Cards of Anti-Venezuela Aggression up the Sleeves of the Rubio-Machado Duo

By Misión Verdad – Mar 12, 2025

The recent New York Post publication, “FBI Stepping Up Operations Against Cartel Linked to Venezuela’s Repressive Maduro Regime,” reflects an attempt to revive baseless accusations against Venezuela. The narrative associating the Venezuelan government with drug trafficking has been a recurrent tool of US foreign policy.

This is nothing new: in 2005, the Venezuelan government suspended collaboration with the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) after finding evidence that it was carrying out espionage operations. In response, Washington withdrew Venezuela’s certification as a cooperative partner in the fight against drug trafficking and labeled it as one of two countries that “failed to make substantial demonstrable efforts” in the anti-drug campaign.

This tactic of unfounded accusations and disqualifications is used by the US at strategic moments to justify pressure actions against Venezuela.

It is no coincidence that while Donald Trump is focusing his attention on other international fronts, Marco Rubio is trying to reactivate this method of aggression. The New York Post article, written by Diana Glebova and Jennie Taer, journalists who have used the Tren de Aragua propaganda against Venezuela with a “transnational threat” perspective, repeats the tactic used during Trump’s first term, when accusations of drug trafficking and terrorism were fabricated against President Nicolás Maduro and other Venezuelan officials.

Using anonymous and unverifiable sources, the article claims that the FBI has redoubled its actions against the nonexistent and fake “Cartel de los Soles,” presenting it as a national security priority within the “America First” policy.

Coinciding with the publication of the article, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio repeated his discourse of Venezuela as a supposed “regional threat.” In an official statement, while congratulating the new secretary general of the Organization of American States, Albert Ramdin, Rubio attacked Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, countries that the US accuses, without evidence, of compromising US national security and economic stability.

Similarly, in a recent interview with Fox News, Rubio insisted on characterizing Venezuela as a focus of instability. The timing of these statements and publications suggests the possibility of the preparation of a new episode of aggression under the pretext of executing actions in the name of US “regional security.”

Throughout his career, Rubio has been one of the main promoters of illegal sanctions and measures aimed at isolating Venezuela on the international arena. Now, with his position as the head of the State Department, he is trying to consolidate this agenda through the FBI and other government agencies.

Excuse for aggression
In the Venezuela chapter of his book A Sacred Oath: Memoirs of a Secretary of Defense During Extraordinary Times, Mark Esper, secretary of defense during the first Trump administration, reveals how a narrative linking the Venezuelan government to drug trafficking was constructed.

Instead of being an accusation based on hard evidence, this propaganda was designed for geopolitical purposes to justify coercive measures and push for “regime change.”

Analyzing the meetings and discussions that he describes, it becomes clear that the objective was definitely not to combat drug trafficking but to create consensus for interference in Venezuela.

According to the book, in National Security Council (NSC) meetings, high-ranking officials such as Attorney General William Barr and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted that the Venezuelan government had “turned drug trafficking into a weapon against the United States.”

Barr, in particular, argued that Venezuela served as a key corridor for cocaine transport from Colombia to destabilize US society, but these claims lacked empirical support.

Esper’s testimony makes it clear that this accusation did not arise from an objective analysis but was deliberately promoted as a political device to justify more aggressive actions. In fact, he comments that such initiatives not only lacked legal and strategic support but would have represented a dangerous escalation in the region.

Despite the lack of evidence, the narrative was amplified by media and think tanks aligned with Washington’s foreign policy and operated as a convenient pretext to legitimize illegal economic sanctions, coercive diplomatic maneuvers, and even covert military operations.

Esper, who was a key witness and actor in the White House, confirms how some politicians resorted to dangerous and desperate measures for political gain.

Marco Rubio’s proxy
Rubio, known for his obsession with the agenda of aggression against the Venezuelan government, has been one of the main drivers of the narrative linking Venezuela to drug trafficking and terrorism.

From the shadows, the former Republican senator has worked to keep this agenda alive even as Trump has shown less interest in prioritizing regime change in Venezuela at the start of his second term.

Rubio’s recent tour of Central America and his performance in office have made it clear that he is relegated to secondary status within the Trump administration.

From an institutional perspective, he may appear to be a central figure in decision-making, but in reality, Rubio has been marginalized in an administration in which the president prefers the advice of other officials and special envoys.

This loss of influence is leading Rubio to act indirectly or to outsource his maneuvers. In Venezuela, María Corina Machado serves as his proxy to generate conditions that would lead to a “maximum pressure 2.0″ campaign, while in Guyana, President Irfaan Ali plays a similar role in Caribbean geopolitics.

This move is aimed at tightening the blockade against Venezuela by encouraging conflicts and tensions that promote the geopolitical interests of a faction within Washington’s immense political network.

In Machado, Rubio has found a vassal willing to repeat unfounded accusations of drug trafficking and terrorism against the Venezuelan government, with the aim of attracting Trump’s attention and justifying a move of force by the White House.

It is appropriate to note that Rubio explicitly stated his stance against Venezuela in his declarations at his Senate confirmation hearing in January 2025. On that occasion, he stated:

Venezuela, unfortunately, is not governed by a government. It is governed by a drug trafficking organization that has taken over a nation state. And we have seen, I think, that more than 7 million Venezuelans have just left the country. More are expected to leave. I was in total disagreement with the Biden administration because the regime misled them the way I knew they would. They entered into negotiations with Maduro. He agreed to have elections. The elections were completely bogus. They used migration against us to get those concessions, and now they have these blanket licenses where companies like Chevron are actually providing billions of dollars of money to the regime’s coffers, and the regime didn’t deliver on any of the promises it made. So all of that needs to be re-explored because in Venezuela you have the Russian presence, you have a very strong Iranian presence. The Iranians, in fact, are exploring, are starting to build drone factories for Iranian drone manufacturing in our own hemisphere, not to mention the Venezuelan regime’s longstanding practice of providing real but illegitimate passports to Hezbollah operatives in our own hemisphere.

These statements clearly reveal the script that the current US secretary of state is following against Venezuela, using every possible excuse to justify an agenda of aggression, including unconscionable accusations that seek to build an argument in favor of intervention and economic siege against the country.

Venezuela in 2025: Unexpected Turns Mark the Start of the Political Year

The Israel lobby
Machado has not only dedicated herself to repeating unfounded accusations against the Venezuelan government but has also strengthened ties with the Israeli lobby, a sector historically adverse to the Bolivarian Revolution.

In 2018, she addressed a letter to then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Argentinian President Mauricio Macri urging them to use their “strength and influence” to overthrow the Venezuelan government, which she described as a “criminal regime linked to drug trafficking and terrorism.” In her missive, she tried to associate Venezuela with Iran, as well as with extremist groups, presenting them as a threat to Israel and Argentina.

This alignment has intensified in recent months. In January 2025, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar had a telephone conversation with Machado and Edmundo González Urrutia, whom he later invited to visit Israel. In February, González Urrutia met with Sa’ar to discuss the alleged impact of the Venezuelan government on “Western security.”

These meetings are evidence of the growing relation between Machado’s faction and the Israeli lobby. Its main objective is to attract the attention and support of sectors historically opposed to the Venezuelan government in order to gain relevance both domestically and in the international arena. Through these alliances, Machado is trying to execute a rapprochement to reinforce the propaganda that Venezuela represents a “threat” to Washington and Tel Aviv.

With this strategy, Machado seeks to reactivate the regime-change agenda in Venezuela, something that does not seem to be an immediate priority for the Trump administration. Her discourse, amplified by international media and influential sectors of US politics, serves as an instrument to force into being scenarios that would justify greater pressure on Venezuela, whether through illicit sanctions or more aggressive measures such as covert operations.

On January 15, 2025, just days before Trump’s swearing-in, the New York Times published an article by Bret Stephens, a columnist close to the Israeli lobby, in which he laid out a detailed plan to overthrow the Venezuelan government, and presented it as a matter of national security and a moral imperative for the United States.

Stephens argued that President Maduro’s stay in power must be reversed through a combination of “coercive diplomacy” and, if necessary, the use of force.

The plan outlines two possible plans: offering Maduro and his allies a “powerful incentive” to leave power and go into exile in countries such as Cuba or Russia, with amnesty guarantees to military and civil servants who support the transition; or creating a “credible threat” of US military intervention, taking as a reference the invasion of Panama in 1990 to overthrow then President Manuel Noriega.

According to Stephens, this combination of pressure and negotiation could precipitate the departure of the Venezuelan president without the need to resort directly to military intervention, although he does not rule out the military option as a last resort.

Furthermore, he justified his position by stating that Venezuela represents a threat to US security due to its alleged connection to drug trafficking, the migration crisis, and the growing alleged Iranian influence in the region.

In summary, the reactivation of the narrative linking the Venezuelan government to drug trafficking and terrorism is not an isolated event but part of an orchestrated strategy to maintain pressure on Venezuela and justify more aggressive actions against it.

The synchronization of articles in media aligned with Washington, the statements of Marco Rubio, and the use of Venezuelan extremist political figures such as María Corina Machado reveal a framework aimed at intensifying the geopolitical siege against Caracas.

Rubio, feeling himself relegated within the Trump administration, is resorting to intermediaries to keep his agenda of aggression in force, appealing to the same arguments used in the past with a view to creating an environment favorable to new sanctions and possible military interventions.

The involvement of the Israeli lobby and the reiteration of unfounded accusations are part of the same script that, under different US administrations, has served to nurture the breeding ground for coercive measures against Venezuela.

The insistence on this discourse, despite its wear and tear and lack of concrete evidence, indicates that certain sectors within the US power structure are trying to justify the materialization of a new “maximum pressure” campaign.

These are the cards up the sleeve of Venezuelan extremism and its foreign sponsors: a worn out but persistent strategy that, although it does not enjoy its former vigor today, insists on reviving old tactics for new attacks. Its work for the destruction of Venezuela has not ceased; on the contrary, it is reinventing itself.

Featured image: Venezuelan far-right opposition leader María Corina Machado. Photo: Gaby Oraa/Bloomberg.

(Misión Verdad)

Translation: Orinoco Tribune

OT/SC/SL