I do think that oil is the ultimate goal and it isn't merely for the oligarchy.
The article provided by the OP claims this is all about drug cartels yet you and many others here ... ....
FULL STOP. Dude, that isn't how news articles work.
News articles don't make claims about motivations of people generally as they make objective claims. So they write things like so-and-so
said. Stating so-and-so said something is not the same thing as the news article stating that
something is true.
We all already know that Trump has been claiming things about drug cartels. No one is stating that Trump is claiming something different.
We also know he propagandizes everything and is a big fat liar. So his word means nothing.
Ok the article is saying what Trump and others are saying then. And maybe all of our elites lying to us just as usual. That still means that no one in the article or otherwise is saying anything about a nobel prize or a motive for war to get oil. The interested observer can either believe the print being told or you can make up your own story what you guess is your reality.
You still do not get it, then. The article is quoting people. Since no one in the Trump administration is saying it's about oil, there's no one being quoted about oil. That doesn't mean that it isn't about oil since we do not expect the Trump administration to say it is about oil. I am by this response refuting your paragraph here, not intending to prove it is about oil, but rather to show your incorrectly performed deduction. Oil is discussed below.
But if you do make up your own reality it needs to be called a conspiracy theory even if it agrees with liberal ideology instead of conservative ideology. Your conspiracy theory is still a conspiracy theory until you can prove yours is reality.
Hold on, there. First, I am not the only one here who has some sort of burden. First and foremost, it's the Trump administration that has a burden. The Trump administration owed the American people justification for spending taxpayer dollars on this endeavor. What we have so far is
propaganda, not a legitimate
casus belli.
Let's review that. How do we know it is propaganda? Well, the
first Trump administration in 2020 (via the DEA), said that China and Mexico were the major sources of fentanyl and listed other countries such as India as lesser sources. The DEA intelligence report states that fentanyl is being produced by Mexican cartels in clandestine laboratories.
Venezuela did not even make that list. Even up to the present, drug experts say that Venezuela only plays a minor role or essentially no role. The primary source is Mexico, with US citizens
smuggling in the drug. Therefore, Trump is magnifying the perception of a problem by Venezuela.
Since his stated reason has thus been eliminated by his own administration's data, we need to next look at what could be the
actual reason for trying to overturn the Venezuelan government.
If we go back to his first administration, he also talked about a military invasion of Venezuela, though most of that was behind closed doors. His public criticism of them at that time was about human rights abuses, cocaine being sent to the US by cartels, and his claim that Maduro engaged in election rigging. It turns out that Trump was also lying at that time about the cocaine. Again, Mexico is the much larger supplier of cocaine to the US, not Venezuela.
So far as human rights abuses, that is laughable considering what Trump wants to get away with on American soil against Others. Now could the election have been "rigged?" In theory, yes, it's possible, but even so there is a likelihood that Maduro would have won even if some election rigging were not taking place. Besides this, Trump doesn't care about election results. He'll lie to get his way whether or not someone is a legitimate President (like Biden) or an illegitimate President (perhaps Maduro).
The real issue, then, is not anything other than wanting a particular kind of person to be in charge of Venezuela's government. In the case of the last Trump administration, that would have been Guaidó in the timeframe of 2018-2020. Among his many
positions, there is this:
Guaidó sought to open up the economy by allowing foreign, private oil companies greater participation in ventures with PDVSA[138] by dropping the requirement for 51% PDVSA ownership in joint ventures.[139] Pledging to honor "legal" and "financial" debt, Carlos Vecchio said that agreements in which Venezuela pays debt with oil (signed by the Maduro administration) might not be honored.[138]
So let's review where we are here with all this information. Trump's stated reasons for intervention in Venezuela are comprised of (1) lies contradicted by his own government's data and (2) other things that in other contexts he doesn't care about at all.
This means we can logically disregard whatever he is claiming is the reason.
Next, how do we determine what the
actual, material reason is? We look at the big picture and the microscopic view. (A) what has been the one unifying opposition to Venezuela by the US for decades? It's been the nationalization of oil, first by Chávez, and maintained by Maduro. (B) Do the specific opposition leaders supported by Trump support a position of opening up the oil to privatization? The answer is
Yes.
Let's change the question around to what is measurable now. Once there is a coup or an overthrow of the Venezuelan government, will there be a significant impact to the flow of illicit drugs into the US? The answer is
No, according to DEA data. Will there be a significant impact to oil, energy prices, and the economy? The answer is
eventually Yes, after some work in exerting control and stabilizing Venezuela. Part of the stabilization will involve the removal of US and allies' sanctions, and part of it will be time to get people back to work and a return to previous energy output prior to sanctions and political instability.
So the difference is clear. The claims about drugs are not only not supported by evidence, but also contradicted by documentation, some from Trump's own administrations. The claims about oil are documented by
opposition policy position and the material outcome of changing the Venezuelan government. Proving a conspiracy or malintent beyond that is unnecessary: we still have a leader of our country who lies, and
oil and economic reasons will remain the most impactful, documentable outcome from his intervention.
