Trump Suggests U.S. Strike Inside Venezuela and Maduro Reinforces Troops in the Caribbean
U.S. President Donald Trump suggested this Sunday (7) the possibility of ordering attacks against the Cartel of the Suns (Cartel de los Soles) inside Venezuelan territory. When questioned by journalists about the measure, he replied directly: “You’ll see.” The statement comes amid rising tensions between Washington and Caracas, following U.S. military operations in the Caribbean to combat drug trafficking.
Trump’s remarks came just a few days after he warned that any Venezuelan aircraft posing a threat to U.S. forces in the region would be shot down. Last week, Venezuelan F-16 fighter jets briefly flew over a U.S. military vessel on an anti-drug mission, an incident that prompted the Pentagon to send F-35 fighters to Puerto Rico and expand its military presence in the area.
The U.S. government has already deployed eight warships and a nuclear submarine to the Caribbean, setting up one of the largest naval mobilizations in Latin America in recent decades. According to the White House, the move is part of Washington’s operation against drug trafficking.
Meanwhile, Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López announced this Sunday a reinforcement of military presence in five Caribbean states of the country, including Zulia, Falcón, and Nueva Esparta.
“No one is going to come here to do the work for us. No one will set foot on this land to do what it is our responsibility to do,” the minister declared in a video published on social media.
The backdrop of the U.S.-Venezuela escalation includes formal White House charges against Maduro for narcoterrorism and the increase of the reward for his capture to $50 million. Washington links the Chavista dictator to the so-called Cartel of the Suns and international drug trafficking networks, and justifies its Caribbean operation as part of an offensive to curb the flow of drugs into U.S. territory.
The tensions also coincide with Trump’s recent decision to restore the Pentagon’s old name, once again calling it the Department of War. According to him, the change reflects the current moment.
It Smells Like Oil
Note that the United States has a long history of invading countries (using arguments such as the existence of nuclear weapons, or the need to liberate people from dictatorship) but often with the underlying motive of securing access to those countries’ oil resources:
Examples:
1990–1991 — Gulf War (liberation of Kuwait)
Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait and the U.S.-led response were, beyond the principle of reversing aggression, strongly linked to the protection of Gulf oil routes and reserves, as well as to the stability of the global oil market.
2003 — “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” Invasion of Iraq
Officially justified by alleged weapons of mass destruction and the fight against terrorism, many studies and analysts also point to strategic and economic interests in Iraq’s oil sector as a relevant factor.
2011 — NATO intervention in Libya (overthrow and death of Muammar Gaddafi)
The intervention was presented as civilian protection (UN Resolution 1973); however, numerous analysts and critical studies argue that Libya’s oil and geopolitical interests (its reserves and petroleum infrastructure) were key components in the dynamics of the intervention and its aftermath.
2002–2003 (and continuing to the present) — Venezuela (attempts at destabilization, 2002 coup, economic pressure and sanctions)
Venezuela is a petro-state and has a long history of interventions, support for opposition movements, economic sanctions, and diplomatic pressure. Many observers note that control over Venezuelan oil resources and their conditions of exploitation have been (and remain) a central factor in U.S. relations with the country. More recently, tensions have intensified with military maneuvers and mutual accusations, while debates continue over the real reasons behind the escalation, including drug trafficking allegations used as justification.
In all of the cases above, there is documentary, journalistic, and academic evidence linking oil interests to political and strategic decisions.
0 Comments