The Venezuelan intervention was coordinated with American oil businesses before and after, while Congress was kept in the dark. This demonstrates a shift where foreign policy serves specific corporate interests directly, bypassing traditional democratic oversight and processes.
Related Insights
The Trump administration reveals that governance is less about ideology and more about high-stakes transactions. Success in politics, much like a game of 'money chess,' comes from identifying and trading for what each party desires—be it money, oil, or influence. This transactional nature of power is far more pervasive than many believe.
The Trump administration is depicted as ignoring Venezuela's legitimately elected opposition leader and instead choosing to work with the former vice president. This suggests a strategy prioritizing controllable stability with a regime figure over supporting a democratically elected but potentially less predictable leader.
Modern multinationals avoid the high cost and risk of securing foreign markets themselves. Instead, they 'draft' behind the U.S. government, which uses its diplomatic and military power to create favorable conditions. This effectively socializes geopolitical risk for corporations while they privatize the profits.
The World Economic Forum, once a bastion of thoughtful globalism, is shifting. Its attendees are becoming more aligned with Trump's transactional, oil-focused worldview, prioritizing personal prosperity and "getting in on the hustle" over upholding international law.
The public narrative of fighting narco-terrorism in Venezuela is a red herring. The true strategic goal is to justify a U.S. military presence in the Caribbean to counter China's growing economic and military investments in the region, including control of key shipping routes and military partnerships.
The conflict is not primarily about oil or drugs, but a strategic move to reassert U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere. As China solidifies its influence in the East, the U.S. is 'drawing a line' to counter China's partnerships (like with Venezuela) in its own sphere of influence.
A president can legally initiate military actions like a blockade without congressional approval by first designating the target regime as a 'Foreign Terrorist Organization.' This provides a separate legal playbook and set of executive powers, circumventing the formal declaration of war process.
The U.S. is shifting from multilateral institutions to direct financial action as a foreign policy tool. The unprecedented $20 billion bailout for Argentina, replacing the typical role of the IMF, demonstrates a new strategy of using America's financial might to directly support ideologically aligned foreign leaders.
Anne Applebaum highlights a disturbing shift where high-stakes foreign policy, like the Ukraine peace plan, is conducted by businesspeople seeking personal financial gain. This mirrors the kleptocratic systems of autocratic states, prioritizing private profit over national or allied interests, and raises questions about who American foreign policy truly serves.
Despite expected legislative gridlock, investors should focus on the executive branch. The president's most impactful market tools, such as tariff policy and deregulation via executive agencies, do not require congressional approval. Significant policy shifts can therefore occur even when Congress is divided and inactive.
