Another Oil-Rich Nation, Another Manufactured Threat

The apparatus of war is moving into position off the coast of Venezuela, and with it comes a familiar narrative: drugs, terrorism, and the protection of American interests. But anyone paying attention to history, or simply to the glaring contradictions in the Trump administration’s rhetoric, can see what’s really happening. The United States is manufacturing consent for regime change, and the playbook is as old as American imperialism itself.

State of Siege is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Ten thousand soldiers aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest warship, now patrol the Caribbean alongside destroyers, amphibious assault ships, and a nuclear submarine. The Pentagon calls it a counter-narcotics operation. Yet military analysts agree that intercepting drug boats requires nothing close to this level of firepower. The sheer scale of the deployment, combined with at least 57 extrajudicial killings in strikes on alleged drug vessels, tells a different story entirely.

The official justification falls apart under scrutiny. The Trump administration claims Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro leads the “Cartel de los Soles,” a vast drug trafficking organization flooding American streets with cocaine. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has placed a $50 million bounty on Maduro’s head. Yet the Drug Enforcement Administration’s own 2024 National Drug Threat Assessment doesn’t even mention Venezuela. A classified National Intelligence Council report found no evidence that Maduro controls any drug trafficking organization. When intelligence contradicts the political narrative, the administration simply fires those who produce inconvenient facts—as it did with Mike Collins, the acting head of the National Intelligence Council.

The reality is that Venezuela plays a marginal role in the drug trade compared to Colombia, Mexico, and Ecuador. The country produces no coca leaves and has no involvement in synthetic drug production or the fentanyl crisis devastating American communities. If the Trump administration were genuinely concerned about combating drug trafficking, it would look elsewhere. But this was never about drugs.

The parallels to past American interventions are impossible to ignore. In 1989, the United States invaded Panama to arrest Manuel Noriega on drug trafficking charges. Noriega, conveniently, had been on the CIA’s payroll for years. American bombers killed hundreds of Panamanian civilians in the process of removing him from power. Panama declared the invasion date a national day of mourning thirty years later.

Before that came Guatemala, where CIA-backed regime change ushered in dictatorships and resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. In Cuba, Fidel Castro survived covert operations under multiple presidents and outlasted them all. The pattern is consistent: American intervention in Latin America, justified by noble-sounding rhetoric, leaves behind chaos, violence, and anti-American resentment that lasts for generations.

Venezuela today faces the same cynical machinery. The administration has authorized CIA covert operations. Trump himself confirmed this, undermining the entire concept of “covert” action. Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, who recently won the Nobel Peace Prize and dedicated it to Trump, has openly endorsed US military intervention in her own country. Meanwhile, Trump has mused about “land action,” and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared that six “narco-terrorists” were killed in a recent Caribbean strike. No trial, no due process, no evidence presented to the public.

What makes this particularly dangerous is Venezuela’s strategic importance beyond drugs. The country holds some of the world’s largest oil reserves and Latin America’s greatest gold deposits. This is not a narcotics state—it’s an oil state with a government the United States opposes.

The pattern is painfully familiar to anyone who lived through the Iraq War. In 2003, the Bush administration claimed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to American security. Intelligence was cherry-picked, dissenting voices were silenced, and skeptics were dismissed as unpatriotic. The invasion was sold as a liberation, a defense of freedom, a necessary strike against terrorism. Two decades later, we know the truth: no weapons of mass destruction existed, and Iraq’s oil reserves were always part of the calculation.

The parallels are unmistakable. Once again, we have a country rich in natural resources ruled by a leader the United States opposes. Once again, accusations lack credible intelligence support—or worse, contradict the government’s own classified assessments. Once again, officials who produce inconvenient facts are fired or ignored. And once again, the American public is being asked to accept vague justifications for military action that serves strategic interests while cloaking itself in the language of security and morality.

Trump’s own fixation on Venezuela’s oil is barely concealed. Just as he has mused about retaking the Panama Canal, he has made clear his interest in accessing Venezuelan petroleum. The administration granted Chevron an operating license in Venezuela even as it ramped up sanctions and military threats. This contradiction reveals where true priorities lie.

The consequences of intervention would be catastrophic. Venezuela has approximately 28 million people, the same population Iraq had when the United States invaded in 2003. Unlike Panama or Haiti, which the US occupied in the 1990s, Venezuela is a South American nation that has never experienced direct American military intervention. Even a weakened chavismo commands significant popular support, and opposition to foreign invasion would likely spark fierce resistance and protracted insurgency.

Brazil and Colombia, Venezuela’s most strategic neighbors, have strongly opposed any US military action, understanding what American policymakers seem to ignore: military intervention would create ideal conditions for the very criminal organizations the operation purports to target. The resulting chaos would flood the region with weapons and armed groups, destabilizing an already volatile area. The seven million Venezuelans who have already fled US sanctions (which have contributed to severe shortages of food, medicine, and fuel) would be joined by millions more in an unprecedented refugee crisis.

The Trump administration’s approach reveals its true priorities. Rather than addressing drug consumption or money laundering within the United States, it bombs small boats in international waters and deploys carrier strike groups to intimidate a sovereign nation. Rather than supporting diplomatic solutions or working with regional partners, it cuts off all backchannel communications with Venezuela and threatens military strikes.

This is not about drugs. This is not about terrorism. This is about power, about resources, and about an administration that sees regime change as the solution to its geopolitical frustrations. The machinery of consent is operating exactly as it always has: manufacturing threats, exaggerating dangers, and preparing the American public for another disastrous intervention in Latin America.

We have seen this before. We know how it ends. The only question is whether we will allow it to happen again.

Share