U.S. actions toward Venezuela reveal a deeper ideological current that resonates with other global conflicts, particularly the ongoing situation in Palestine. This article examines the motivations behind U.S. intervention, particularly the dismissal of international law, and how this reflects a broader paradigm shift in American foreign policy.
No Justification for Aggression
There is no valid reason for U.S. hostility towards Venezuela. However, such aggression carries significant symbolic weight, echoing the underlying ideologies that also propel Israeli actions in Palestine.
Flouting International Law
The U.S. has consistently ignored international law, a fact acknowledged by Marco Rubio, who stated after the G7 meeting in Canada: “I don’t think that the European Union gets to determine what international law is, and what they certainly don’t get to determine is how the United States defends its national security.”1
In Defense of National Security
Rubio was responding to Kaja Kallas, vice president of the European Commission, who doubted the legitimacy of U.S. military operations in the Caribbean. In his reply, Rubio maintained: “The United States is under attack from organized criminal narco-terrorists in our hemisphere, and the President is responding in defense of our country.”
Perception of the War on Drugs
It seems that Trump and elements within his administration genuinely perceive themselves as engaged in a war against drug cartels. Commentator Thomas Neuburger describes Trump’s approach as the manifestation of a distorted reality where he obsessively seeks validation rather than acknowledging facts.2
Information Loop and Foreign Policy
While this self-reinforcing information loop exists, it is overly simplistic to assert that U.S. foreign policy is solely dictated by the president’s whims. Rubio’s choice of “our hemisphere” hints at deeper ideological beliefs held by the U.S. political elite.
A Claim to Influence
His phrasing indicates a belief in a U.S. right, perhaps even a divine entitlement, over what it deems its sphere of influence—“our hemisphere.” This explains why figures like Rubio believe that European institutions shouldn’t dictate international law. After all, how could nations considered subordinate tell the U.S. what to do?
Interference in Sovereign Affairs
This ideology also underpins U.S. practices of toppling foreign governments and meddling in the internal matters of other countries to serve its interests. Rubio epitomizes the bipartisan endorsement derived from an era of U.S. dominance.
Ideology of Anti-Communism
Though his views are hawkish, Rubio still cloaks his agenda in the rhetoric of democracy and freedom, effectively masking the desire for resource appropriation. His anti-Venezuela stance is colored by an ideological anti-communism, labeling Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba as “enemies of humanity.”3
Shifting Paradigms in Foreign Policy
However, to believe that U.S. foreign policy is still largely driven by anti-communist rhetoric is to cling to an outdated paradigm. New, powerful forces are emerging that challenge the need for bipartisan consensus altogether. As Katherine Stewart observes, this faction “isn’t looking for a seat at the noisy table of American democracy; it wants to burn down the house.”4
National Conservatism’s Role
The ideological current represented by Vice President J.D. Vance aligns with the National Conservatism movement, inspired by Yoram Hazony’s interpretation of Israel. Hazony, founder of the Edmund Burke Foundation, aims to promote national conservatism and organizes NatCon conferences where Vance has spoken.5
Divine Legitimacy and National Identity
Hazony actively rejects liberal principles, advocating that political legitimacy should be based on “God, the Hebrew Bible, family, and the independent nation state.” He argues that nations should be defined not by liberal values but by divine covenant and inherited obligations specific to their groups. This ideology offers justification for an ethnostate behavior, as seen in Israel, where the interests of a particular people take precedence over universal rights.
Crossover of Ideologies
Christian nationalism connects Hazony’s vision of Israel with that of Trump’s America. The Edmund Burke Foundation, co-founded by Hazony and David Brog, creates a nexus between national conservatives and the Christian right. Vance openly cites Hazony as a key intellectual influence and promotes Israel as a paradigm of moral values rather than strictly a strategic ally.6
The Role of Peter Thiel
Peter Thiel, a notable figure in this alliance, is a financier of National Conservatism, mentor to Vance, and an investor in defense technologies. His network helps to translate ideas originally framed in the Israeli context, such as biblical nationalism and the fusion of religion with power, into the U.S. landscape.
Transforming American Ideals
Thiel uses Hazony’s ideological framework and the platform of National Conservatism as vehicles for his vision, advocating for an alliance between Judeo-Christian nationalism and technocratic oligarchy, aiming to reshape Western political structures into something more authoritarian and illiberal. He has controversially stated his belief that democracy and freedom are not necessarily compatible.7
A Paradigm Shift in Governance
The American identity, once seen as an Enlightenment-based, secular republic, is being redefined through a lens that favors a nation defined by Judeo-Christian heritage, increasingly skeptical of universal rights, and becoming comfortable with technocratic, authoritarian power.
Israel as a Model
The vision of Israel as Hazony proposes it—admired for its more illiberal practices—serves as both a mirror and a model for what Vance, Thiel, and their supporters envision for the U.S. This is the role that aggression towards Venezuela symbolizes.
Conflation of Ideologies
The war in Gaza has become a compelling signal of Israel’s disinterest in honoring international law. By advancing its ideological and strategic interests in the name of maintaining a Jewish ethnostate, Israel operates outside any legal frameworks that do not align with its own.8
Misinterpretation of Israel’s Struggle
Many who defend Israel as a bastion of Western liberal democracy fundamentally misinterpret its ongoing conflicts. The concept of “Greater Israel” transcends geography; it epitomizes Hazony’s ideal of an ethnostate. Netanyahu’s ambition to “change the face of the Middle East” signals a departure from liberal governance toward a more exclusive national identity, emphasizing “Israel first.”
Conclusion: A New Direction
U.S. aggression towards Venezuela embodies a broader ideological transition within the country, a move away from liberal norms and principles such as democracy and universal human rights. This is a declaration that the U.S. is embracing a more unilateral approach to international relations. Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, aptly summarized this mindset by stating: “This kind of behavior is more typical of those who consider themselves above the law.”
