Venezuela Proves America Is Now an EMPIRE (Whether You Like It or Not) | Elohim Monard

Episode Overview

• This episode analyzes the strategic shift in U.S. foreign policy regarding Venezuela, arguing that the removal of Nicolas Maduro validates long-standing leftist claims that U.S. intervention is primarily about resource control ("taking the oil") rather than democracy.
• The discussion explores the convergence of distinct political agendas within the Trump administration—combining "America First" isolationism with neoconservative interventionism—to reassert dominance over the Western Hemisphere and deny geopolitical rivals like China access to strategic resources.
• It examines the potential ripple effects of this "hard power" strategy across Latin America, specifically looking at the existential threat it poses to Cuba, the future of the Panama Canal, and the rising appeal of "strongman" politics in the region.

Key Concepts

• Validation of "Old Left" Rhetoric: The episode argues that Hugo Chávez’s decades-old prediction—that the U.S. would use "democracy" as a pretext to seize Venezuelan oil—has been vindicated. The Trump administration’s explicit focus on marketing Venezuelan crude validates the anti-imperialist mantra that these interventions are resource-driven, not humanitarian.

• British vs. Spanish Imperial Models: The host distinguishes between two historical styles of empire to explain current U.S. strategy. The "Spanish Model" focuses on ideological and cultural transformation (nation-building), while the "British Model" is transactional and pragmatic, indifferent to local governance as long as resources flow. The U.S. approach to Venezuela is characterized as "British"—prioritizing oil extraction over democratic institution-building.

• The "Backyard" Doctrine & Policy Convergence: U.S. policy is driven by a rare alignment between isolationists (like Stephen Miller) and interventionists (like Marco Rubio). Both view the Western Hemisphere as the U.S. "backyard" where sovereignty is secondary to preventing rival superpowers (China/Russia) from gaining a foothold. This creates a unified front for aggressive action.

• Decapitation vs. Regime Change: The strategy is identified as "leadership decapitation" rather than true regime change. By removing Maduro but leaving the "criminal infrastructure" and military leadership in place, the U.S. prioritizes stability and oil production over the turbulence required to install a fully democratic opposition government.

• Reframing Sovereignty via the "Narco-Terrorist" Label: To bypass international norms, the U.S. reframes foreign governments as criminal enterprises (Foreign Terrorist Organizations or cartels). This legal scaffold strips heads of state of diplomatic immunity, treating them as kingpins rather than presidents, which justifies intervention without a formal declaration of war.

• Hard Power vs. Economic Entrenchment: A central tension exists between U.S. military/political pressure ("Hard Power") and China’s deep economic integration in South America. While the U.S. can assert dominance in the Caribbean and Central America, challenging Chinese influence further south (e.g., Brazil, Peru) is difficult because China already owns critical infrastructure.

Quotes

• At 1:47 - "The US is coming for our oil first. And second, that actually there is an imperialism that wants to take Latin America in the following years... Chavez was right. The US was coming for Venezuelan oil." - Explains the core thesis that the removal of Maduro vindicates the long-standing warnings of the Latin American left regarding U.S. motives.

• At 3:19 - "We are going to market the Venezuelan crude coming out... and then infinitely going forward, we will sell the production that comes out of Venezuela into the marketplace. We will have the US as the supplier." - A "smoking gun" quote from the U.S. Energy Secretary indicating the operation is explicitly about controlling the sale of resources.

• At 4:24 - "We have the British kind of empire... 'I don't care about what kind of regime you have, I just want your resources.' ...And you have the Spaniard colonization which is more about principles, about religion, about transforming people's faith." - Provides a historical framework to analyze modern U.S. foreign policy as pragmatic resource extraction rather than ideological nation-building.

• At 7:26 - "This Venezuela thing is about resources that are within our hemisphere, our backyard... He [Stephen Miller] says, 'We cannot allow countries in our backyard to sell resources to countries that are our adversaries.'" - Clarifies the strategic logic: resources in the Western Hemisphere are viewed as U.S. assets to be denied to geopolitical rivals.

• At 15:06 - "They extracted Maduro and they left the other gorillas... the other big monkeys in charge... including Delcy [Rodriguez], so criminals all of them... They are members of the gang." - Highlights the reality that while the figurehead was removed, the criminal infrastructure remains in power to ensure stability.

• At 28:22 - "We are not going to let tin pot communist dictators send rapists into our countries, send drugs into our country, send weapons into our country, and we are not going to let a country fall into the hands of our adversaries." - Summarizes the three-pronged justification for intervention: ideological, domestic (migration/crime), and geopolitical (great power competition).

• At 33:50 - "As Donald Trump said... 'making Venezuela great again.' According to his mind... it happens by selling oil in a better way." - Explaining the transactional nature of the Trump worldview; fixing a country is viewed primarily through the lens of resource monetization.

• At 46:45 - "This was a foreign terrorist organization that, it happens, it was in charge of a government. So they don't give a f--- about the government... Based on this label, they were able to indict a president... not because he is a dictator, but because he is the leader of a cartel." - Explains the specific legal mechanism the U.S. uses to justify arresting foreign leaders by stripping away the "state" label.

• At 54:35 - "Trump has demonstrated that... you can at least make a demonstration of power if they don't want to obey... This image will benefit everything in the right side of the spectrum in Latin America." - Argues that the projection of raw power serves as a model for right-wing movements across the region, favoring authoritarian efficacy over procedure.

Takeaways

• Monitor Cuba as the next domino: Watch for economic collapse in Cuba; if the U.S. successfully cuts off Venezuelan fuel supplies to the island, the regime faces an immediate existential threat that could lead to rapid destabilization.
• Expect increased polarization in Latin American politics: Anticipate a deeper fracture in the region, with leftist governments (Brazil, Mexico, Colombia) retreating into defensive anti-imperialism while right-wing factions embrace the U.S. "strongman" model.
• Look for Panama as the next geopolitical flashpoint: The Panama Canal represents the physical intersection of U.S. security interests and entrenched Chinese infrastructure ownership, making it a likely target for future U.S. pressure.
• Understand migration as a pretext for regime change: Recognize that U.S. policy now treats migration as a weaponized export from adversaries; expect future interventions to be justified as "prevention at the source" to stop migration flows.
• Evaluate foreign policy through a transactional lens: When analyzing future U.S. moves in the region, ignore democratic rhetoric and instead follow the resources—specifically who controls the energy supply and trade routes.