By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump has denied seeking regime change in Venezuela, despite a significant military build-up near its coast and increasingly harsh rhetoric directed towards President Maduro. The administration claims the build-up is aimed at stopping drug cartels, and military action has already been taken against alleged cartel targets. However, officials have also accused Maduro of being in league with the cartels, heightening concerns that he may be a target. This follows prior actions, including financial sanctions and designating a Venezuelan gang as a foreign terrorist organization. With significant military assets now deployed, the situation remains tense as experts question the legality of the actions.
Read the original article here
Trump Denies U.S. Is Seeking Regime Change in Venezuela
So, let’s cut right to the chase: Trump denies the U.S. is aiming for regime change in Venezuela. Okay, great. But the thing is, when you hear those words coming out of his mouth, it’s practically a flashing neon sign saying the exact opposite. It’s a pattern, right? Like, if he says the sky is green, you might want to double-check your facts. This whole denial thing, especially when coupled with other actions, just feels like a big, blatant tell.
And this isn’t just some wild speculation. Remember, the press secretary’s words that the current Venezuelan government isn’t legitimate? That’s basically a diplomatic middle finger, setting the stage for something… else. It’s like they are not even trying to be subtle about it anymore. It’s right out in the open. And yet, people still seem to play along, as if the rules of the game haven’t changed. Meanwhile, the CIA remains mum.
Speaking of not being subtle, how about that $50 million bounty on Maduro? That’s not exactly a gesture of goodwill, is it? It’s hard to interpret that as anything other than a clear signal that the U.S. is not exactly thrilled with the current leadership in Caracas. That’s not just diplomatic pressure; that’s a serious financial incentive for something to happen.
But let’s be real: why *wouldn’t* the U.S. want regime change in Venezuela? It’s not exactly a secret that Maduro’s leadership has been, to put it mildly, controversial. And the U.S. has a history of involvement in the political affairs of Latin American countries. Now, with all the geopolitical maneuvering going on in the world, one can argue the US are too busy seeking regime change in the US.
Now, let’s factor in the context of the region. Maduro has been making some bold moves, potentially threatening Guyana’s independence over a newly discovered oil reserve. That’s a serious red flag. Venezuela’s actions in the Essequibo region are potentially violating international law. These aren’t just minor disputes; they could easily escalate. There is a perception this is to distract the world from something else entirely and also to try and garner some allies (BRICS).
And then there’s the whole oil thing. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves. The U.S. has, historically, had a keen interest in access to resources. It’s a classic case of strategic interests aligning, regardless of what anyone says publicly.
Okay, let’s get down to brass tacks. Trump is likely seeking regime change in Venezuela, and his actions speak louder than his denials. It’s almost a certainty, when you consider all the pieces of the puzzle – the bounty, the rhetoric, the strategic interests at play. And let’s not forget that Trump’s advisors were on record before his inauguration that regime change was desirable.
This isn’t just about Venezuela, though. It’s about the broader geopolitical landscape. If the U.S. is indeed moving towards regime change, it’s going to have massive implications for the region and beyond.
So, what’s next? Is it going to be covert operations? An invasion? A proxy war? No one knows the specifics, but based on the available information, there’s a strong possibility of direct or indirect intervention. Whatever the strategy, the goal is clear: a change in leadership in Venezuela.
Remember all those “peace” promises? They might be rhetorical smoke and mirrors.