisan resolution was raised by California Senator Adam Schiff and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul to block Trump from using force against Venezuela. Yet, the ultimate check on this dangerous adventure may yet rest with the American public, who must demand transparency and an immediate end to the march toward another disastrous war.

[Manolo De Los Santos is Executive Director of The People’s Forum and a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. His writing appears regularly in Monthly Review, Peoples Dispatch, CounterPunch, La Jornada, and other progressive media. He coedited, most recently, Viviremos: Venezuela vs. Hybrid War (LeftWord, 2020), Comrade of the Revolution: Selected Speeches of Fidel Castro (LeftWord, 2021), and Our Own Path to Socialism: Selected Speeches of Hugo Chávez (LeftWord, 2023). Courtesy: Globetrotter, a project of Independent Media Institute, a nonprofit organization that educates the public through a diverse array of independent media projects and programs.]