We should keep our eyes on Jerusalem for the next month. Since 1967, there have been a number of accommodations made around the site of the al-Aqsa mosque. That mosque is considered by many Muslims to be the third holiest site in Islam and is visited by Muslims for prayers during the month of Ramadan. The mosque was also used as a church by the Christian crusaders after they captured Jerusalem in 1099, but after Saladin retook Jerusalem in 1149 it has remained a mosque. After Israel captured Jerusalem during the Six-Day War in 1967, the control of the mosque was given to Jordan and regulated by a series of agreements between Israel and Jordan. The difficulty is that the mosque rests on the Temple Mount, which is the site of the Jewish First Temple (built by King Solomon and destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar) and the Second Temple which was destroyed by the Roman Empire. Many Jews (but not all) believe that the area of the Temple Mount should be completely under Israeli control. The site is the scene of unresolved conflict.
“The administrative body responsible for the whole Al-Aqsa Mosque compound is known as “the Jerusalem Waqf“, an organ of the Jordanian government.
“The waqf employed architects, technicians and craftsmen in a committee that carry out regular maintenance operations. The Islamic Movement in Israel and the waqf have attempted to increase Muslim control of the Temple Mount as a way of countering Israeli policies and the escalating presence of Israeli security forces around the site since the Second Intifada. Some activities included refurbishing abandoned structures and renovating.
Those agreements have periodically been tested, and the current situation is highly volatile. After the Hamas attacks on Israel in October 2023, there has been a systematic campaign to increase Israeli control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and a concerted effort to bring the Temple Mount under complete Israeli control. The Guardian outlines the collapse of the previous agreements:
“A six-decade agreement governing Muslim and Jewish prayer at Jerusalem’s most sensitive holy site has ‘collapsed’ under pressure from Jewish extremists backed by the Israeli government, experts have warned.
“A series of arrests of Muslim caretaker staff, bans on access for hundreds of Muslims, and escalating incursions by radical Jewish groups culminated this week in the arrest of an imam of al-Aqsa mosque and an Israeli police raid during evening prayers on the first night of Ramadan.
“The actions by the Jerusalem police and the Shin Bet internal security force, both now under far-right leadership, represent a rupture in the status quo agreement dating back to the aftermath of the 1967 war, which stipulates that only Muslims are permitted to pray in the sacred compound around the mosque, known as the al-Haram al-Sharif to Muslims, which also encompasses the seventh-century Dome of the Rock shrine. To Jews it is the Temple Mount, the site of the 10th-century BC first temple and second temple, which was destroyed by the Romans in AD70.”
“Police extended visiting hours for Jewish worshipers on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem by an hour more than is customary during Ramadan on Wednesday, the first day of the Islamic holy month.
“The change comes as Israel has repeatedly shifted norms on the flashpoint holy site where the Biblical Jewish temples stood and that today houses the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock Shrine under far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir.
“Jewish visitors were able to ascend the flashpoint holy site in the morning from 6:30 to 11:30 a.m., following pressure from activists. In previous years, visiting hours during Ramadan were from 7 to 11 a.m, with the Al-Aqsa compound completely closed to Jewish visitors throughout the afternoon.”
The issue is not necessarily the limitation of prayers, but rather the unilateral moves by Israel which stimulates fear among Muslims that Israel is moving toward complete control of the site. The Guardian outlines some of the moves that have inspired this fear:
“Tensions have escalated steadily around al-Aqsa mosque as far-right Israelis have taken up key security positions. The national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir – who had eight criminal convictions before taking office, for supporting a terrorist organisation and incitement to racism, among other charges – has said he wanted to raise the Israeli flag at the compound and build a synagogue there.
“Ben-Gvir has made inflammatory visits to al-Aqsa over the past year, and backed a series of unilateral changes to the status quo, allowing Jews to pray and sing in the compound. In January, he installed an ideological ally, Maj Gen Avshalom Peled, as the Jerusalem police chief, and with the reported backing of the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, allowed Jews to take printed prayer sheets on to the site, in ever-more clearcut violations.
“’The status quo has collapsed because there are prayers on a daily basis,’ Seidemann (Daniel Seidemann, a Jerusalem lawyer) said. ‘In the past, the police were very strict about preventing any kind of provocation … but these measures are displays of ‘we’re in control here, get used to it or get out of the way’.”
“In the run-up to Ramadan this year, the Jerusalem Waqf, the Jordanian-appointed foundation charged with managing al-Aqsa’s site as part of the status quo agreement, has come under increasing pressure. Waqf sources said five of its staff had been put in administrative detention (detention without charge) this week by the Shin Bet, while 38 staff members had been banned from entering the site. Six imams from the mosque had also been denied entrance, they said.
“They said six Waqf offices had been ransacked in recent weeks and the staff prevented from rehanging doors or doing other repairs. The Waqf has been prevented from installing sun and rain shelters or temporary clinics for worshippers. Officials allege they have even been prevented from bringing toilet paper on to the site.
“The cumulative effect, the officials said, had been to strain the Waqf’s ability to cater to the 10,000 Muslims expected to come to pray at al-Aqsa mosque over the month of Ramadan.”
The Palestinians have lost control over the land in the Gaza Strip and are witnessing the steady encroachment of Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Losing access to the al Aqsa mosque would amplify these fears to an incredible extent. At this writing, however, there does not seem to be any US to restrain the Israelis. Many states in the rest of the world are objecting to the creeping annexation of the West Bank and the UN Security Council has condemned many of the moves. The Washington Post reports:
“This month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s security cabinet, in a closed-door meeting, adopted measures to make it easier for settlers to purchase land and circumvent the Palestinian Authority in areas it has controlled since a 1995 agreement under the Oslo accords. The move was widely condemned in the Arab world and globally as a violation of international law and an undoing of decades-old regional security agreements….
“In the meantime, Palestinians continue to face an ever-quickening transformation of the West Bank, which, in the shadow of war on Gaza, has seen new Jewish settlements approved at record rates — and more than 1,300 Palestinians killed by settlers or Israeli forces — since Netanyahu took office in 2022, according to U.N. statistics.
“Now, many say they fear not only being displaced, but losing all legal claim to their land. Many international lawyers and even some Israeli cabinet ministers who supported the measures say they are a clear reach toward seizing territory.
“’We are continuing the revolution of settlement and our hold on all regions of our land,’ Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said, adding: ‘The State of Israel is taking responsibility for its land and acting according to the law with transparency and determination.’”
We should pay attention to how this situation evolves over the next month.
The Trump Administration is currently engaged in diplomatic talks with Iran, ostensibly over Iran’s nuclear program. If the issue is simply halting the Uranium enrichment program in Iran, there are some reasons to be optimistic. Iran seems willing to return to the agreement forged by the US, Germany, Russia, China, France and Great Britain during the Obama Administration. That agreement limited the level of enrichment to those levels necessary to build a nuclear bomb in return for the lifting of economic sanctions on Iran. But the US and Israel are demanding other limitations, including restrictions on Iran’s missile program (which was never part of the original deal).
In order to buttress his demands, Trump has ordered a significant expansion of the US military presence near Iran, including the dispatch of another aircraft carrier to the region. Axios describes the scale of the buildup:
“Trump’s armada has grown to include two aircraft carriers, a dozen warships, hundreds of fighter jets and multiple air defense systems. Some of that firepower is still on its way.
More than 150 U.S. military cargo flights have moved weapons systems and ammunition to the Middle East.
In the past 24 hours, another 50 fighter jets — F-35s, F-22s and F-16s — headed to the region.
“Between the lines: Trump’s military and rhetorical buildups make it hard for him to back down without major concessions from Iran on its nuclear program.
It’s not in Trump’s nature, and his advisers don’t view the deployment of all that hardware as a bluff.
:With Trump, anything can happen. But all signs point to him pulling the trigger if talks fail.”
It is doubtful that Iran will agree to those additional demands. Robert Reich believes that Trump wants “regime change” in Iran which essentially means the removal of the Supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:
“The United States is being represented in the talks by “Special Envoy” Steve Witkoff (whose son is the chief executive of World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s cryptocurrency company, nearly half of which was purchased last year for $500 million by an investment firm tied to the United Arab Emirates). And by Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner (who’s been making private deals with the Saudis and who raised several billion dollars before Trump’s second term from overseas investors including sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates).
“No one from the State Department. Nobody from the National Security Council. No one who knows much of anything about Iran.
“So what’s the real goal?
“On Friday, in a little-noticed remark, Trump said “the best thing that could happen” in Iran would be regime change, noting “there are people” who could take over from Iran’s Islamic ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.”
That objective is significantly more complicated than the removal of Venezuelan leader, Maduro. I have given up on trying to predict what Trump will actually do (largely because I believe that often he has no real plan for the consequences of his actions). But it seems to be clear that Israel is pushing hard for a more sustained attack: According to the New York Times:
“In Israel, the two defense officials said that significant preparations were underway for the possibility of a joint strike with the United States, even though no decision has been made about whether to carry out such an attack. They said the planning envisions delivering a severe blow over a number of days with the goal of forcing Iran into concessions at the negotiating table that it has so far been unwilling to make.
“The U.S. buildup suggests an array of possible Iranian targets, including short and medium range missiles, missile storage depots, nuclear sites and other military targets, such as headquarters of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.”
There are currently negotiations between the US and Iran in Geneva on the nuclear issue. But it does not appear that any progress has been made on the ballistic missile issue. Moreover, the Trump Administration may think that the recent protests in Iran make the possibility of a regime collapse more likely, and that a sustained attack on Iran would usher in regime change. There does not seem to be much discussion on the implications of an overthrow of the regime. Iran is different from the intervention in Venezuela which does not seem to have changed the character of the Venezuelan government much. There are many more fragmenting concerns in Iran: ethnic issues, distributional issues, and the threat of a sustained drought.
“Prime Minister Donald Tusk called on Thursday for all Polish citizens to leave Iran, after US President Donald Trump again hinted at military action against the Islamic Republic.
“’Everyone who is still in Iran must leave immediately, and under no circumstances should anyone plan to travel to that country,’ he said at a press conference.
He added that ‘the possibility of heated conflict is very real, and in a few, a dozen or several dozen hours, evacuation may no longer be an option.'”
If the attack occurs, it will mark the seventh time Trump has bombed a foreign power since January. I have not checked, but it seems to me that this is probably a record number of bombed states for any President in the first year of a presidential term.
The Munich Security Conference is an annual event held in Germany every year. It is an assemblage of experts in security matters, and generally it focuses on military matters. It issues a security report after each meeting and this year’s report is quite stunning in its bluntness. This is an excerpt from its Executive Summary:
“The world has entered a period of wrecking-ball politics. Sweeping destruction – rather than careful reforms and policy corrections – is the order of the day. The most prominent of those who promise to free their country from the existing order’s constraints and rebuild a stronger, more prosperous nation is the current US administration. As a result, more than 80 years after construction began, the US-led post-1945 international order is now under destruction.
“In many Western societies, political forces favoring destruction over reform are gaining momentum. Driven by resentment and regret over the liberal trajectory their societies have embarked on, they seek to tear down structures that they believe will prevent the emergence of stronger, more prosperous nations. Their disruptive agendas build on widespread disenchantment with the performance of democratic institutions and a pervasive loss of trust in meaningful reforms and political course corrections. In all G7 countries surveyed for the Munich Security Index 2026, only a tiny proportion of respondents say that their current government’s policies will make future generations better off. And both domestically and internationally, political structures are now perceived as overly bureaucratized and judicialized, impossible to reform and adapt to better serve the people’s needs. The result is a new climate in which those who employ bulldozers, wrecking balls, and chainsaws are often cautiously admired if not openly celebrated.
“The most powerful of those who take the axe to existing rules and institutions is US President Donald Trump.”
The report is, no doubt, a response to the National Security Strategy white paper issued by the Trump Administration in November 2025. But the perspective of the US paper is radically different:
“Over the past nine months, we have brought our nation–and the world–back from the brink of catastrophe and disaster. After four years of weakness, my administration has moved with urgency and historic speed to restore American strength at home and abroad, and bring peace and security to our world.
“No administration in history has achieved so dramatic a turnaround in so short a time.”
This juxtaposition of perspectives defies an easy explanation–both cannot be true at the same time. One is clearly wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that the Munich group is much closer to the mark. That raises a serious question: Who is writing this delusional nonsense for Trump? And why are Americans and the world not doing more to stop this ignorant fool?
As I have argued before, Trump is reviving the balance of power (or, at least, being explicit about his intentions) which also suggests that he is a practitioner of Realpolitik. There was little question in my mind that his adviser, Stephen Miller, is a hardline realist (sovereignty seems to be his favorite word which is the holy mantra of all realists). The New York Times has published a good overview of the lineage of realism, and all its varied meanings. The rubric, realist, gives too much credit to Trump since I doubt he is aware of any of the possible implications or significance of what it means to be a realist: a realist wants to enhance the power of the state while Trump seems to be interested in enhancing personal benefit. The Times article points out the crucial difference:
“For Walt and other realist thinkers, Trump’s aggressive and chaotic actions on the world stage — his antagonism of U.S. allies, threats of territorial conquest and assertions that the U.S. is not afraid of putting ‘boots on the ground’ — undermine any claim he could make to practicing a realist foreign policy. Realists largely opposed the U.S. wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, preferring policies of restraint. The failures of those episodes vindicated the realist worldview.”
I was reminded of this difference by a conversation with a colleague about the Venezuelan attack who reminded me of earlier episodes of US balance of power moves. One earlier intervention in hemispheric affairs was the US intervention of Haiti which lasted from 1915 to 1934. It was a brutal occupation:
“In 1910 an American investor acquired Haiti’s National Railroad with rights to establish banana plantations on either side of the track between Port-au-Prince and Cap Haitien. This land had sustained rural farmers and their families for generations. The Haitian Constitution did not even permit foreigners to own land – a safeguard against restoring slavery. The abrupt eviction of peasants from their land to make way for banana plantations prompted fierce resistance. Four years of insurrection followed, involving peasant armies – the Cacos – along with urban elites and members of Parliament who were opposed to foreign domination.
“This period of government instability became the pretext for the US occupation. By August 1915, there were 3000 US Marines in Haiti. They seized the customs houses, imposed martial law, instituted press censorship, and outlawed dissent. The US installed a compliant president, imposed a “treaty” that was ratified only by the US Senate, disbanded the legislature, and rewrote the Constitution eliminating the ban against foreign land ownership.
“Haiti’s indigenous religion, Vodou – so central to the war for independence – was banned. US Marines – all white, many Southern, replaced local heads of every town and rural district throughout the country. By 1922, the US completely controlled Haitian finances – including the treasury, collected taxes and forced Haiti to repay American loans.”
Butler was a highly decorated Marine: “Butler had received 16 medals, five for heroism. He is one of 19 men to receive the Medal of Honor twice, one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor, and the only Marine to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions.” Butler wrote a pamphlet entitled “War is a Racket” in which he argued that there was no national interest involved in the occupation of Haiti, but that it served corporate interests (Parenthetically, it is interesting to note that this pamphlet does not rest with the other writings by Butler: “at the Library of the Marine Corps at Quantico, Butler’s anti-war writings are isolated from his memoirs and other texts about him—in a separate bookshelf for radical thought that includes the works of Marx.”)
When he retired from the Marine Corps, Butler assessed his role in the military:
“I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our country’s most agile military force—the Marine Corps.… And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.”
It is always dangerous to compare events in different historical periods, but the US attack on Venezuela resonates with Butler’s final analysis. The Trump Administration offered a number of explanations for its acts of war against Venezuela. First it was to interdict Fentanyl (very little of which comes from Venezuela). The intervention was also justified as a means of countering Chinese influence in Venezuela. The US has also claimed that its attack on Venezuela was not an intervention but rather a “law enforcement operation” since the US had indicted Venezuelan President Maduro on drug trafficking charges. This last explanation ignores the fact that attacking the capital city of a state and kidnapping its President are both acts of war, even if the US claims it does not intend war (just think what the US response would be if a country attacked Washington, DC and kidnapped President Trump).
The real explanation is somewhat tortured, but it revolves around oil. The claim is that Venezuela has the largest reserves of oil in the world. Technically, this assertion may be true, but it is highly misleading. Venezuelan oil reserves are considered “heavy” which means that it has a high sulfur content and high viscosity. These characteristics make the refining of the oil a very expensive process, one that would not be profitable with today’s oil prices of around $59 a barrel. According to World Energy News:
“…estimates that breakeven costs for the Orinoco belt’s key grades are already above $80 per barrel. This puts Venezuelan oil on the high end of the “global cost scale” for new production. The average cost to break even for heavy oil produced in Canada is around $55 per barrel. Exxon has set a breakeven price of $30 per barrel for its global oil production in 2030, largely due to low-cost fields located in Guyana and U.S. Permian Shale Basin. Chevron also has a similar goal, and Conoco is working on a plan that will generate cash flow for the company even if oil drops to $35 per barrel.”
Nonetheless, Trump invited oil company executives to a meeting at the White House to persuade them to make the necessary investments to produce Venezuelan oil. The executives seemed unenthusiastic and an Exxon executive all Venezuela “uninvestable” (which I do not believe is a real word). I also find it hard to believe that Trump would prefer oil to be priced at $80 a barrel.
As far as I can tell, the real reason for attacking Venezuela was to gain control of its oil reserves but no oil company really wants to drill in Venezuela. Ordinarily, I would be flummoxed by this contradiction, but rationality does not seem to be an important consideration for Trump’s foreign policy. Smedley Butler would probably not be surprised at all.
The New York Times conducted an extensive interview with President Trump which is definitely worth reading with a very critical eye. Much of the interview was simple gibberish, but the Times highlighted an astonishing excerpt:
“President Trump declared on Wednesday evening that his power as commander in chief is constrained only by his ‘own morality,’ brushing aside international law and other checks on his ability to use military might to strike, invade or coerce nations around the world.
“Asked in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times if there were any limits on his global powers, Mr. Trump said: ‘Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.’
“’I don’t need international law,’ he added. ‘I’m not looking to hurt people.’
When pressed further about whether his administration needed to abide by international law, Mr. Trump said, ‘I do.’ But he made clear he would be the arbiter when such constraints applied to the United States.
“’It depends what your definition of international law is,’ he said.
“Mr. Trump’s assessment of his own freedom to use any instrument of military, economic or political power to cement American supremacy was the most blunt acknowledgment yet of his worldview. At its core is the concept that national strength, rather than laws, treaties and conventions, should be the deciding factor as powers collide.”
The quotes reveal a mentality toward governance that harks back to Louis XIV: “L’État, c’est moi“. It is a perspective that generated abject misery among the poorer classes during Louis’s reign and ultimately led to the French Revolution. It is a perspective that has no place in a democratic republic. And it epitomizes an arrogance that is truly sinister and frightening.
Trump continues to dismantle the world order created after the end of World War II. It was a system based upon a belief that multilateral cooperation should replace the national systems that had fostered the tensions that created the mistrust that had led to World Wars I and II. It was an aspirational system that never really realized its ambitions, but the new system proved sufficient to dampen the pressures among Great Powers sufficiently to avoid another cataclysmic war. Trump believes that the multilateral system compromises US autonomy and prevents it from realizing certain national objectives.
Today Trump activated Executive Order 14199 and ordered the US to withdraw from 66 multilateral organizations. I am not familiar with most of these organizations, but among them are ones that I consider crucially important, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and the UN Conference on Trade and Development. I am also not certain how much advantage the US gains from not being a member of all these organizations, but I think it is safe to say, that many of the organizations will not survive without US financial assistance.
“America First” is clearly “America Alone”. Trump apparently believes that the US does not need to maintain close relations with the rest of the world. He is profoundly mistaken.
Here is the list of affected organizations:
Sec. 2. Organizations from Which the United States Shall Withdraw.
(a) Non-United Nations Organizations:
(i) 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact;
(ii) Colombo Plan Council;
(iii) Commission for Environmental Cooperation;
(iv) Education Cannot Wait;
(v) European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats;
(vi) Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories;
(vii) Freedom Online Coalition;
(viii) Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund;
(ix) Global Counterterrorism Forum;
(x) Global Forum on Cyber Expertise;
(xi) Global Forum on Migration and Development;
(xii) Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research;
(xiii) Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development;
(xiv) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
(xv) Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services;
(xvi) International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property;
(xvii) International Cotton Advisory Committee;
(xviii) International Development Law Organization;
(xix) International Energy Forum;
(xx) International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies;
(xxi) International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance;
(xxii) International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law;
(xxiii) International Lead and Zinc Study Group;
(xxiv) International Renewable Energy Agency;
(xxv) International Solar Alliance;
(xxvi) International Tropical Timber Organization;
(xxvii) International Union for Conservation of Nature;
(xxviii) Pan American Institute of Geography and History;
(xxix) Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation;
(xxx) Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combatting Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia;
(xxxi) Regional Cooperation Council;
(xxxii) Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century;
(xxxiii) Science and Technology Center in Ukraine;
(xxxiv) Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme; and
(xxxv) Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.
(b) United Nations (UN) Organizations:
(i) Department of Economic and Social Affairs;
(ii) UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) — Economic Commission for Africa;
(iii) ECOSOC — Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean;
(iv) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific;
(v) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia;
(vi) International Law Commission;
(vii) International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals;
(viii) International Trade Centre;
(ix) Office of the Special Adviser on Africa;
(x) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children in Armed Conflict;
(xi) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict;
(xii) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children;
(xiii) Peacebuilding Commission;
(xiv) Peacebuilding Fund;
(xv) Permanent Forum on People of African Descent;
(xvi) UN Alliance of Civilizations;
(xvii) UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries;
(xviii) UN Conference on Trade and Development;
(xix) UN Democracy Fund;
(xx) UN Energy;
(xxi) UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women;
(xxii) UN Framework Convention on Climate Change;
(xxiii) UN Human Settlements Programme;
(xxiv) UN Institute for Training and Research;
(xxv) UN Oceans;
(xxvi) UN Population Fund;
(xxvii) UN Register of Conventional Arms;
(xxviii) UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination;
Imperialism never dies, but it changes its clothes every so often. After World War II ended, the colonial empires created by European states slowly disintegrated, a process that is still ongoing. But at the end of the war, there was a sense that the idea of self-determination should override the impulse to dominate. That end never materialized, but the more ostentatious trappings of imperialism became difficult to maintain and the right to dominate was articulated in the language of democracy and liberation.
This particular perspective on mimics one of the founding acts of European imperialism, the Treaty of Tordesilla which divided up the entire world into two parts in 1494, one owned by Spain and the other by Portugal. It was a plan crafted by Pope Julius II, which was subsequently modified by the Treaty of Zaragoza, signed in 1529, to include the eastern hemisphere (by tracing out the antemeridian), which included the Spice Islands.
The settlement did not last long, as other European states (the Dutch, the French, the Belgians, and the British) did not want to miss out on the benefits (to them) of imperialism.
We will see how the Venezuelans feel about the US being in charge of domestic affairs once the dust settles. Undoubtedly, many of them are relieved that Maduro is no longer in power, and the Venezuelan economy is in a deep contraction. Right now, there is tremendous uncertainty about how the US will “run” the country. There is, however, not much the Venezuelans can do as long as US forces remain offshore. But there are countries that depend on Venezuelan oil (Cuba and China, in particular) which will probably contest US “ownership” of the oil fields. Moreover, the US will find that it is impossible to “run” a country at arms-length, and as US personnel begin to filter into Venezuela, they will unquestionably be targets of armed opposition.
Regime change is easy for a country as powerful as the US. What happens after the change, however, is extraordinarily difficult for an outside power. The US learned that lesson in Vietnam, Libya, and Iraq. It’s incredible how the US has forgotten those lessons wo quickly and emphatically.
We all woke up to the news that the US had attacked Venezuela and kidnapped its President and his wife. This outcome was not on my bingo card. I fully expected Trump to overthrow Maduro, but I honestly did not think that Trump would be so blatant in violating US obligations under the United Nations Charter (which outlaws wars of aggression). I am still digesting the few scraps of real information that we have and will probably write more as additional information becomes available. Right now, however, I can make some general observations.
First, the act is the literal end of the world order under which we have lived since 1945. This world order was based upon a repudiation of balance of power politics which was the norm since 1648. Under the balance of power system, states are free to use any and all means available to increase their power and an important part of the system was an implicit recognition that powerful states can take actions to preserve their spheres of influence. Thus, for example, Russia simply asserted that Ukraine was an integral part of the Russian sphere of influence and justified its aggression in those terms. China makes similar claims to the South China Sea and to Taiwan. The US now is firmly entrenched in that 19th century doctrine and we now live in a world where, as the Athenians said to the Melians in the Peloponnesian War: “The strong do as they will, and the weak suffer what they must”.
Second, Trump apparently made the decision to attack Venezuela without consulting any members of Congress and without informing its allies of what was going to happen. In other words, he made a unilateral decision: it was neither democratic nor multilateral. It was an imperial order and that apparently means that Trump is prepared to do whatever he thinks necessary to secure what he believes are US interests. Unless the decision is restrained in some way by Congress, the Supreme Court, or by widespread protests, we now effectively live in a dictatorship.
Third, I suspect that the US will relearn the same lessons it ignored in its earlier attempts at regime change: Guatemala, Iran, Libya, Iraq, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, and Vietnam. It’s easy to overthrow a government, but very difficult to establish a viable, legitimate government to replace it. That task will be even more difficult in the case of Venezuela since Maduro was the only authority removed. All his henchmen are still there, and it is very likely that there will be political instability as the different groups compete for power. In this press conference Trump said that the US would “run” Venezuela for the immediate future. The profound irony of that assertion is that Trump has yet to learn who to “run” the US. And with Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio in charge, I expect that the Keystone Kops will meet their match in incompetence.
Fourth, Trump asserts that Venezuela “stole” US oil when it nationalized some US companies holdings. TO be clear, Venezuela never gave up its sovereign rights to its own oil. It simply gave the US oil companies the right to lift a certain number of barrels of oil and set a price for that sale. The companies never “owned” the oil; they simply agreed to pay Venezuela for its oil. So nothing was “stolen”. It is true that Venezuela refused to renew those contracts, but for Trump to argue that contracts are sacrosanct is absurd after he’s fired so many Federal employees who had their contracts simply annulled.
I suspect that I will have more to say about this matter as more information is available. But I can assert confidently that this decision to invade Venezuela will go down as one of the most egregious diplomatic failures in American diplomatic history.
The US has asserted that it will blockade all oil tankers from Venezuela on a sanction list. This action follows the seizure of the oil tanker Skipper that was carrying 2 million barrels of crude oil destined for Cuba. Generally speaking, a blockade is considered an act of war but the Trump Administration has not asked the Congress for a declaration of war, nor has it met the requirements of the War Powers Act. Nonetheless, Trump has deployed a massive military buildup off the coast of Venezuela acting on his asserted authority as Commander-in-Chief. The Washington Post listed all the military assets deployed as of today.
AC-130J Ghostrider
Heavily armed gunship
Special Operations Forces
U.S. Air Force (Special Ops Command)
AV-8B Harrier II
Fighter and attack aircraft
Air
U.S. Marine Corps
B-1B Lancer
Supersonic bomber
Air
U.S. Air Force
B-52 Stratofortress
Strategic bomber
Air
U.S. Air Force
EA-18G Growler
Electronic attack jet
Air
U.S. Navy
F-35 Lightning II
Supersonic fighter jet
Air
U.S. Marine Corps
MH-6 Little Bird
Light observation helicopter
Special Operations Forces
U.S. Army (160th SOAR)
MH-60M Black Hawk
Medium-lift military utility helicopter
Special Operations Forces
U.S. Army (160th SOAR)
MH-60T Jayhawk
Medium-range recovery helicopter
Air
U.S. Coast Guard
MQ-9 Reaper
Unmanned combat aerial vehicle (drone)
Air
U.S. Air Force
MV Ocean Trader
Floating special operations base
Special Operations Forces
Operated for U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM)
MV-22 Osprey
Transport and cargo aircraft
Air
U.S. Marine Corps
P-8 Poseidon
Maritime patrol aircraft
Air
U.S. Navy
Sikorsky UH-60L Black Hawk
Medium-lift military utility helicopter
Air
U.S. Army
USS Bainbridge
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Fort Lauderdale
Amphibious transport dock
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Gerald R. Ford
Aircraft carrier
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Gettysburg (CG-64)
Guided missile cruiser
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7)
Amphibious assault ship
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Jason Dunham
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Lake Erie
Guided missile cruiser
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Mahan
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS San Antonio
Amphibious transport dock
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Stockdale
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Thomas Hudner
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Wichita
Littoral combat ship
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Winston S. Churchill
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
I doubt that the US is contemplating an invasion of Venezuela (but I also doubt that Trump has thought that far). His intention is to create economic chaos in Venezuela that will lead to the overthrow of President Maduro. This particular playbook was actually used by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known as BP) in 1951 against Iran after Iran nationalized its holdings. The company effectively blockaded Iran from selling its oil to others by following oil tankers leaving Iran and using the courts to prevent the sale of what it called “stolen” oil. Eventually, the Iranian economy collapsed and with a shove from the US CIA led to the overthrow of the president of the country and leading to the rule of the Shah of Iran.
The Iranian example is instructive since the Iranian regime that toppled the Shah in 1979 led to the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the longstanding bitterness between Iran and the US today. The US has a poor track record of regime change. It did not work in Vietnam in 1963 when South Vietnamese President Diem was assassinated or when the US overthrew Iraqi President Hussein in 2003. Other examples include the overthrow of Guatemalan President in 1954 and the toppling President Allende of Chile in 1973. Regime change is a policy adopted by states that pay little attention to the long-term consequences of meddling in the internal affair of other states.
But there is another thread in the Venezuela situation that has not received sufficient attention. Venezuela has the largest oil deposits in the world although its oil is heavy with sulfur and thus requires significant refining in order to be useful. The main seller of Venezuelan oil in the US is a company called Citgo, and it has three refineries in the US. But the US took control of Citgo properties in 2018 using the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FISA). In December 2025 Citgo shares were sold to a US company called Amber Energy with a $5.9 billion bid.
What’s interesting about Amber Energy is that one of its primary backers is Elliott Investment Management, a hedge fund based in West Palm Beach, Florida and whose primary sponsor is Paul Singer. Singer is often termed a venture capitalist (some call him a “vulture” capitalist) and an example of his activities was in profiting from Argentina’s debt problem in the early 2000s:
“Perhaps the most infamous chapter of Singer’s career is his prolonged battle with the government of Argentina over defaulted sovereign bonds. In the early 2000s, Argentina experienced a financial crisis that led to the country defaulting on its debt. While many creditors agreed to restructure their bonds at a fraction of their original value, Elliott Management refused, demanding full repayment. What followed was a 15-year legal and financial battle that saw Singer’s firm seize Argentine naval vessels and block international payments. In 2016, the dispute culminated in a $2.4 billion payout to Elliott Management, a victory that underscored Singer’s tenacity and strategic prowess.”
Regime change might result in a US company controlling all of Venezuela’s oil (if Maduro does leave, his most likely successor would be María Corina Machado who would likely have Trump’s blessing, although her political power will be sorely tested if she does not protest the US actions). In short, a US company would have control over Venezuela’s massive reserves.
Trump’s actions against Venezuela are reprehensible and short-sighted. The long-term consequences of Trump’s “gunboat” diplomacy will weaken US credibility and prestige, all in the name of preserving the viability of fossil fuel hegemony in the US. It is a fool’s errand and completely out of touch with the world as it currently operates.
There are a number of questions about this action which need to be answered. But I think that the Post did a great job of raising those questions. Many of those questions revolve around the status of the military action against these alleged drug running vessels: are these actions “acts of war”? President Trump defends these actions under his authority as Commander-in-Chief of the US military and that he is using forces against actors which threaten US national security. Most of those defenses are bogus and have been addressed in many other media sources.
But, for purposes of argument, let’s pretend that the US military action is justified by the principles of self-defense. Those arguments are used to justify the first use of force against these vessels.
But the second attack on the survivors clinging to wreckage is unquestionably a violation of the laws of war. The Geneva Convention is explicit:
GENEVA CONVENTION for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949
CHAPTER II Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked
Article 12
Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are at sea and who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances, it being understood that the term “shipwreck” means shipwreck from any cause and includes forced landings at sea by or from aircraft.
Such persons shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Parties to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.
Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered.
Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex.
We should remember that the Laws of War are generally unenforceable since the international organizations tasked with the enforcement (the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court) are powerless to enforce the laws against powerful states. But the Laws of War rest upon the self-interest of states to protect their own people against unlawful acts. The United States would never want its wounded soldiers to be ruthlessly murdered, so it must adhere to a code of conduct that respects the similar status of its enemy’s soldiers. This code of conduct is frequently violated, but far less than one would expect. This self-interest is most potent with respect to civilians, but again, we have lots of evidence to suggest that it is far less than perfect.
Killing two wounded individuals in open seas is a blatant violation of this norm and it invites reciprocal actions by other states. We have already witnesse massive loss of civilian lives in the conflicts in Congo, Myanmar, Ukraine, and the Gaza Strip, and these actions should be soundly condemned. The report of Israeli Defense Forces killing two individuals in the West Bank who had their hands raised in surrender is further evidence of the erosion of this critical aspect of the Laws of War.
Nov. 27, 2025 incident in which two Palestinian men were killed during an operation in Jenin, in the occupied West Bank
There is a second important issue raised by the second missile attack. According to the Post, the military unit that carried out the attack was one of the US’s most elite troops. Whoever received the order to kill the wounded survivors should have refused the order. That the order was carried out suggests a stunning lack of discipline by very well-trained troops. The protections for wounded soldiers and civilians must be enforced. If not, then no war is being fought; it is murder and barbarous.
World Politics News 