By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The White House claims control over Venezuela’s government despite the acting president’s assertion of independent rule after the removal of Nicolas Maduro by U.S. forces. White House officials, including President Trump, are reportedly coordinating with Venezuelan “interim authorities,” with the U.S. supposedly dictating their decisions. This contradicts claims from acting president Delcy Rodriguez, who declared Venezuela’s government to be in charge. Trump’s decision to allow Rodriguez to lead, rather than installing opposition figures, is reportedly due to her military support and Trump’s disapproval of opposition leader Machado.
Read the original article here
Trump is ‘dictating’ policy to interim leadership of Venezuela after Maduro capture, and it’s a phrase loaded with implications. What does it really mean when the former president, or anyone for that matter, is said to be “dictating” policy to a country that has recently seen its leader captured? It’s a word choice that sparks immediate concern, especially given the history and potential motivations at play. It implies a level of control, a puppeteering of sorts, that goes far beyond mere influence. And let’s be honest, it’s not a word used lightly in international relations.
The first thing that comes to mind is the potential for resource control. The primary driver behind this move appears to be the rich oil reserves of Venezuela. There’s a clear indication that the goal is to get control over the nation’s oil. It feels like the administration is eyeing those resources, and it’s not shy about it. The language used, the strategic choices being made, it all points towards securing those assets, and in the process, solidifying control over the country itself.
What’s even more unsettling is the potential for actions that will happen behind the scenes, away from the public eye. The idea of an “immigration detention center” being established, with zero oversight, is a chilling possibility. The lack of accountability that’s implied is a recipe for abuse, raising serious human rights concerns. It’s a classic move: exploit a crisis, claim it’s for the greater good, and then quietly profit while those affected suffer.
And of course, we can’t forget the hypocrisy. It’s fascinating, in a deeply cynical way, to see people criticizing Maduro for being authoritarian, only to have the same voices turning around and potentially celebrating the very act of “dictating” policy from the outside. The irony is staggering. It raises the question: what is the true definition of a “dictator”? Is it only the person who is in power within a country, or can it be applied to someone pulling the strings from afar?
The response from those within the existing government doesn’t instill much confidence either. The mention of “close correspondence .. while exercising “maximum leverage” over the Caracas government.” is essentially the same situation. A lack of clarity and transparency is the norm. It’s almost as though the former administration thinks it can rewrite the rules as it goes along. And with the capture of the former president in the first place, we might ask ourselves, what exactly do you call a person who takes over a country like this?
One thing is for certain: there is no clear plan. It appears that the players involved are figuring it out as they go. It’s the puppeteers and corporate overlords who are truly in control, and the details of their plans are probably anything but good for the Venezuelan people. The idea that this is all for the benefit of America, as some are suggesting, feels like a cover-up to protect the real interests at play.
The fact that the former administration may be willing to go to these extremes over oil is another sign of the times. The implications are that if a foreign power is willing to overthrow a country for its resources, then there is no limit to what they are willing to do to get what they want. It is likely that they are not worried about the welfare of the people, their main concern is the money.
It makes you wonder, if Trump is running Venezuela, what does that mean for its future? It’s not a question of what can be done; it’s a question of what will be done. The regime will likely do whatever the United States says, or it will risk perishing. It feels like the current leadership is simply there to follow the orders, and the ultimate fate of Venezuela hangs in the balance.
The economic reality is also stark. Venezuela is facing a total naval blockade, the state is dependent on US support, and the regime is facing crushing pressure. The situation is dire, with the nation’s funds possibly running out soon. The anxiety and fear within the regime must be palpable. It creates an environment ripe for exploitation, where the vulnerable are at the mercy of those in power.
The very fact that key figures are unsure what Trump means when he says the US is “running” Venezuela, underlines the lack of a clear strategy. But with others so sure that this action is “good for America” somehow? The irony is thick enough to choke on. The reality, as it appears, is a dangerous game of power and resources, where the people of Venezuela are just collateral damage. The former administration’s actions and rhetoric are a clear display of self-interest.