Tag: regime change

President Trump Seems Itching for Multiple Wars in the Western Hemisphere

Donald Trump seems to be following through in his second term as president on the threat of a United States war on Venezuela he made in his first term. Significant US military force has been recently placed near Venezuela ready for attack, the US has already destroyed several boats near Venezuela and killed most the people on them in a claimed effort to counter “narco-terrorism,” and Trump last week said he has authorized Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operation and is considering attacks on land in Venezuela.

The justification the Trump administration presents for all this is that it is part of the US government’s drug war, an endeavor that has meted out death, destruction, and rights abuses decade after decade as drug use in America continues along. The Trump administration also re-characterizes alleged drug transport as “narco-terrorism” in an effort to gain legal and public support for hostile actions.

Trump seems not to be content to go to war against just Venezuela whose President Nicolás Maduro he has proclaimed is a drug kingpin. Trump on Sunday pegged the president of neighboring Western Hemisphere nation Colombia with the same accusation used against Maduro. Here is how Trump put it in a Sunday post at his Truth Social page:

President Gustavo Petro, of Colombia, is an illegal drug leader strongly encouraging the massive production of drugs, in big and small fields, all over Colombia. It has become the biggest business in Colombia, by far, and Petro does nothing to stop it, despite large scale payments and subsidies from the USA that are nothing more than a long term rip off of America. AS OF TODAY, THESE PAYMENTS, OR ANY OTHER FORM OF PAYMENT, OR SUBSIDIES, WILL NO LONGER BE MADE TO COLOMBIA. The purpose of this drug production is the sale of massive amounts of product into the United States, causing death, destruction, and havoc. Petro, a low rated and very unpopular leader, with a fresh mouth toward America, better close up these killing fields immediately, or the United States will close them up for him, and it won’t be done nicely. Thank you for your attention to this matter! ~ President Donald J. Trump

Notice Trump’s comment that the Colombia president “better close up these killing fields immediately, or the United States will close them up for him, and it won’t be done nicely.” That is a threat of war.

Will Trump stop with just these two countries in a Western Hemisphere war spree? Trump, after regaining the presidency earlier this year, took actions in apparent preparation for war on Mexico as well – actions in line with Trump’s comments since his first term supportive of war on Mexico and argued to be for protecting Americans from drugs and terrorism as with wars on Venezuela and Colombia.

Keep reading

The Neocons Have Finally Found a Way Into MAGA Hearts

“Neocon” may have become a dirty word, but after a few years, their agenda is back in play.

And no doubt many of their players, too.

After being banished to the wilderness for plunging the nation into a 20-year war, the neocons fell flat with the Trump base in Ukraine and lost the thread with MAGA in Israel. Venezuela and the Western Hemisphere are another matter. The neocons have evolved, and regime change is back on the menu.

How? Rather than pushing “democracy” and “freedom” like George W. Bush’s famous second inaugural speech at the height of the Iraq War, neoconservatives have adopted the prevailing MAGA/New Right language of “America First” to inject regime change back into fashion.

If you don’t think so, just listen to what Marco Rubio – once a reliable foot soldier for neoconservative foreign policy on Capitol Hill since his election to the Senate in 2011 – has to say about Nicolas Maduro today. He insists that Maduro is “not the President of Venezuela and his regime is not the legitimate government,” but a “corrupt, criminal and illegitimate (regime)” that undermines “America’s national security interests.”

Meanwhile, he calls Maduro an “enemy of humanity” who “has strangled democracy and grasped at power in Venezuela” and announced a $50 million bounty on his head. Since then, there has been a massive military buildup in the region and talk of bringing the lead narco terrorist to justice.

This hasn’t been lost on observers, even in conventional Right circles. “You thought I was joking when I said Trump was the greatest neoconservative president we’ve had in ages,” National Review’s Jim Geraghty exclaimed in a recent column.

Supporters of Trump say the president is still allergic to “regime change wars” and that the administration is only interested in short, sharp actions against drug cartels and Maduro. Yet Trump hasn’t fully denied that aspiration either. In fact, he teases a little about it every day. The President has even confirmed that he gave the CIA – who know a thing or two about assassinations and toppling governments – the authority to conduct covert operations in and around Venezuela.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.

So what is different about today? Trump’s populist base elected him because he espoused a nationalism that promised a foreign policy focused on American interests and our own backyard: cracking down on illegal immigration and drugs being top priorities. Going after cartels fits neatly into a “return of the Monroe Doctrine” and “pivot back to the Western Hemisphere.”

“Both inside and out of the administration there are many MAGA-aligned thinkers who want a more regionalized strategy in place of a globalist or imperial American foreign policy. They tend to be for less engagement with the Middle East and Europe and more attention to the Western Hemisphere,” noted Modern Age editor Daniel McCarthy.

“Where that outlook intersects with neoconservatism is that the neocons have, of course, long wanted regime change and the promotion of liberal democracy in Latin America. Since there’s a fight on to define what the Monroe Doctrine means in the 21st century, the neocons have an advantage in that they already have a plan for Latin America and for Venezuela in particular.”

McCarthy points to neoconservative Elliott Abrams, who has probably set the record for Washington comebacks since his conviction in the Iran-Contra Affair. Abrams was in the thick of Reagan’s destabilizing attempts to overthrow communists in Latin America in the 80s. He has shown up in both Republican and Democratic administrations, always promoting regime change as a way to advance American interests in the region. He now runs the neoconservative Vandenberg Coalition and drove Trump’s failed policy to overturn Maduro during his first administration (Rubio was in on that too). Abrams is not on the inside today, but has been all over mainstream media for his quick takes on recent anti-narco military operations.

“There was less emphasis on the Monroe Doctrine in the first term, but now the neocons interested in Latin America are adapting their ideas for a Monroe Doctrine framework, and since there isn’t a fully articulated alternative on the non-neocon MAGA right, the neocons are in a position to influence the agenda,” charged McCarthy.

One may wonder who “they” are when the most visible neocons of the early 21st Century are now Never Trumpers who seemingly spend most of their time tweeting about “No Kings” and the total collapse of American democracy. Bill Kristol, David Frum, Elliot Cohen, Jen Rubin – they are part of a domestic commentariat who, even if they supported what Trump was doing in the Caribbean, wouldn’t say so publicly (except for maybe on Gaza).

The folks at the reliable neoconservative Hudson Institute, however, are railing against the realists (they call “isolationists”) in Trumpworld on Ukraine and Israel, and are now dipping their toe into the Americas. They hosted regime change advocates in a recent forum, where CSIS’s Eric Farnsworth trotted out the new language in support of regime change:

“I think in the biggest sense, to have Venezuela free and prosperous and return to democracy that is absolutely in the U.S. interest, to say nothing of, if I can say, the interests of Colombia and Brazil and Peru and Ecuador and Trinidad and Tobago and the Caribbean countries and the countries, frankly, in Europe where, like Spain, where Venezuela has intervened in elections and things like that.”

Keep reading

Trump Suggests US Strikes on Alleged Drug Shipments on ‘Land’ Are Coming Soon

President Trump on Wednesday suggested that US strikes on alleged drug shipments “on land” could be coming soon amid the US bombing campaign targeting boats in Latin America.

Trump has made similar comments before, and according to multiple media reports, the US is preparing to bomb Venezuela with the goal of ousting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and is using cracking down on drug trafficking as a pretext.

The president claimed to reporters at the White House that he had “legal authority” to launch the strikes, but Congress hasn’t authorized the bombing campaign, which the Constitution requires for launching a war. Trump said he may notify Congress of the plans to launch strikes on land targets, but didn’t say he would seek authorization.

“We will hit them very hard when they come in by land. And they haven’t experienced that yet, but now we’re totally prepared to do that. We’ll probably go back to Congress and explain exactly what we’re doing when [they] come to the land,” the president said.

The president previously told Congress that he believes the US is now in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels. Trump has framed the airstrikes as self-defense, pointing to the large numbers of drug overdoses in the US, but they are primarily caused by fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, which don’t come from Venezuela, something Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who has been very critical of the campaign, has pointed out.

“There is no fentanyl made in Venezuela. Not just a little bit, there’s none being made. These are outboard boats that, in order for them to get to Miami, would have to stop and refuel 20 times,” Paul told British journalist Piers Morgan this week.

“It’s all likely going to Trinidad and Tobago. There are a lot of reasons to be worried about this. Number one is the broader principle of when can you kill people indiscriminately when there’s war. That’s why when we declare war is supposed to be done by Congress. It’s not supposed to be done willy nilly. When there’s war you just kill people in the war zone, there are rules of engagement,” Paul added.

Since September 2, the US has bombed at least seven boats in the Caribbean and one in the eastern Pacific near Colombia, extrajudicially executing 34 people at sea, according to numbers released by the Trump administration, without providing evidence to back up its claims about the targets. Sources told The Washington Post on Wednesday that any US airstrikes in Venezuela would likely first target alleged trafficker encampments or clandestine airstrips, but regime change remains the ultimate goal.

“There really is no turning back unless Maduro is essentially not in power,” a person familiar with the administration’s deliberations told the Post.

Keep reading

UN experts say US strikes against Venezuela in international waters amount to ‘extrajudicial executions’

U.S. strikes against Venezuela in international waters are a dangerous escalation and amount to “extrajudicial executions,” a group of independent United Nations experts said on Tuesday.

In recent months, U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered strikes on at least six suspected drug vessels in the Caribbean, killing at least 27 people. 

The strikes are part of Trump’s ongoing campaign against what he says is a “narcoterrorist” threat emanating from Venezuela and linked to its president, Nicolas Maduro.

The U.N. experts acknowledged Trump’s justification for the military action, but said: “Even if such allegations were substantiated, the use of lethal force in international waters without proper legal basis violates the international law of the sea and amounts to extrajudicial executions.”

The independent experts, who are appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, said the strikes violate the South American country’s sovereignty and the United States’ “fundamental international obligations” not to intervene in domestic affairs or threaten to use armed force against another country.

“These moves are an extremely dangerous escalation with grave implications for peace and security in the Caribbean region,” they said in a statement.

Keep reading

Will Trump really attack Venezuela?

It’s ironic that in the same week that President Donald Trump escalated the drug war in the Caribbean by unleashing the CIA against Nicolás Maduro’s regime in Venezuela, the Department of Justice won an indictment against former National Security Adviser John Bolton, the architect of the failed covert strategy to overthrow Maduro during the first Trump administration.

The one thing the two regime change operations have in common is Marco Rubio, who, as a senator, was a vociferous opponent of Maduro. Now, as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, he’s the new architect of Trump’s Venezuela policy, having managed to cut short Richard Grenell’s attempt to negotiate a diplomatic deal with Maduro. Regime change is on the agenda once again, with gunboats in the Caribbean and the CIA on the ground. What could go wrong?

Donald Trump’s penchant for turning the metaphorical war on drugs into a real one by deploying the U.S. military dates back to his first administration, when he threatened to designate drug cartels as foreign terrorists and proposed launching missiles to blow up drugs labs in Mexico. During the recent presidential campaign, he declared, “The drug cartels are waging war on America—and it’s now time for America to wage war on the cartels.” Apparently, he meant it.

Back in office, he named six Mexican cartels, the Salvadoran gang MS-13, and the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) and ordered the Pentagon to draw up plans for military action against them. Early on, White House officials seriously debated military strikes against cartel leaders and infrastructure inside Mexico, but decided that cooperation with the Mexican government would be more fruitful. Nevertheless, the unusual appointment of a veteran Special Forces military officer to head the Western Hemisphere Affairs office of the National Security Council signaled that Trump was still was serious about resorting to military force to wage the war on drugs.

The focus then shifted to Venezuela. The day before the New York Times broke the story about Pentagon planning for action against cartels, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that the U.S. government was offering a $50 million reward for information leadings to Maduro’s arrest, accusing him of the “use cocaine as a weapon to ‘flood’ the United States.” Trump claimed Maduro was directing Tren de Aragua in “undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States,” a claim that the intelligence community concluded was untrue, despite pressure from Trump political appointees to make the estimate conform to Trump’s claim. The two senior career intelligence officers who oversaw preparation of the estimate were summarily fired.

In August, the Trump administration deployed a naval task force to the Caribbean, including three guided-missile destroyers, an amphibious assault ship, a guided-missile cruiser, and a nuclear-powered attack submarine. The following month, U.S. forces began air strikes on vessels allegedly smuggling narcotics in international waters off the Venezuelan coast. When Democrats and some Republicans questioned the legality of summarily killing civilians who posed no immediate threat, Trump informed Congress that he had determined that the United States was in a state of “armed conflict” with unnamed “drug cartels,” whose drug trafficking constituted an attack on the United States. Therefore, traffickers were “unlawful combatants” subject to being killed on sight. Admiral Alvin Holsey, commander of U.S. Southern Command, resigned on Thursday, reportedly because of concerns over the extrajudicial killing of civilians in the air strikes.

Keep reading

Venezuela mobilises troops, militia amid US military buildup in Caribbean

Venezuela is deploying troops along the Caribbean coast and mobilising what President Nicolás Maduro claims is a militia numbering in the millions. The move signals defiance against the largest US military presence in the Caribbean since the 1980s, according to a Wall Street Journal report. 

State media has amplified Maduro’s message, portraying the US as a rapacious, Nazi-like power seeking control of Venezuela’s oil resources. Announcers on television, radio, and social media platforms have emphasised that the National Bolivarian Armed Forces are prepared to repel any invasion, WSJ reports.

Militia and armed forces on display

Footage shows Venezuelan militia members of varying ages navigating obstacle courses, firing rifles, and performing training exercises. The country’s regular armed forces, numbering around 125,000 on paper, were seen marching in formation, moving munitions, and mounting Russian-made jet fighters. 

“The people are ready for combat, ready for battle,” Maduro had told supporters earlier this month. The president has also encouraged recruitment from indigenous communities and called on civilian militias to prepare for possible confrontations with American forces.

Keep reading

Who are the US Army’s elite ‘Night Stalkers’? Trump deploys special ops forces near Venezuela

An elite Army unit capable of inserting some of the American military’s most deadly special operations forces into a fight has been deployed to the Caribbean as President Trump exerts an increasing show of force in Venezuela.

The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, known as the vaunted “Night Stalkers,” operates attack helicopters like the Army’s MH-60 Black Hawks and small transport helicopters into the most perilous situations. 

Video surfaced earlier this month showing Army Black Hawks and smaller ‘Little Birds” undergoing training in Trinidad, located about 500 miles east of the capital city of Caracas, giving the first hint of the rotary-wing power being readied.

The “Night Stalkers” are able to deposit highly trained fighters, including Navy SEALs, Army Green Berets, or Delta Force personnel, into battle zones. 

Training with such aircraft indicated practice for potential missions battling drug cartels — or even the regime itself — said defense expert Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Colonel now with the Center for Strategic International Studies in DC.

Keep reading

Venezuela regime change means invasion, chaos, and heavy losses

Maximum pressure has long been President Donald Trump’s stance towards the government of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela — he slapped crippling sanctions on the country during his first term — but in recent days the administration has pushed the stakes even higher.

The Caribbean is currently hosting an astonishing quantity of American naval and air assets, including four Arleigh Burke–class destroyers, a guided missile cruiser, an attack submarine, a Marine Amphibious Ready Group, and a flight of F-35 multirole fighters.

These are ostensibly deployed as part of an antinarcotic and drug interdiction operation, but the volume of firepower employed for what is normally a relatively sedate task has created broad suspicion at home and in Venezuela that a military intervention against the Bolivarian Republic is on tap. Maduro recently sent a letter to the United Nations stating that he expected an “armed attack” against his country in “a very short time.”

His concerns have probably not been assuaged by the formation of a new Joint Task Force last week (again ostensibly for anti-narcotics operations) in SOUTHCOM under the II Marine Expeditionary Force, precisely the kind of unit that would be deployed in a Venezuelan military intervention, still less by the recent New York Times report that Trump has authorized lethal covert operations by American intelligence agents within his borders.

The administration has made its interest in removing Maduro quite clear: it views him as the head of a narcoterrorist organization that is responsible for exporting crime, drugs, and illegal immigrants to the United States. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has declared that Maduro is not the legitimate president of the country, due to his government’s obvious falsification of results in the 2024 election, and the Justice Department doubled the bounty for his capture to $50 million.

But while Maduro is, without a doubt, a usurper of the presidential office and a tyrannical dictator, he is no less the president and head of state of Venezuela. Ideological harangues about the sanctity of democracy will no more remove him from power or render his government moot than American disapproval of the Chinese Communist Party could affect the democratization of Red China, something both sides are well aware of. Removing Maduro will require more than sanctions, threats, or pressure: it will require war, and that possibility looks increasingly likely with each passing day.

While ending Maduro’s dictatorship would certainly be a boon to the Venezuelan people, the intervention comes with a number of costs and risks American policymakers should bear in mind and carefully weigh against the potential benefits of intervention. There is no free lunch in geopolitics.

The most obvious costs are those of the initial invasion. The American invasion of Panama in 1989, to overthrow the government of General Manuel Noriega, was carried out by a force of some 27,000 U.S. troops, 23 of which were killed and hundreds more wounded. Venezuela is vastly larger than Panama, and while its military is very poorly equipped, it likewise dwarfs the forces that were available to Noriega. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates an invasion of Venezuela would require nearly 50,000 troops, some of which will not return home. Any American government should be extremely conscientious about the causes on which it spends the lives of American soldiers.

Keep reading

Bipartisan senators to force vote blocking ‘unauthorized war’ in Venezuela

A group of bipartisan senators will force a vote on a War Powers Resolution to block the use of force by American troops within or against Venezuela after President Trump raised the possibility of attacks against Nicolás Maduro’s regime.

The measure is being led by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) are co-sponsors. 

Trump said Wednesday he had authorized the CIA to carry out covert operations inside Venezuela, saying he was focused on “land” operations and raising the specter the president is looking to remove Maduro from power.  

“The American people do not want to be dragged into endless war with Venezuela without public debate or a vote. We ought to defend what the Constitution demands: deliberation before war,” Paul said in a statement. 

The effort marks the second time senators have sought to block Trump’s buildup of force in the Caribbean Sea. A vote on a War Powers Resolution last week failed 48-51, although it garnered support from Paul and one other Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).

“Americans don’t want to send their sons and daughters into more wars—especially wars that carry a serious risk of significant destabilization and massive new waves of migration in our hemisphere,” Kaine said in a statement. 

“If my colleagues disagree and think a war with Venezuela is a good idea, they need to meet their constitutional obligations by making their case to the American people and passing an Authorization for Use of Military Force. I urge every senator to join us in stopping this Administration from dragging our country into an unauthorized and escalating military conflict.”

Keep reading

Siege of Venezuela Escalates With Strategic Bombers Over the Caribbean, as Trump Administration Reportedly Unleashes CIA Covert Operations on Venezuela, Including Lethal Action

The conflict is in the air, in the sea, and in the shadows.

Today (15) was an eventful day in the Caribbean Sea, where the Naval siege on Venezuela keeps a steady pressure on the Socialist country.

During the morning, three United States Air Force B-52H Strategic Bombers were spotted over International Waters off the coast of Venezuela.

U.S. BOMBERS FLEX NUCLEAR MUSCLE NEAR VENEZUELA

In a sky-shattering flex that screams regime-crushing thunder, 2 USAF B-52H Stratofortress behemoths blitzed the southern Caribbean just 100~240 miles from Caracas.

“In a sky-shattering flex that screams regime-crushing thunder, 2 USAF B-52H Stratofortress behemoths blitzed the southern Caribbean just 100~240 miles from Caracas. They orbited for hours in a blatant missile drill that has Maduro’s dictatorship sweating apocalypse. Venezuelan F-16s scrambled like cornered rats, echoes of Trump’s anti-narco hammer.

Launched from Barksdale AFB with a shadowy tagalong, the 60-year-old nuclear titans, modded for cruise-missile hellfire, ghosted over Cuba and Mexico before locking onto Venezuela’s coast. They vanished in transponder blackouts that screamed stealth strike simulations, only to resurface gunning south in loops off La Orchila military isle.

The flight drew 5,000 trackers and ignited global panic as Caracas screamed ‘provocation!’ The Pentagon stonewalls it as ‘routine training’, but insiders whisper Trump’s lethal boat strikes, 5 dead last week, 6 this month, are escalating the shadow war.

The B-52s’ 1,600-mile AGM-86 Armageddon range puts Maduro’s palace squarely in the crosshairs.”

That led Caracas to scramble F-16s from El Libertador Air Base to respond to US B-52 bombers’ presence.

Keep reading