The U.S. Isn’t Even Bothering With Its Usual Lies to Sell Its Regime Change War in Venezuela

The geopolitical landscape in the Caribbean has shifted dramatically in the latter half of 2025, marking a departure from the traditional calculus of intervention. Where previous administrations relied on elaborate, often protracted, narratives to justify military or covert action abroad—the ‘usual lies’—the current campaign against the Venezuelan government appears to be characterized by a stark, almost blunt, pursuit of its objectives. As analyzed by independent media outlets, the current escalations suggest “there’s no pretense of anything other than regime change”. This article explores the undercurrents driving this apparent pivot, the historical doctrines being invoked, Venezuela’s resolute counter-narrative, and the severe implications for hemispheric stability as the pursuit of national economic advantage is laid bare.

The Undercurrent of Intent The Enduring Magnetism of National Resources

The Historical Precedent of Economic Motivations

Beneath the surface of any modern interventionist claim—whether framed by democracy promotion, counter-terrorism, or anti-narcotics—the enduring historical engine of great power foreign policy often reveals itself: the security of vital economic interests. For the South American nation in question, this interest is overwhelmingly centered on its colossal reserves of hydrocarbon fuels, alongside significant deposits of gold and other critical minerals. This inherent resource wealth has historically positioned the nation as a crucial strategic prize, making its internal political orientation a matter of intense, often hostile, external concern. The narrative that Washington is not merely concerned with crime but is fundamentally driven by the desire to secure favorable access to, or outright control over, these abundant natural assets remains a persistent and compelling counter-explanation among geopolitical analysts.

The Inevitability of Oil in Geopolitical Calculations

The strategic importance of the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves cannot be overstated in the context of a global energy market that remains inherently volatile. An administration facing its own domestic economic pressures and seeking to secure advantageous long-term energy positioning would view a geopolitically aligned government in that nation as an irreplaceable strategic asset. The military and covert maneuvers, therefore, can be interpreted not as singular events reacting to the drug trade, but as sustained efforts to coerce a political realignment that secures these long-term energy interests. The oil, in this view, is the immutable, silent objective that dictates the intensity and persistence of the diplomatic and military campaign, even when the public justifications are subject to constant revision and doubt.

The Marginalized and Oppressed as Collateral in the Pursuit of Profit

The expansion of production and profit maximization remains a defining feature of the dominant global economic system, a drive that historically necessitates the subjugation of labor and the exploitation of resources in the developing world. This pursuit often casts the working and marginalized populations of the targeted state as obstacles to be managed or removed. The escalation of tension, particularly when linked to resource control, brings with it the inevitable consequence of deepening the plight of the local populace who are deprived and oppressed by both internal economic mismanagement and external geopolitical pressures. The pursuit of national economic advantage abroad frequently demands the sacrifice of human considerations at home and abroad, a pattern that critics argue is being revived with increasing boldness in the current geopolitical theatre.

Historical Echoes and Warnings Lessons from Past Failures and Doctrines

The Lingering Shadow of the Monroe Doctrine

The current military escalation and rhetorical framing echo historical precedents that date back to the nineteenth century, most notably the articulation of the Monroe Doctrine. Originally intended to warn European powers against recolonization of the American continents, this principle has historically metastasized into a broad, unilateral license for United States intervention throughout Central and South America. Contemporary critics observe that the recent maneuvers, especially the aggressive naval posturing in the Caribbean, represent a modern, aggressive re-embrace of this unilateralist license, justifying direct intervention based on self-declared regional hegemony rather than multilateral consensus or explicit international authorization. This historical grounding lends a sense of historical inevitability and deep-seated imperial ambition to the present-day confrontations.

Recalling the Era of CIA-Orchestrated Overthrows

The Venezuelan leadership has been vocal in drawing direct parallels between the current situation and the disastrous legacy of past covert operations across Latin America, specifically citing the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile and the subsequent military dictatorship in Argentina. These historical examples serve as potent warnings against the dangers of seeking regime change through clandestine means. The invocation of these events is intended to mobilize both domestic opposition within the US and international condemnation abroad by reminding audiences that CIA-led coups have historically resulted in mass disappearances, egregious human rights abuses, and prolonged periods of authoritarian violence, rather than the establishment of stable, friendly governance. The warning is clear: Washington is reportedly following a script that has previously led to regional trauma and American strategic failure.

The Pattern of Intervention Following Political Transformation

A critical pattern observers note is the reappearance of intense external pressure following the advent of governments committed to significant national or socialist restructuring, as seen in Venezuela since the early two thousands. The perceived ideological divergence—a government actively asserting national control over vital assets against the prevailing neoliberal consensus—is often the true catalyst for sustained adversarial relations. The military buildup and covert authorization are thus viewed not as an isolated response to the latest headlines, but as the expected, perhaps inevitable, lash-out from a global system seeking to neutralize ideological competitors that threaten the established order of capital flow and resource extraction.

The Venezuelan Counter-Narrative Sovereignty, Dignity, and Regional Peace

The Assertion of Territorial Integrity Against Provocation

The response from Caracas has been characterized by a resolute and unified rejection of the external pressure, centered on the inviolability of national sovereignty. The government has consistently condemned the military actions—the overflights, the naval deployments—as flagrant violations of international law and direct threats to national security, asserting that such actions do not intimidate the people or the state. This firm stance serves a vital domestic political function, unifying the population against an external antagonist, but it also places the onus of escalation squarely on the intervening power, forcing them to either retract or proceed with an action that becomes increasingly difficult to frame as anything other than an unprovoked act of aggression.

The Appeal for Peace and the Rejection of Endless War

President Maduro’s public declarations have strongly opposed the very concept of external interference, framing the conflict as a principled stand against “regime change,” a concept now globally associated with the costly, protracted failures in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. This rhetorical framing seeks to leverage global weariness with interventionist wars, positioning Venezuela as a defender of a more peaceful, non-interventionist international order. The plea to “avoid a war in the Caribbean and in South America” is a strategic appeal not just to American society but to the broader international community, urging a collective repudiation of a return to aggressive, unilateral military solutions in the hemisphere.

Highlighting Discrepancies in Global Drug Accountability

In a strategic counter-move, the Venezuelan government has forcefully redirected the focus back onto the consuming nations, arguing that the narrative distracts from the systemic failures within the primary markets for illicit substances. By asserting that the nation is demonstrably free of coca leaf cultivation and cocaine laboratory operations, and by referencing international organization reports to validate this, they attempt to delegitimize the drug war justification entirely. Furthermore, by pointing to the origin and transit routes of the vast majority of illicit substances originating in South America, they effectively frame the U.S. administration’s current actions as a highly visible but ultimately superficial diversion from tackling the core consumption and demand-side issues that fuel the entire narcotics economy.

International Geopolitical Dimensions The Global Audience Reacts

The Posture of Traditional Allies and Rivals

The escalating tensions have not occurred in a diplomatic vacuum; they have elicited clear, albeit cautious, reactions from other major global actors. Key strategic partners of the Venezuelan government have publicly aligned themselves in opposition to the escalating military pressure. Moscow, for instance, has reportedly condemned the use of force against a sovereign state and reaffirmed its complete support for Caracas, using the moment to underscore its own commitment to a multipolar world order resistant to unilateral Western coercion. This diplomatic alignment serves to dilute the international isolation the targeted state might otherwise face, providing a necessary political counterweight to the overt military pressure applied by Washington.

The Cautionary Voices from Regional Neighbors

The reaction among other nations in the Latin American and Caribbean region is more nuanced, often oscillating between condemnation of external interference and internal political apprehension. States like Cuba have issued strong condemnations, viewing the aggressive posture as a threat to the entire regional political arrangement and pledging solidarity should conflict materialize. Conversely, other nations, wary of upsetting vital economic relationships with the United States, maintain a more guarded public stance, even while privately expressing concern over the destabilizing precedent set by such overt military threats in the Caribbean Sea. The actions are thus testing the solidarity of regional bodies and forcing countries to navigate a perilous diplomatic tightrope.

China’s Warning on Navigation and Regional Stability

Beijing’s response has been characteristically focused on abstract principles of international order and commerce. China has explicitly voiced its opposition to any actions that risk disrupting the peace and stability of Latin America and the Caribbean region. Critically, they have also issued warnings regarding freedom of navigation in the affected waters. This is a multi-layered statement: it simultaneously supports the principle of non-interference championed by Caracas while also defending the global economic interest in keeping major sea lanes open and predictable, signaling that any unilateral action with the potential to destabilize global trade routes will be met with diplomatic opposition from major economic powers.

The Question of Legitimacy The Cost of Abandoning Old Illusions

The Failure of Traditional Diplomatic Sanctions Regimes

The perceived shift away from the ‘usual lies’ may also be an implicit admission that the preceding decade of severe economic sanctions—designed to cripple the economy into submission or force a change in leadership—has failed to achieve its primary political objectives. When years of financial strangulation and targeted penalties have not produced the desired governmental transition, policymakers may feel compelled to escalate to overt military and covert pressure. This represents a policy pivot born not necessarily of greater conviction, but of exhaustion with the limits of economic statecraft when confronted by a determined, albeit severely strained, state apparatus.

The Domestic Political Calculus for Direct Action

The current administration’s calculus appears to be heavily influenced by domestic political imperatives. The willingness to engage in highly visible, potentially kinetic confrontations is often driven by a desire to project an image of decisive strength and unwavering commitment to national security concerns, particularly when framed around issues like drug flow and gang violence. In this environment, the traditional need to build a complex, internationally verifiable case for war has been supplanted by the domestic requirement for rapid, visible, and often aggressive action that resonates with a specific political base, even if it means abandoning the previously necessary art of sophisticated deception. The recent authorization of CIA operations and military strikes without explicit Congressional approval highlights this shift, placing the narrative focus squarely on the executive’s immediate aims.

The Risk of Unmanaged Escalation The Unpredictable Fallout

The danger inherent in openly discarding the traditional, albeit dishonest, guardrails of justification is the increased probability of miscalculation and uncontrolled escalation. When military assets are deployed in a highly charged atmosphere, and the stated purpose is deliberately vague or intertwined with covert action, the margin for error shrinks to almost nothing. The destruction of boats, the overflights, and the military concentration all raise the stakes of any minor incident, increasing the likelihood that a tactical confrontation could rapidly spiral into a much larger, potentially unmanageable, conflict. Analysts have already warned about the potential fallout should a full-scale deposition effort succeed, suggesting that the cure could prove far more destabilizing than the existing political condition, potentially sucking US troops into a protracted guerrilla war.

Strategic Implications for Hemispheric Relations The Future of Non-Intervention

The Erosion of Regional Trust and Security Architectures

This period of overt, aggressive posturing severely damages the already fragile trust within hemispheric relations. The move toward unilateral military action undermines the very concept of mutual security arrangements and respect for national sovereignty that form the bedrock of regional diplomacy. By openly deploying overwhelming force and engaging in covert interference, the United States signals a clear preference for coercion over consensus, a move that alienates allies and hardens the resolve of those governments already opposed to Washington’s regional policies. The foundation of long-term cooperative security is being deliberately eroded in favor of short-term geopolitical objectives.

The Precedent Set for Future Adversarial Encounters

The precedent established in the Caribbean in two thousand twenty-five will have long-lasting implications for how Washington chooses to engage with other non-aligned or ideologically challenging governments across the globe. If the current strategy—blending direct military threat with a thinly veiled justification focused on transnational crime—proves effective or politically sustainable, it sets a new, lower bar for the threshold of intervention. It normalizes the idea that a state’s internal structure can be forcibly altered through a combination of economic strangulation, maritime blockade, and covert destabilization, provided the executive branch can successfully frame the target as an unacceptable source of domestic disruption, be it drugs or something else entirely.

Conclusion The Unveiling and Its Reckoning

The New Era of Declared Intent Over Subtlety

The current situation in the Caribbean, viewed through the lens of the initial proposition, marks a significant, and perhaps alarming, shift in the execution of external policy aimed at political transformation. The perceived abandonment of the need for elaborate, pervasive falsehoods suggests either an extraordinary level of confidence in the administration’s narrative control or a profound tactical error in misjudging the international and regional appetite for overt military coercion. The lack of sophisticated narrative cover means that the true objectives—control, resources, and ideological dominance—are laid bare for the world to observe and judge, stripped of the diplomatic camouflage that once provided plausible deniability for years after the fact.

The Enduring Need for Public Scrutiny and Vigilance

Ultimately, the responsibility falls upon engaged citizens and independent media to maintain the pressure for truth, regardless of the administration’s chosen level of candor. The events of two thousand twenty-five, with their accompanying military deployments and covert authorizations, serve as a potent reminder that the impulse toward intervention, driven by economic interest and geopolitical competition, remains a powerful force in international affairs. The relative silence on the ‘lies’ is not a sign of peace or diplomatic resolution; it is merely a change in tactic, demanding an even sharper, more critical eye from those who seek to uphold principles of self-determination and international law across the globe. The stakes involve not just the future of one nation, but the precedent set for the entire hemisphere.