Trump's Pivot to War: The Real Reason for Invading Venezuela

From Drug Cartels to Oil Fields

The official justification for the US military operation to arrest Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife did not last long. After months of allegations that Maduro was running a drug cartel, the narrative shifted immediately following the invasion. President Trump later clarified that the intervention was about Venezuela's oil, announcing plans to dispatch American oil companies to the country.

This pivot was underscored by a meeting President Trump held with executives from major US oil companies to discuss development plans in Venezuela. However, the reception from industry leaders was reportedly lukewarm.

The Economic Hurdles of Venezuelan Oil

Several factors contribute to the executives' lack of enthusiasm. First, the American energy landscape has been transformed over the past two decades. Since the Venezuelan government nationalized its oil sector, the United States has become the world's leading producer of oil and natural gas, largely thanks to advancements in fracking technology.

Furthermore, rebuilding Venezuela's neglected oil industry presents significant challenges and uncertain returns, with potential costs running as high as a billion dollars. The country's crude oil is particularly difficult to transport, as it requires dilution with solvents to flow through pipelines, adding to operational expenses.

A New US-Administered Government

In his first press conference after the Venezuelan first couple was seized, President Trump outlined his administration's intentions. "We are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition," he stated.

He also issued a warning to Maduro's successor, Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, saying she would "pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro," if she failed to comply with US government demands.

Is Venezuela Just the Beginning?

The invasion has fueled speculation that it could serve as a model for further US military interventions. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio hinted at this possibility, remarking, "if I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I'd be concerned."

Senator Lindsey Graham expressed strong support for a new era of regime change wars. He reportedly had President Trump autograph a "Make Iran Great Again" hat, a sentiment that might not be shared by Iranians who suffered under the previous US-backed puppet government installed by the CIA.

Funding a New Foreign Policy

President Trump's renewed interest in regime change aligns with his push to increase the military budget to $1.5 trillion. While the president has claimed that tariff revenue could cover the increase, this is not feasible. The majority of the new spending would have to be financed through other taxes, including the hidden and regressive inflation tax created by the Federal Reserve.

The Political Cost at Home

This interventionist foreign policy may face resistance from the American public, particularly younger generations. A recent Pew Research Center poll revealed that Americans under 50 are significantly less supportive of an "activist" foreign policy than older Americans, a trend that holds true for both Democrats and Republicans.

This generational divide on foreign policy was a key factor in President Trump's support from younger voters in 2024. By abandoning his pledge for "no more regime change wars," the president risks alienating this crucial demographic, potentially costing him and the Republican party significant support.