But today, the sheer scale of the US military build-up does not align with the idea of a cynical political stunt, nor does Trump’s decision to cut off all diplomatic backchannels with the Venezuelan government and deauthorise special envoy Rick Grenell’s outreach to Maduro. The more we look at the military deployment and the increasingly belligerent rhetoric from Trump officials, the more the pursuit of regime change through military means appears to be the most plausible explanation…
We also shouldn’t be surprised if, when the first attack fails to produce the promised uprising, regime-change advocates demand another strike, then another. Convinced the government is on its last legs and needs just one more push, they would likely pressure Trump to keep bombing, and perhaps even support the formation of some form of armed opposition, currently nonexistent in Venezuela.
Such a Libya-style proxy war would flood an already volatile region with more weapons and money. Criminal organizations and irregular armed groups already operating on Venezuela’s western border — and beyond, in neighboring Colombia — would thrive in the chaos, swelling their ranks and profiting from arms and human trafficking: a nightmare scenario for Latin America.
During the last few years of draconian US sanctions on Venezuela — which have significantly contributed to shortages of food, medicine and fuel — more than seven million Venezuelans have fled their country. This unprecedented wave of migration has had profound repercussions across the region and beyond, including in the US, where it has influenced the 2024 elections in Trump’s favor. If US sanctions produced such an exodus, we can only imagine the scale of the refugee crisis that would result from an actual war. It is no surprise that Brazil and Colombia, Venezuela’s most strategic neighbors from the point of view of any potential conflict, have strongly opposed a US military intervention.
The bitter irony is inescapable: an operation justified by anti-narcotics rhetoric would create ideal conditions for drug-trafficking organizations to expand their power. The military build-up off Venezuela’s coast is a slippery slope towards an armed conflagration that could lead to far greater suffering for the Venezuelan people, a potential political quagmire for the United States, US troop casualties and the catastrophic destabilization of much of the region.


I’m not convinced the second is true. Always seems to be resource based. Many places the US hasn’t helped because there’s not a financial incentive (see Africa for examples).
Note how “terrorist” is often applied to those resistant to resource/land based occupation/exploitation.
Well yeah, they’re striking terror into the shareholders. Won’t anyone think of the shareholders?