featured
Is Trump & Rubio Dusting Off Bush’s Playbook? // Glenn Greenwald
Glenn Greenwald | Trusted Newsmaker
Trump and Rubio Revive the Regime Change Playbook for Venezuela
The Trump administration, with Senator Marco Rubio as a leading voice, has reignited efforts to destabilize Venezuela’s government. Analysts warn that this mirrors decades of U.S. foreign policy interventions in Latin America, particularly when oil and geopolitical dominance are at stake.
The Monroe Doctrine Reborn
From the earliest days of U.S. policy, Latin America has been treated as Washington’s “backyard.” Under the Monroe Doctrine, successive administrations asserted control over the hemisphere, removing governments deemed hostile. Today, Venezuela — with its vast oil reserves — has become the latest target. For Rubio and his allies, regime change isn’t just strategy, it’s ideology.
The Guaidó Fantasy
Both Republican and Democratic leaders once embraced Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s “legitimate president,” despite his lack of electoral mandate. Trump even presented him during a State of the Union as if he were head of state, with bipartisan applause echoing in Congress. This fiction revealed the bipartisan consensus that regime change in Caracas was a long-term U.S. goal.
Trump’s Strike on Venezuela
The latest escalation came when Trump ordered a U.S. military strike on a small vessel off Venezuela’s coast. Officials claimed it was linked to the Tren de Aragua gang, branding the group “narco-terrorists” under Maduro’s control. Eleven people were killed. Yet skepticism abounds: the DEA’s own 2024 report listed Colombia — not Venezuela — as the primary source of cocaine entering the United States. No credible evidence tied the boat to fentanyl or large-scale smuggling.
The “Terrorism” Label
Trump’s legal justification relied on calling the group “terrorists.” This stretched the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), originally passed for operations against al-Qaeda, into a blank check for unilateral strikes. By redefining drug gangs as terrorists, the administration claimed the authority to bomb targets at will. Critics argue this is a dangerous abuse of language — the same tactic once used to justify wars in Iraq and Syria.
Rubio’s Role
Rubio, now a senior foreign policy player, has long sought regime change in both Cuba and Venezuela. He frames Maduro as a fugitive and narco-kingpin, amplifying the administration’s rhetoric. His constituency in Florida, particularly Cuban-American exiles, provides the political base for these ambitions. With Trump, Rubio’s ideological goals now have executive backing.
Echoes of Panama
Observers draw direct parallels to the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama, where General Manuel Noriega — once a U.S. ally — was suddenly recast as a narco-terrorist. That war killed thousands of Panamanians and cemented Washington’s reputation for recycling justifications. The same script is now being deployed against Maduro: accuse him of drug trafficking, brand him a terrorist, and justify intervention.
Media Complicity
Major outlets like *The New York Times* and *The Washington Post* repeated official claims with minimal skepticism, echoing anonymous U.S. officials. This mirrors the run-up to the Iraq War, where “weapons of mass destruction” stories were printed uncritically. By amplifying government talking points, media institutions provide cover for escalation while public debate is muted.
The Real Agenda: Oil and Power
Despite rhetoric about fentanyl or cartel violence, U.S. government data shows Venezuela is not a major source of drugs entering America. The real issue is oil. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven reserves, and Maduro has resisted opening them to U.S. companies. Analysts argue this conflict has little to do with narcotics and everything to do with energy dominance.
Trump and Rubio’s Venezuela policy is a near-verbatim replay of past U.S. regime change campaigns. By weaponizing the language of “terrorism” and “drug trafficking,” they seek to justify interventions that lack evidence but serve long-standing strategic and economic goals. The parallels with Panama and Iraq are stark. As history shows, these interventions rarely liberate — they destabilize, leaving ordinary citizens to bear the cost.
//
