alibi

In recent months, the Caribbean has returned to sound like war. American B-52 bombers they have crossed the sky off the coast of Venezuela, helicopters Special operations forces have flown over the Gulf of Paria and a flotilla of Aegis destroyers patrols the waters where several vessels accused of transporting drugs have sunk. It happens that, under the guise of an intensification of the war on drug trafficking, Washington has woven a military device and intelligence that recalls the preludes to past interventions in the region. Yesterday is not today. Unlike 2019, when Trump openly proclaimed his desire to overthrow Nicolás Maduro, his second term has opted, at least until now, for a strategy more ambiguous and sophisticated: present the Venezuelan leader not as a political adversary, but as a narcoterrorist and, therefore, a legitimate objective within a global anti-narcotics operation. Lethal diplomacy. The change in focus is significant. In his first term, Trump tried to overthrow Maduro with sanctions, diplomatic isolation and the recognition of the opposition Juan Guaidó, without successyes indeed. This time, the discourse of regime change has dissolved into a campaign judicial and military focused on organized crime: rewards up to 50 million of dollars for the capture of the Venezuelan president, accusations of drug trafficking or lethal attacks against boats. Plus, and perhaps the “core” of it all: an authorization secret presidential finding (the so-called presidential finding) that allows the CIA to carry out covert operations and lethal actions within Venezuela. The measure, revealed by senior officials and confirmed by Trump himself, marks a qualitative leap: For the first time in decades, Washington formally enables its intelligence agency to intervene directly in a Latin American country, even without the cover of a declared conflict. The base reopened by the United States in Puerto Rico, the former Naval Station Roosevelt Roads The militarization of the Caribbean. The truth is that the device around Venezuela is already considerable magnitude. More than ten thousand American soldiers are concentrated in bases in Puerto Rico and on amphibious ships; The Navy maintains eight surface ships and one submarine in the region, and the Army has deployed helicopters assault fighters of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, the famous “Night Stalkers”next to B-52 strategic bombers on deterrence flights near Caracas. Officially, these are maneuvers and training exercises, but the accumulation of forcesunited with the maritime attacks against vessels suspected of trafficking, has been interpreted by international observers as a clear warning. Each new air or naval mission reinforces the feeling that the United States is rehearsingif not a total invasion, then at least the ability to execute fast and selective operations against Venezuelan targets. Hybrid Warfare Laboratory. The current strategy combine components of military, psychological and political pressure. The public revelation of the CIA’s covert operations, an unprecedented fact in itself, seems aimed at generating fear and distrust within Maduro’s circle of power. Intelligence analysts describe this campaign as a hybrid war examplewhere open threats are intertwined with disinformation operations, sabotage and stimulation of internal fractures in the regime. According to Washington sourcesthe immediate objective would be to push the Venezuelan military commanders to withdraw their support for Maduro, reproducing the model of internal decomposition that preceded the overthrow of Manuel Noriega in Panama in 1989. However, Venezuela is a more complex scenario, with a cohesive security apparatus, the presence of Russian and Iranian advisors and paramilitary groups that act as territorial control networks. Ripe The pretext: drugs. Trump and his advisors have presented the entire offensive under the umbrella of the fight against drug trafficking. They have accused the regime of being a drug stateto use Aragua Train group as an operational arm and to flood the United States with drugs. The narrative seeks internal legitimacy and support from public opinion, but the facts contradict it: the majority of opioids and fentanyl that devastate American society come from Mexiconot from Venezuela. However, the discourse of the drug enemy serves the White House to avoid the debate on direct intervention and reconfigure military action as a simple extension of a global war against organized crime. The parallelism with the justification used in the case of Noriega It is very powerful. No negotiated exit. I was counting a few hours ago AP exclusively that, in the face of growing pressure, the Venezuelan government would have tried to offer a political solution: a plan that contemplated the progressive resignation of Maduro within a period of three years and the transfer of power to his vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, without subsequent re-election. The White House rejected the proposal immediately, arguing that he did not recognize the legitimacy of Maduro or his cabinet and that the country was a narco-state run by terrorists. The frustrated gesture illustrates, a priori, the point of no return: Washington is no longer seeking negotiation, but capitulation. Since then, Caracas has reacted with gestures of fear and defiance at the same time: irregular movements by Maduro, television broadcasts from undisclosed locations, deployments of anti-aircraft missiles and the use of civilians as a symbolic shield against a possible attack. The dilemma: invasion. The great unknown, therefore, seems clear: if Trump is willing to cross the threshold of a open military action. Its political base, with a strong isolationist component, is suspicious of any prolonged foreign war, but the narrative of the fight against narcoterrorism offers an entrance door for a limited operation: a precision attack or perhaps a raid aimed at a single objective: the Maduro himself. This type of action, presented as a measure of international justice More than an invasion, it could please both the nationalist electorate and the neoconservative sectors of his cabinet. However, such a move would entail an enormous risk: the possibility of a regional warthe breakdown of alliances and a large-scale humanitarian crisis. The shadow of history. The Latin American precedent it is unavoidable. From Guatemala in 1954 until Panama in 1989passing through Chile and Nicaraguacovert operations and coups endorsed by Washington left a … Read more