Context of US aggression and a comparison.
Context of US aggression and a comparison.
By Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein
During the last few days, we have been living under a strong wave of disinformation regarding a possible US “invasion” or military intervention against Venezuela, which has been seasoned with the already natural contradictions of President Trump’s rhetoric.
Of course, it cannot be ignored in the analysis that Venezuela has the largest certified oil reserves on the planet and the fourth-largest gas reserves, in addition to being a major producer of bauxite, iron and coltan and having enormous water, oxygen, land and biodiversity resources, which makes it a rich country that the United States would like to control.
When studying this conflict in geopolitical terms, it is also important to consider that Latin American countries governed by left-wing, democratic, and progressive forces could become an important maritime corridor for China, as an alternative to traditional routes, especially for trade with the enormous European and Global South markets that are being hampered and under strong pressure from the United States.
Washington’s threats against Venezuela, Colombia, and Mexico are based on the possibility of a global geopolitical realignment in which Latin America and the Caribbean could play a pivotal role, one that the United States wants to prevent at all costs. The recent establishment of a maritime route between China and Venezuela, which will reduce the transit time for goods from 70 to 90 days to approximately 20-25 by connecting the Chinese port of Tianjin with the Venezuelan ports of La Guaira and Puerto Cabello, points in that direction. This initiative will optimize logistics, reduce costs, facilitate trade, and strengthen economic ties between the two countries.
In this context, if we combine this decision with the inauguration of the port of Chancay in Peru, where China made the majority of the investment and owns 60% of the facility; the alliance formed in February of this year between the Buenaventura Port Society on the Colombian Pacific coast and the Chinese company Cosco Shipping (also the owner of Chancay), directly connecting Colombia with Asia; and the agreement signed between China and Brazil to begin technical studies for a bi-oceanic railway project that would connect the port of Ilhéus on the Brazilian Atlantic coast with Chancay on the Pacific coast in order to expedite the transport of South American products to Asia, we can understand that a radical change in Latin America’s global standing is underway, generating real possibilities for its transformation into a first-rate geopolitical player.
On the other hand, the US economic and financial crisis continues to snowball, with public debt exceeding $38 trillion, representing approximately 140% of its GDP. This far exceeds the country’s economic capacity, given that its GDP is around $26 trillion. We are facing a declining economy threatened by a stock market collapse due to the sharp drop in share prices.
This is one of the reasons—perhaps the most compelling—that explains the current US administration’s extreme interest in Iran and Venezuela, both possessors of enormous energy reserves. Its actions against these countries cannot be viewed solely in terms of a bilateral conflict. It is also a way to hinder China’s advance into markets that have historically been considered under US influence.
If the United States were to subdue Iran, it would have taken a significant step in its efforts to isolate China from access to Europe and West Asian markets, especially those of the Persian Gulf. This aligns with Washington’s strategic vision and determination to maintain its hegemony. The same would apply to Venezuela if it were tamed and contained.
However, in this context, a geopolitical risk underestimated by the United States emerges, stemming from the experience of Yemen’s struggle and resistance against the triple aggression of Saudi Arabia, Zionism, and imperialism. If the United States were to learn from this conflict, it should not initiate a war against Venezuela.
Observation of events shows that when they began their aggression against Yemen in 2015, Saudi Arabia and the United States were facing a group of Bedouins in conditions of extreme weakness, in a country that was going through a situation characterized by high levels of poverty and food shortages and that did not have the slightest technological development or weaponry to face countries that were infinitely superior in military terms.
The plans outlined the scenario, suggesting that Yemen would be subdued within one to three weeks, and that after its surrender, the country could be seized by Saudi Arabia and the West. This would then allow these countries to control the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the Indian Ocean, and the Red Sea at their discretion.
However, Saudi Arabia and its allies remain mired in a conflict that has now lasted 10 years and which they have been unable to resolve. Under these circumstances, by 2019 the Yemenis had successfully developed an advanced, long-range missile and drone system, obtained with technological assistance and expertise from Iran. In reality, however, it was Yemeni scientists and experts who developed their own technology, including the production of hypersonic missiles of varying levels and ranges. These missiles were used to strike, for example, the facilities of the Saudi Aramco refinery, considered the largest in the world, demonstrating that American and European-made air defense systems failed to protect this energy giant. At that time in 2019, Aramco had just gone public, initiating a process by which it sought to list its shares for the first time on domestic and international stock exchanges.
In that context, not even the United States, with all its military might, could protect Saudi Arabia, leaving it alone and defenseless against the increasingly relentless Yemeni missile and drone attacks. Years later, when Palestinian political-military organizations launched Operation “Al-Aqsa Flood” in solidarity with the Palestinian people, Yemen blocked ships from entering Israel from the Red Sea. Following the US intervention, which included the arrival of a naval fleet comprised of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, this small, impoverished country thwarted the strategies of successive administrations, first Biden’s and then Trump’s, despite suffering more than 1,500 attacks.
Several reports prepared by Pentagon-affiliated think tanks indicate that numerous lessons can be learned from the U.S. Navy’s naval war against Yemen in the Red Sea. Of particular note is the research conducted by Dr. John T. Kuehn, a professor at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, which states that the United States learned in the Red Sea that aircraft carriers should be positioned well out of range of Yemeni missiles and drones, concluding that this maritime area was no longer a safe haven for U.S. aircraft carriers and destroyers.
Returning to Venezuela. The distance between Caracas and Miami in the state of Florida in the southern United States is approximately 2,200 km, a similar distance to that between Sana’a, the capital of Yemen, and Tel Aviv, the capital of the Zionist entity that has been relentlessly attacked by Yemeni missiles and drones. Currently, I have no information that would allow me to assert that Venezuela possesses drones capable of reaching US territory.
But if Yemen, which lacks the diverse and abundant natural resources of Venezuela, managed to build a vast missile and drone system in four years with a range of 2,500 to 3,000 kilometers, Venezuela, with the support of its allies, primarily Iran and Russia, and its rich mineral and energy reserves, could—surely—in less than a year, possess a similar missile and drone system, perhaps even more advanced than Yemen’s, thus guaranteeing its self-defense and effective deterrence against any foreign attack. The Yemeni and Iranian experiences are available to Venezuela thanks to unwavering ties of friendship and solidarity. So too is that of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, another country that has ensured its security and self-defense through the deterrence of possessing weaponry capable of striking US military bases in Korea and Japan.
It would be a strategic error for President Trump to allow himself to be drawn into a conflict that would jeopardize the security of the United States, driven by the neoconservative faction of his government, led today by Marco Rubio, who intends to lead Washington into a new ideological Cold War by presenting himself as the champion of the fight against “international communism” in the 21st century, embodied in the communist party of China and its allies.
A simple observation reveals this reality. It is certain that the US intelligence community, particularly the agencies linked to the Pentagon, are also seeing this, even with a greater amount of data and analytical detail that allows them to determine the risks that the military adventure Marco Rubio and the neoconservatives want to lead the United States into could entail.
A military invasion or occupation—understood as the landing of military contingents larger than a division—is very difficult, almost impossible at present. Gaza, with 300 km² and 2.5 million inhabitants, has resisted for more than two years against Israel, the United States, and the entire Western establishment, which have failed to defeat and destroy the Palestinian armed resistance.
Venezuela is not Gaza, nor is it Syria. Faced with a US military aggression, Venezuela, with its nearly one million square kilometers, its population of 30 million, its wealth, its history and its grandeur, with consolidated leadership, a solid unity between the people, the government, and the Armed Forces deployed and ready to fight throughout the national territory, and with a will to fight and win, would transform itself into a much larger and more powerful version of Yemen. Decision-makers should take note of this.