Categories Finance

Western Media Acknowledges Trump’s Venezuela Forces Are About Regime Change

  • 2026年1月31日
  • Estimated read time 17 min read
  • 0 comments

CNN has recently highlighted the “dark history of the CIA and regime change,” not only in Latin America but globally.

Approximately two months ago, we discussed the underlying motives behind Washington’s recent military actions against Venezuela. As we pointed out in that post, the official justification for this massive deployment — the goal of targeting drug trafficking organizations, now labeled narco-terroristas by the White House — lacks credibility:

Anyone who believes or supports this latest excuse for a war against a country where the U.S. has attempted regime change at least twice this century, and which has endured over a decade of debilitating U.S. sanctions, is either extraordinarily naive or an apologist for imperialism.

The narrative became increasingly dubious as the U.S. began attacking small boats in the Caribbean, claiming they were transporting drugs to the U.S.—without providing any evidence. Members of NC’s commentariat, who possess basic boating knowledge, debunked this notion, explaining that these small vessels could never even reach Florida.

Even if individuals on those boats were involved in drug trafficking, their summary execution is utterly illegal. As of now, U.S. strikes have destroyed seven vessels and claimed approximately 30 lives.

Now, two months later, the U.S. and Western media, after assisting in generating consent for the deployment in the Caribbean and the extrajudicial attacks on the high seas, are finally acknowledging what was obvious from the outset: Trump’s military mobilization against Venezuela is not genuinely about the war on drugs but is fundamentally geared toward regime change.

The New York Times was one of the first to make this admission, acknowledging in an October 9 article that “attacking Venezuelan vessels will not halt the flow of drugs to the U.S.”:

Mr. Trump’s focus on Venezuela contradicts reality: The majority of cocaine is produced and trafficked elsewhere in Latin America, according to data from the U.S., Colombia, and the United Nations. Experts assert that Venezuela does not supply fentanyl at all.

The Trump administration has urged Mexico to do more to curb drug trafficking into the U.S. However, former diplomats and regional analysts indicate that — despite American claims — the boat strikes off Venezuela seem to aim at pressuring President Nicolás Maduro or potentially ending his rule altogether. Trump officials have labeled him an illegitimate leader and accused him of running a cartel. He denies any ties to drug trafficking.

Experts caution that regardless of the strikes’ impact within Venezuela, they are unlikely to alter the flow of the perilous substances contributing to America’s crisis.

James Story, the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela from 2018 to 2023, noted that even if the United States achieved some limited success, traffickers would reconvene.

He likened using military force to target small trafficking vessels to “using a blowtorch to cook an egg.”

The FT’s Mental Gymnastics

On October 19, the Financial Times published an article that also questioned the official narrative. Citing U.S. officials and Venezuelan opposition figures closely aligned with the Trump administration, the piece bizarrely suggested that the purpose of the immense military buildup in the Caribbean — which now accounts for more than 10% of the U.S. naval fleet — has shifted from targeting drug traffickers to pursuing regime change:

Donald Trump’s military buildup off the Venezuelan coast aims to convince President Nicolás Maduro and his inner circle that retaining power will be more burdensome than stepping down, according to Venezuelan opposition figures and analysts.

Initially, when the U.S. ordered its largest deployment of warships and fighter jets to the Caribbean in over three decades, it was framed as a campaign against drug trafficking. The subsequent targeted strikes aimed at destroying small boats that the American president claimed were smuggling drugs soon followed. However, the focus has now shifted.

The primary goal is to compel top Venezuelan officials to depart, ideally through resignation or a negotiated transfer of power — with the unmistakable threat that should Maduro and his close allies cling to their positions, the U.S. might resort to military force to capture or eliminate them.

The mental gymnastics exhibited by the FT writers as they tried to explain this about-face in the Trump administration’s military objectives — from combating drug cartels to toppling a government in a mere two months — is remarkable.

As we noted in early September, the so-called “Cartel de los Soles,” which allegedly has Maduro at its helm, is not even referenced in the DEA’s own Drug Threat Assessment reports. It similarly does not appear in reports released by the EU and UN. We cited an article by former UN anti-drugs chief Pino Arlacchi, which provided a scathing critique of the Trump administration’s portrayal of Venezuela as a “narco-state”:

Among many aforementioned documents, it cites the 2025 World Drug Report, which “piece by piece… dismantles the geopolitical myth constructed around the ‘Cartel de los Soles’,… a narrative useful for justifying sanctions, blockades, and threats of military intervention against a nation that, coincidentally, possesses one of the world’s largest oil reserves.”

Last week, Jordan Goudreau, the U.S.-Canadian former Green Beret who led the botched ‘Bay of Piglets’ invasion of Venezuela in 2020, stated in an interview with Max Blumenthal that it was widely known, and even laughed about within intelligence circles, that the Cartel de los Soles was established by the CIA in the 1990s.

Some readers of the FT also expressed skepticism, noting the illogical inconsistencies in the article. One commenter remarked that “it seems the FT is only now recognizing what many independent observers have noted for some time”:

“…that the purpose of all that fanfare had little to do with drugs, but was about inciting a coup d’état.

Is this the end? Certainly not, but the FT waits until events unfold to present the “news.” It appears the aim is also regime change in Cuba.

Is there more? Yes. The ultimate goal is to assert control over South America to eliminate China’s investments and interests. The underlying issue seems to be that what the Global North considers democracy is what aligns with their own interests.

The Financial Times article not only changes its narrative on Venezuela but also alters its sales pitch:

At stake in Venezuela are the world’s largest confirmed oil reserves, along with valuable deposits of gold, diamonds, and coltan. Once a U.S. ally, Venezuela shifted towards Russia, China, and Iran under Hugo Chávez, who led a “Bolivarian” socialist revolution from 1999 until his death in 2013.

Maduro, a Cuban-trained former bus driver, is now facing a $50 million bounty from the U.S. and was chosen by Chávez as his successor.

For Trump, who has prioritized U.S. interests in the western hemisphere more in nine months than any president since Bill Clinton in the 1990s, Venezuela remains unfinished business. He attempted to oust Maduro during his initial term with “maximum pressure” economic sanctions and by recognizing an alternative opposition-led government.

“It’s clear that the mission is evolving towards being more about regime collapse or regime change,” stated Ryan Berg, head of the Americas program at the CSIS think tank. “We’re increasingly banking on Maduro abandoning Caracas… and a complete removal of the top 25 to 50 Chavistas, adherents to Chávez’s ideology.”

As noted by reader cato 1308, the FT’s seemingly objective reporting on U.S. imperial ambitions in Venezuela starkly contrasts with its fervent condemnations of Russia’s violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty or China’s ongoing threats towards Taiwan:

Perhaps the FT can write about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine with a similar balance, without delving into the legalities of regime change, foreign interference, and meddling in another sovereign nation’s internal issues.

Could the next piece be discussing how China could orchestrate regime change in Taiwan so that they could reunite with their homeland?

The CIA’s Not-So-Covert Involvement

Perhaps the most significant evidence that the U.S. military build-up in the Caribbean has nothing to do with combatting drug cartels and may even serve the opposite purpose was revealed last week when Trump declared he had authorized the CIA to operate in Venezuela, as if it hadn’t been doing so since its inception.

The New York Times interviewed members of the Trump administration, reporting that “U.S. officials have privately made clear: the ultimate goal is to expel Mr. Maduro from power.”

[Trump has directed the CIA] to execute lethal operations in Venezuela… The Trump administration’s plan for Venezuela, crafted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and aided by John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, seeks to remove Mr. Maduro from power.

As noted by Ben Norton, “Rubio is a lifelong neoconservative hawk” who has dedicated his political career to advocating for regime change not just in Venezuela, but also in Cuba and Nicaragua.

No other organization globally has exerted more influence over the modern drug trade than the CIA, including within Venezuela.

The CIA has been implicated in the narcotics trade across the globe’s primary drug hotspots, including the Golden Triangle spanning Thailand, Laos, and Myanmar; Colombia, where drug lord Pablo Escobar reportedly worked for the agency; and Mexico, where reports suggest CIA involvement in the torture and killing of DEA agent Kiki Camarena.

Here’s the New York Times acknowledging in 1998 that the CIA permitted crack cocaine to be smuggled into the U.S. during the Iran-Contra scandal:

A year later, Robert Parry documented that reports released by the CIA and the Justice Department “contained broad admissions that the CIA not only ‘knew about contra-cocaine smuggling,’ but also ‘obstructed criminal investigations and systematically concealed evidence that could have harmed President Reagan’s pro-contra policies.’”

During that time, the Republican-controlled Congress attempted to suppress all investigations into these matters.

Returning to the present, Trump’s recent proclamation of a CIA covert operation in Venezuela somewhat undermines the operation’s covert intentions, particularly in a nation and region where the CIA is widely despised. Nonetheless, it offered a propaganda victory for Maduro, who seized the opportunity to recount the CIA’s brutal history in Venezuela, Latin America, and beyond:

Warnings About the CIA from CNN

Perhaps the most unexpected shift in narrative we’ve encountered to date came from CNN. Its October 17 article, “Trump’s Moves Against Venezuela Sound Familiar for a Reason,” written by Zachary B. Wolf, not only states that “the U.S. government appears to be preparing for regime change in Venezuela” two months later, but also emphasizes the “dark history of the CIA and regime change,” not just in Latin America but worldwide:

While the Venezuelan opposition might view U.S. military intervention as hopeful, anyone familiar with the CIA’s history in Latin America will remain deeply skeptical.

I consulted Tim Weiner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author who has chronicled the CIA’s history, including his recent work, “The Mission.” Weiner pointed out that Trump’s admission of authorizing CIA actions in Venezuela essentially negated the covert nature of these actions.

He also referenced the dismissal in May of Mike Collins, a veteran intelligence professional who headed the National Intelligence Council, which had produced an assessment contradicting the administration’s narrative linking the Tren de Aragua gang to Maduro’s regime — a connection critical for Trump’s use of the 1789 Alien Enemies Act to expedite the deportation of certain Venezuelans in the U.S. without due process.

“These are three ingredients leading to a disaster,” Weiner warned. “The historical record of CIA-backed regime changes has not been a happy one, not just in Latin America but throughout the globe.”

The reason CNN is releasing these truths about U.S. foreign policy is primarily due to the reality that Trump is spearheading the move towards conflict with Venezuela. There hasn’t been a major U.S. act of aggression in the last fifty years that the corporate network has not thoroughly endorsed. However, as noted by Ben Norton, “given CNN’s stance against Trump, it has been willing to challenge some of the administration’s clear falsehoods regarding Venezuela.”

Simultaneously, resistance against the Trump Administration’s warmongering is increasing, both in Washington and globally. The U.S. Senate recently held a vote aimed at limiting Trump’s war powers in the Caribbean, which failed by a margin of 48-51, and is scrambling to conduct another. Legislators argue the administration has yet to furnish evidence supporting the boat strikes, which many believe to be illegal and unconstitutional.

As many readers already know, the Commander of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), Navy Adm. Alvin Holsey, unexpectedly announced his resignation from the position on October 17 without any explanation. In his capacity as SOUTHCOM commander, Admiral Holsey was responsible for executing the orders to destroy the boats. While an official reason for his resignation is yet to be provided, the NYT reports that Holsey expressed concern regarding the mission.

It may be time for Trump to recall former SOUTHCOM commander Laura Richardson from retirement to reassume command.

Public outrage concerning U.S. military strikes against boats in the Caribbean is also mounting, particularly after reports that among the victims are innocent fishermen from Trinidad and Tobago and Colombia. In an interview with The Guardian, relatives of those killed from Trinidad condemned Trump for “killing poor people,” asserting that he simply desires to seize their “gas and oil.”

Colombian President Gustavo Petro has accused the U.S. of killing a Colombian citizen during its assaults on the so-called “narco boats.” The individual, Alejandro Carranza, was a fisherman with no connections to drug trafficking, according to Petro. Colombian media visited Carranza’s village and spoke to relatives, stating he was not involved in narcotics. Some reports indicate Carranza had been part of a weapons theft in 2017.

The Colombian president noted that the fishing vessel was adrift and signaling for help, accusing the U.S. of infringing upon the nation’s sovereignty.

“U.S. officials committed an assassination and violated our territorial waters,” Petro wrote on social media. “We await an explanation from the U.S. government.”

Trump escalated his standoff with Petro on Friday, tweeting that he had halved all aid to Colombia (albeit with a misspelling of the country’s name) and menaced an invasion if Colombia did not close its cocaine “killing fields.”

Picture

The Trump administration has already rescinded Petro’s U.S. visa after the Colombian leader delivered a harsh critique of both Netanyahu’s regime and Trump’s policies during his recent address to the UN General Assembly in September. Washington has also decertified Colombia as a trustworthy ally in its “fight” against drug cartels.

The Petro administration, similar to its Venezuelan counterpart, is no friend of the Netanyahu regime and was among the first globally to sever diplomatic ties with Tel Aviv and impose sanctions on the Israeli economy.

Meanwhile, Corrina Machado has not only signed a strategic agreement with the Likud party, but also once implored Israel (and, confusingly, Argentina) to intervene militarily in Venezuela and remove the Maduro government. She has expressed her endorsement for Netanyahu’s multi-front war on Iran and its allies just days after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize:

A longstanding CIA asset eager to cede Venezuela’s natural resources to U.S. corporations, including its vast oil reserves, Machado would be the ideal substitute for Maduro. [The Times’s recent assertions that Maduro is willing to forsake everything, including his connections to China, Russia, and Iran, in a desperate attempt to appease Trump, based solely on unnamed U.S. sources, lack credibility in this observer’s opinion]:

Fox News’ Sean Hannity suggested that if Machado could be positioned as Venezuela’s leader, Venezuela, once a “ranchito” of the Rockefeller oil empire, could even become the 51st state of the U.S., presumptively ahead of Canada.

Several reasons justify the unprovoked U.S. aggression against Venezuela, including the Maduro government’s connections to China, Russia, and Iran — the U.S.’s three most significant strategic rivals; its opposition to Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza; as well as the Trump administration’s urgent need to divert attention from the ongoing Epstein scandal, which has seen it losing support from prominent figures such as Joe Rogan.

However, the predominant aim remains regaining and maintaining control over the immense mineral resources of Venezuela and neighboring Guyana:

As we have cautioned since Trump’s re-election, the U.S. is in the chaotic process of imperial retrenchment, as evidenced by his clumsy attempts to withdraw from the conflict in Ukraine. If successful, this strategy may yield benefits for distant regions, yet it also entails a much stronger focus from Washington on its immediate neighborhood.

The repercussions are already becoming evident, as the Caribbean Sea transforms into a perilous environment for fishermen, while B-52 bombers capable of deploying nuclear weapons circle off the coast of Venezuela as an intimidation tactic against Maduro’s Chavista government. Meanwhile, the Western legacy media continues to mold and enhance the narrative for yet another imperial misadventure.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

您的邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注

You May Also Like

Trump’s Strategy to Reduce the Trade Deficit with China

Understanding Delusion, Drug Use, and Misinformation in Trump’s World

Currency Debasement: Understanding Its Impact on the Economy