US 'Experts' Shocked Trump’s Oil Play Never About 'Drugs'
The Guardian highlights 'expert skepticism' over Donald Trump's prediction that US oil firms will invest billions in Venezuela after Nicolás Maduro's 'rendition.' Their concern? No 'iron-clad guarantee' from the US government to reimburse these firms for rebuilding infrastructure. One might wonder what 'rendition' of a sovereign leader means for 'iron-clad guarantees.' From the 1954 CIA-backed
coup in Guatemala for United Fruit Company stakes to the endless 'wars on drugs' that just happen to precede oil deals, US foreign policy has a remarkably consistent pattern of prioritizing corporate interests over... well, anything else. 'Experts' are reportedly cautious because big oil doesn't want to 'get screwed.' Fair enough. But the idea that US intervention in Venezuela was ever truly about
'drugs' or 'democracy' rather than access to the world's largest proven oil reserves (over 300 billion barrels, for the record) requires a kind of historical amnesia normally reserved for evening news anchors. How many 'wars on drugs' end with US corporations poised to extract natural resources?