The Art of the Conditional Embrace
At first glance, the AP's reporting paints this diplomatic U-turn as typical Trumpian unpredictability. However, dig a little deeper, and a familiar pattern emerges—one where 'bad blood' is swiftly forgotten when leverage shifts. CASE A: The Petro Problem as Presented The mainstream narrative frames Trump's initial insults and subsequent invitation as a jarring contradiction. Petro, a leftist, is
cast as an uncooperative "insurrecto" type, critical of U.S. foreign policy (accusing Trump of being an "accomplice to genocide" in Gaza, and labeling the Maduro capture operation a "kidnapping"). Trump's shift, the AP suggests, is due to Petro seemingly becoming "very nice" after the Venezuelan raid—a diplomatic breakthrough following a show of force. CASE B: The Historical Precedent of Pragmatic
Embrace This isn't an anomaly; it's a playbook. Consider the U.S. relationship with Noriega's Panama in the 1980s. Manuel Noriega went from a crucial CIA asset and a recipient of U.S. aid (reportedly $300,000 annually by 1976, according to the Kerry Committee report in 1988) to a drug-trafficking dictator. For years, U.S. administrations overlooked his illicit activities, including reported links
to drug cartels, because he served as an intelligence asset against socialist movements in Central America and provided cooperation on various covert operations. The moment Noriega ceased to be useful, specifically when he defied U.S. pressure over the Panama Canal future and his drug links became too politically damaging, he was swiftly rebranded an enemy, culminating in the 1989 invasion,