Ahmed Moustafa, Director and Founder of Asia Center for Studies & Translation Egypt

Intro

Predicting the outcome of a complex geopolitical situation is difficult, but the current “round” in Venezuela—as of late 2025—is characterized by a significant escalation in U.S. pressure. The administration has recently launched a “Maximum Pressure 2.0” campaign, which is currently at a fever pitch:

Naval Blockade: On December 16, 2025, President Trump announced a “total and complete blockade” of all sanctioned oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuela. He described Venezuela as “completely surrounded” by a massive U.S. naval armada.

Military Engagement: The U.S. has conducted more than 20 strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific that it alleges are linked to drug trafficking. These actions have resulted in dozens of casualties and sparked intense international debate over the legality of these “intercepts.”

Asset Reclamation: Trump has explicitly demanded that Venezuela return oil and land assets “stolen” from U.S. companies (referring to the nationalization of the oil industry under Hugo Chávez).

Terrorist Designation: The administration has designated the Maduro government as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” (FTO) and labeled specific gangs like Tren de Aragua as narco-terrorist threats.

Strengths for the U.S.

Economic Leverage: A successful blockade could cripple the Maduro government’s primary source of revenue (oil), potentially leading to internal collapse.

Domestic Support: Trump’s base largely supports a “hard-line” approach to curb migration and drug flows.

Military Superiority: The presence of a massive armada makes it physically difficult for Venezuela to export oil without U.S. interference.

However, challenges for the U.S.

Geopolitical Support: Russia and China remain allies of Maduro. Russia recently pledged continued support, and the UN has expressed concern over “international piracy.”

Regional Stability: Leaders like Brazil’s Lula and Mexico’s Sheinbaum are calling for mediation, fearing a “Vietnam-style” quagmire in South America.

Refugee Crisis: Further destabilizing the Venezuelan economy may actually increase the flow of migrants to the U.S. border, contradicting other administration goals.

To delve deeper into this analytical report, we will analyze several factors as follows:-

Western democracy is flawed and differentiates between bad and worse

A persuasive critique of contemporary Western democracy posits that its foundational principle has been fundamentally corrupted, devolving into a system where citizens are often constrained to selecting the lesser of two perceived evils. This degeneration stems from an over-reliance on the ballot box as the sole arbiter of democratic legitimacy, a mechanism that prioritizes the mere act of voting over the critical evaluation of candidate competence, integrity, and policy expertise. The selection process itself is profoundly compromised, as party nominations are frequently determined not by meritocratic assessment but by the insidious influences of political factionalism, religious dogma, and ethnic tribalism. This creates a candidate pool often devoid of the most qualified individuals, instead favoring those who best navigate the intricate webs of internal party politics and identity-based mobilization.

This systemic failure is exacerbated by the significant and often clandestine interference of powerful financial lobbies and oligarchic interests. These entities exploit a permissive regulatory environment to exert undue influence on the political process, shaping legislation and policy to serve narrow, private ends rather than the public good. The resultant “revolving door” phenomenon—where individuals seamlessly transition between roles as industry regulators and lobbyists for the sectors they once oversaw—has created a regulatory capture that paralyzes Western parliaments and core institutions. This symbiosis between capital and power ensures that economic and governance structures are engineered for rent-seeking and the preservation of entrenched privilege, effectively nullifying the democratic will and creating a governance deficit.

Consequently, these structurally embedded vulnerabilities have rendered Western democracies ill-equipped to address existential challenges, most notably the protracted economic malaise that commenced with the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The inadequate policy responses, often prioritizing bank bailouts and austerity over Main Street recovery, coupled with the massive diversion of public funds into perpetual military engagements (extending far beyond the oft-cited Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns), have exacerbated inequality and eroded public trust. The manifest inability of the system to foster renewal is perhaps most symbolically captured in the advanced age and perceived limitations of its standard-bearers, as evidenced by the 2016 and 2024 U.S. presidential contests (Trump, Biden and then Trump one more time). This gerontocratic entrenchment is not merely a demographic curiosity but a potent symptom of a deeper institutional stagnation, where the pathways for genuine renewal and competent leadership are effectively blocked by the very mechanisms that define the modern democratic process.

Trump represents the true image of Zionist oligarchic pragmatism in the West because he is part of it

Donald Trump’s presidency represents a profound paradox and a critical case study in the erosion of democratic norms, characterized by an overt alignment with expansionist Zionist policies and a transactional approach to governance that leveraged the power of a media and technology oligarchy. His administration cultivated a symbiotic relationship with figures like Elon Musk, securing vital support by initially projecting a facade of gender-neutral morality that ultimately alienated religious and minority groups. This coalition enabled a domestic and foreign policy agenda that was both ideologically driven and ruthlessly pragmatic. Nowhere was this more evident than in the Middle East, where his administration, despite electoral support from some Muslim and Arab-American communities, acted as a primary enabler of the Netanyahu government. His policies, including the move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and the brokering of the Abraham Accords that sidelined Palestinian aspirations, effectively greenlit the subsequent escalation of violence and the devastating bloodbath in Gaza, betraying those who sought a just resolution to the enduring conflict.

On the global stage, Trump’s doctrine was defined by an abrasive unilateralism and a blatant disregard for international law, seeking to advance U.S. economic interests through coercive measures rather than diplomacy. He antagonized longstanding allies with punitive tariffs, manipulated volatile immigration issues critical to the U.S. labor market, and openly pursued the annexationist fantasy of acquiring territories like Greenland. This revisionist approach culminated in a direct assault on Venezuelan sovereignty, where his administration attempted an illegitimate coup against the elected government of Nicolás Maduro. This maneuver was a transparent effort to install a puppet regime and plunder the world’s largest proven oil reserves, a strategic pivot after failed provocations against Iran and Russia, motivated by a desire to control energy prices and avert domestic economic fallout from soaring gasoline costs, which threatened to exceed $7 per gallon.

The economic foundation upon which these aggressive policies were built was, however, inherently unstable and masked significant fiscal peril. Behind a media-obscured facade of growth, the administration presided over an alarming acceleration of the national debt, which according to Bank of America, grew at a rate of one trillion dollars every 100 days, pushing the total internal debt beyond $40 trillion. This precariousness was exacerbated by self-destructive immigration policies, including the imposition of exorbitant visa fees reaching $150,000 on companies employing foreign workers. This short-sighted action catalyzed a flight of both American and foreign businessmen and skilled labor, further straining an economy profoundly dependent on their contribution. Thus, Trump’s legacy is not merely one of ideological thuggery but of a calculated destabilization of both international order and domestic economic security for the benefit of a narrow oligarchic and ideological elite.

Where did Trump get his enormous wealth and the role of shadow trading in it?

While Donald Trump’s wealth is frequently attributed to his real estate empire and branding ventures, a more critical analysis suggests the origins may be far more complex and ethically fraught. Allegations that have surfaced from various legal proceedings and investigative reports, including those connected to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, posit that a portion of this capital could be linked to illicit networks. These networks purportedly involved prostitution rings and the facilitation of access to underage girls for global elites, activities which, if substantiated, would represent a significant and clandestine revenue stream operating parallel to his legitimate businesses. This perspective challenges the canonical narrative of self-made success, proposing instead that his fortune may be partially built upon the exploitation inherent in human trafficking.

Further scrutiny extends to the international drug trade, a shadow economy estimated by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime to generate annual global revenues ranging from $400 to $650 billion. The assertion that Venezuela is a primary source of U.S. narcotics is a widely debunked political claim not supported by DEA intelligence, which consistently identifies Mexican cartels as the dominant force. However, the scale of this illicit market invites examination of any individual with the logistical capacity and connections to engage in it. Unverified claims from certain sources have attempted to implicate Trump in such activities, suggesting potential complicity or personal involvement. These assertions, while serious, remain within the realm of allegation rather than established legal fact, yet they persist as a component of the critical discourse questioning the integrity of his wealth accumulation.

The personal history of his wife, Melania Trump, a Slovenian immigrant and former model whose work included nude photography, is often cited within this analytical framework not as a condemnation of her profession, but as potential circumstantial evidence of his immersion in a milieu where human commodification is normalized. When synthesized, these threads—the association with figures like Epstein, the persistent allegations of involvement in drug and sex trafficking, and the operation within industries blurring the lines between legal and illegal—form a persuasive argument for many researchers. This argument posits that a comprehensive understanding of Trump’s wealth must acknowledge the potential confluence of legitimate enterprise and illicit, shadow economies that thrive on exploitation.

How can Donald Trump and America be confronted and punished in practical, new, and unconventional ways?

Donald Trump’s unilateral imposition of an air and sea embargo on Venezuela—without congressional approval—constitutes a clear violation of both international law and the U.S. Constitution. The blockade, which has exacerbated Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis, contravenes the UN Charter’s prohibition on coercive economic measures that harm civilian populations (Article 2(4)). Legally, Trump’s circumvention of Congress also violates the War Powers Resolution and the separation of powers doctrine. Given the U.S.’s historical impunity for such actions, traditional judicial mechanisms (e.g., the ICC, where the U.S. is not a member) are unlikely to hold him accountable. Thus, unconventional strategies must be explored, such as multilateral economic sanctions against Trump and his administration by Global South nations, targeted asset foreclosures, and diplomatic isolation under the principle of universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity.

The Global South, led by geopolitical heavyweights China and Russia, holds significant leverage to impose consequences. Both nations have condemned U.S. sanctions on Venezuela, with China providing over $60 billion in investments and Russia deploying military advisers. To punish Trump’s administration, they could escalate financial retribution—such as freezing U.S. officials’ offshore assets (an estimated $30 billion in Russian and Chinese-linked holdings) or restricting access to critical mineral supply chains. Additionally, they might pursue resolutions in the UN General Assembly to delegitimize U.S. sanctions, building on prior votes where 193 nations condemned unilateral coercive measures. However, their willingness depends on balancing anti-imperialist rhetoric against economic pragmatism, particularly China’s reliance on U.S. markets.

Beyond diplomatic condemnation, legal avenues exist under international frameworks. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), representing 120 states, could initiate a collective lawsuit at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for violating the UN Charter’s sovereignty principles. Precedents exist: Nicaragua successfully sued the U.S. in 1986 over embargo-related damages. Economically, Global South nations might adopt secondary sanctions against U.S. firms enforcing the blockade, similar to the EU’s anti-sanctions statute (Blocking Statute 2271/96). Venezuela itself has already petitioned the ICC to investigate U.S. sanctions as crimes against humanity, citing a 40% increase in mortality due to medical shortages (Lancet, 2019). Strengthening these efforts requires coordinated action from BRICS and regional bodies like ALBA.

The claim that what is being done to Venezuela is bullying and theft of its wealth is an oversimplification that ignores the complexity of the internal US situation

While unconventional measures offer pathways to accountability, their effectiveness hinges on sustained geopolitical unity. China and Russia may lack the incentive to risk direct confrontation unless U.S. actions further destabilize their interests. However, escalating legal and economic pushback—coupled with grassroots pressure (e.g., sanctions divestment campaigns targeting Trump-linked businesses)—could erode U.S. moral authority. The Global South must weigh symbolic victories versus tangible penalties, but history suggests that even symbolic defeats can constrain hegemonic overreach. For academics, documenting these violations and advocating for transnational legal activism remains critical in shaping future norms against unilateral aggression.

Several researchers find that the US strategic interest in Venezuelan oil reserves reflects domestic energy poverty and financial desperation, which may contradict US empirical data. In fact, the US has been the world’s largest producer of crude oil since 2018, consistently producing more than 10 million barrels per day, reaching, according to US data, whose credibility is suspicious, 12.9 million barrels per day in 2023, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Far from suffering from energy scarcity, the US is a net exporter of petroleum products, as it claims, with the possibility of energy independence increasing thanks to advances in shale extraction technologies such as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, both of which have destroyed the US environment, soil, and groundwater, according to several environmental experts.

Some may say that we should analyze US foreign policy toward Venezuela in a broader geopolitical context from an American perspective. Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves—about 303 billion barrels, according to OPEC data for 2023 — making it an important player in energy markets, despite current production difficulties due to economic mismanagement and sanctions. US involvement, particularly during the Trump administration, has focused on overthrowing the democratic regime and changing it by force and through US proxies and an opposition that embraces the US agenda, alleging humanitarian crises and anti-authoritarian principles, rather than outright seizure of resources. Sanctions were used to pressure the Nicolás Maduro regime, not to directly seize oil, although critics argue that such measures may indirectly benefit US energy interests.

While accusations of economic imperialism and interventionism deserve careful scientific study, portraying US policy as mere “theft and intimidation” oversimplifies multifaceted diplomatic and strategic calculations. The Trump administration’s actions must be placed in their proper context within the long-standing tradition of US foreign policy of asserting regional influence and countering hostile powers, such as Russia and China, which have maintained economic and military ties with Venezuela. Attributing these policies to domestic failure ignores the complex interaction between national security, ideological opposition to authoritarianism, and global energy market dynamics. Rigorous scientific analysis requires moving beyond simplistic narratives to examine the structural, institutional, and ideological drivers of foreign policy in a multipolar world.

Venezuela’s struggle between past and present and lessons from the Gaza resistance

Venezuela’s contemporary struggle against foreign intervention must be understood through the lens of its historical anticolonial resistance, particularly the Bolivarian revolution’s defiance of Spanish imperial rule in the 19th century. Today, this struggle has transformed into resistance against what many Latin American scholars characterize as neo-imperial dominance—particularly U.S. economic sanctions that have cost Venezuela over $200 billion in lost revenues between 2017 and 2022, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Just as Simón Bolívar fought to liberate Gran Colombia from colonial exploitation, modern Venezuela must frame its resistance not as isolationism, but as a continuation of anti-imperial sovereignty. The current geopolitical pressure, manifested through financial blockades and political isolation, parallels historical patterns of external domination—only now administered through economic coercion rather than direct military occupation.

Equally instructive is the steadfast resistance of the Palestinian people in Gaza, who, despite enduring over 17 years of blockade (since 2007) and recurring military assaults—resulting in over 70,000 civilian deaths since October 2023, per Gaza Health Ministry reports—have refused to relinquish their land or dignity. Their resilience offers a powerful model of grassroots defiance in the face of disproportionate force and global indifference. Similarly, Hugo Chávez’s strategic bypassing of Western financial systems—exemplified by the 2005 energy-for-food barter agreement with Argentina, which exchanged Venezuelan oil for Argentine agricultural products—demonstrated that economic sovereignty could be preserved through South-South cooperation. This precedent underscores the viability of regional integration and alternative trade mechanisms in countering hegemonic control. By drawing on both historical liberation struggles and contemporary acts of resistance, Venezuela can articulate a coherent, morally grounded foreign policy that aligns with global movements against neocolonialism and for self-determination.

Conclusions:

The text critiques modern Western democracy, arguing it has become flawed, limiting citizens to choosing between two unsatisfactory options. It highlights how political party nominations often follow factionalism rather than merit, resulting in unqualified candidates. This situation worsens due to the influence of wealthy lobbies that manipulate policy for private gain, leading to a governance deficit.

Donald Trump’s presidency exemplifies these democratic issues, promoting policies aligned with specific interests while fostering military and economic instability. His administration’s actions in the Middle East and towards international relations reflect aggressive unilateralism. Additionally, Trump’s financial legacy is questioned, suggesting ties to potentially illicit activities and raising concerns about the sources of his wealth.

The history of Melania Trump, a Slovenian immigrant and former model, highlights potential issues related to human commodification and Trump’s wealth, which may involve both legitimate and illegal enterprises. Trump’s air and sea embargo on Venezuela, imposed without Congress’s approval, violates international law and worsens the country’s humanitarian crisis. To hold Trump accountable, Global South nations like China and Russia might consider sanctions, asset freezes, or legal action through international courts.

Venezuela’s significant oil reserves make it strategically important, but the U.S. involvement often emphasizes regime change rather than resource theft. The current situation reflects a historical struggle against neo-imperial dominance, paralleling past anticolonial resistance. Venezuela can draw on these struggles to promote a foreign policy advocating for sovereignty and integration against hegemonic control.