By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite promising to end America’s role as the “world’s policeman,” President Trump has announced the U.S. will oversee Venezuela’s administration until a transition deemed “safe” by Trump is possible. This decision comes despite the US’s mixed history of foreign interventions, with neither Iraq nor Afghanistan being a success. Details on the intervention’s legality or specific plans remain scarce, but Trump indicated American oil companies would benefit financially from the action. This surprising move contradicts Trump’s prior rhetoric and raises questions about the long-term strategy for Venezuela.
Read the original article here
US will be “strongly involved” in Venezuela oil after the raid, Trump says, and the implications of this statement are pretty clear. It’s a phrase that hangs in the air, a statement that seems to say it all, doesn’t it? The immediate aftermath of the attacks, the capture of Venezuelan leaders – and the President of the United States, Donald Trump, comes right out and says the US is going to be “strongly involved” in Venezuela’s oil. The veil is lifted. It’s about the oil. No more beating around the bush.
This announcement, delivered in a phone interview, felt less like a strategic reveal and more like a blunt acknowledgment. He mentions the “greatest oil companies in the world,” implying a direct partnership, a stake in the spoils. It’s a stark contrast to any denials about motives that might have preceded this moment. It’s like he’s saying, “We’re here, and we want the oil.” It’s hard to interpret it any other way. The US forces, he mentions, sustained a few injuries, a price for entering and capturing the President. The tone is matter-of-fact, almost casual, and the focus swiftly shifts to the future.
And that future, according to Trump, is a future of US dominance in Venezuelan oil production. The narrative shifts abruptly from a discussion of a military operation to a business proposition. It is an extraordinary level of transparency when it comes to motivations. This is not about democracy, or human rights. It’s about extracting resources. Many people feel this is a very grim situation.
The world watches with a mixture of disbelief and, unfortunately, a resigned acceptance. The timing feels deliberate: immediately after the raid. We are left to wonder what comes next, with many fearing a potential occupation. Some are already drawing parallels to the Iraq war and questioning the long-term consequences of such involvement, the price in dollars and lives, the creation of a third-world country.
This all raises a lot of questions. How will the US control the oil? Will there be an open invasion? What about the Venezuelan people themselves? Will they see any benefit from this strong involvement in their country’s resources? Some observers point out that the US has, in essence, annexed Venezuela, and how will Congress respond? The silence from many sides of the political spectrum is deafening and foreboding.
There’s a palpable sense of anger and frustration. People are discussing sanctions, the hypocrisy of the situation, and the potential for a larger conflict. Some voices express disgust, criticizing the priorities of the administration and the history of US interventionism. It is a moment where long-held criticisms of US foreign policy come to the forefront.
What are the long-term implications of this decision? There are concerns that this sets a dangerous precedent. Would it be acceptable for another country to take similar actions against the US? Also, there’s the question of whether this is simply about oil or if there are other, hidden agendas at play, like the Epstein files.
The statements themselves feel like a betrayal to the people who voted for change. There is a sense that the administration is operating with a total lack of plausible deniability. It is a world of shifting narratives, where the stated reason for action quickly gives way to the undeniable truth: Oil is the prize.
Some of the conversation expresses a deep sense of disillusionment. Many people are pointing out that this mirrors past actions in other countries, repeating the same patterns. The promise of democracy is overshadowed by the realities of resource extraction and corporate greed. The very integrity of the US is being questioned, and the future is uncertain.
What’s clear is that this is not just about Venezuela; it’s about the role of the US on the global stage. It’s about how the US sees its place in the world and how it chooses to exercise its power. The conversation is a window into the complex and often troubling realities of international politics, where power, resources, and self-interest often clash with ideals of democracy and human rights.
And the bottom line is that the US will be “strongly involved” in Venezuela’s oil. And as the story continues, the world watches, wondering what the final chapter will be.