By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A highly confidential CIA assessment warned of a wider conflict in Venezuela if the U.S. supported the democratic opposition after the removal of Nicolás Maduro. The assessment, commissioned by senior policymakers, influenced President Trump’s decision to authorize Operation Absolute Resolve, which aimed to seize Maduro. However, instead of backing the opposition, Trump aligned with Maduro’s chosen vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, who was subsequently named interim president. This decision, according to experts, stemmed from a desire to avoid the mistakes made during the Iraq invasion and potentially an attempt to work with elements of the existing government.
Read the original article here
CIA advised Trump against supporting Venezuela’s democratic opposition. This is the central idea we’re exploring, and it’s important to understand the context. It seems the core argument revolves around a pragmatic, rather than ideological, approach. The suggestion is that a complete dismantling of the existing government, in this case, the Maduro regime, could lead to chaos and instability, like the situation in Iraq following the US-led invasion. The concern is that removing the existing power structure wholesale might create a power vacuum, potentially leading to a civil war or widespread anarchy.
It’s been suggested that the CIA, particularly under an appointee of the former president, offered advice aligning with this more cautious approach. This advice seems to have been based on the idea that a transitional period, where some elements of the existing government remain in place, is crucial for stability. This would allow for a smoother transition to a functioning democracy, while avoiding a complete collapse of governance. This approach is reminiscent of how allies handled the transitions in Germany and Japan after World War II, preserving some of the existing infrastructure to avoid a descent into pure chaos.
The motivation behind the CIA’s advice is also worth considering. One potential factor could be a desire to avoid a situation where a complete regime collapse leads to more, not less, instability. Another, less charitable, view is that the primary concern is the US’s own interests. It’s suggested that, rather than genuine democratic ideals, the focus might be on securing oil resources and maintaining control over the country. This perspective casts the whole situation as a power play, with the ultimate goal being to ensure that Venezuela’s resources are at the US’s disposal, not on the basis of any ethical position.
Furthermore, there is a strong possibility that Trump’s decisions and statements were influenced by the CIA’s input, which often presents strategic goals and narratives. This pattern of the CIA shaping the president’s understanding of global affairs is the core of this conversation. When the president spoke, it was reflecting the information, and potentially the desired outcomes, presented to him by the intelligence community. There are other perspectives about Trump’s decision-making style, and the degree of influence the intelligence agencies had. One angle suggests Trump was susceptible to the last person he spoke with, which implies the possibility that different factions within the administration were vying for influence.
One potential consequence of supporting the Venezuelan opposition would be a need for significant US military intervention. The Maduro regime’s military would be unlikely to relinquish power without a fight, potentially resulting in a civil war. This is a point frequently raised as a justification for the more cautious approach of working within the existing power structure. The concern is that full-scale military intervention would be both costly and likely to be unpopular, especially if it leads to a prolonged conflict.
A critical point is the question of regime change. It’s clear that capturing the leader of a country doesn’t automatically equate to a full-scale change in government. The focus here is not to completely uproot the current order, but to negotiate and manipulate the existing situation to the US’s benefit. Ultimately, the question is whether the goal is genuine regime change or a more strategic maneuvering to maintain influence and access to resources.