NYT Discovers Foreign Policy Exists Beyond Washington's Interests
While the NYT frames this saga as a domestic Republican conundrum, it conveniently sidesteps the decades of U.S. intervention in Latin American democracies. From the 1954 coup in Guatemala to the Contra wars, a pattern emerges: the 'threat' of socialism or resource nationalism often precedes U.S.-backed regime change. The "ousting" of Maduro, a persistent U.S. foreign policy goal, isn't an
isolated event, but a chapter in a long, predictable playbook. The 'challenge' for the GOP isn't ethical, but rather how to continue extracting resources and influence without looking too blatantly imperialist (a perennial favorite). Remember when the U.S. hailed Juan Guaidó as the legitimate leader, despite his lack of popular support? That particular charade cost billions in frozen assets and
sanctions, crippling Venezuela's economy, but never quite achieved the desired 'regime change.' Now, with Maduro *finally* 'out' (according to this convenient future-tense reporting), the Washington establishment is surprised that their geopolitical chess game might actually have consequences beyond the Beltway. How many proxy leaders and failed coups does it take before we question the premise of
'humanitarian intervention'?