Entrance of the Argentinian embassy in Caracas. Photo: EFE/file photo.
By Misión Verdad – May 12, 2025
Recently, María Corina Machado, representing Venezuela’s far-right opposition, claimed responsibility for the so-called “Operation Guacamaya,” an “impeccable” maneuver. According to Machado, it achieved the “liberation of the five hostages” at the Argentinian embassy in Caracas.
On May 6, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the removal of these individuals from the diplomatic mission as a “successful rescue” through a “precise operation,” which, he said, included partners who made it possible without clarifying whether intelligence agencies or countries were involved.
Since then, various media spokespeople for Machado, such as Emmanuel Rincón, Orlando Avendaño, Carla Angola, Las Verdades de Eleazar, and Casto Ocando, have spread theories about an action orchestrated by the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, and Argentinian intelligence, in what is supposed to have been a process worthy of a Hollywood spy movie.
However, their theory clashes with the version of a discreet negotiation with Venezuelan authorities that allegedly led to the departure from Venezuela of those involved.
This follows statements made by Diosdado Cabello, who was the first to confirm the departure from Venezuela of Corina Parisca, Machado’s mother, with the full knowledge and consent of the Venezuelan authorities.
Cabello, minister of the Interior, Justice, and Peace, shared images of Parisca leaving Venezuela on May 5. The senior official indicated that she had been granted a boarding pass for Bogotá.
Several elements suggest major inconsistencies in the scenario presented by Machado and Rubio in this case.
Inconsistencies from multiple directions
Narrative contradictions
The communications strategy orchestrated by Machado contained eloquent contradictions when discussing the departure of Magalli Meda, Claudia Macero, Pedro Urruchurtu, Omar González, and Humberto Villalobos from the Argentinian embassy.
The first of these was from her, who announced the departure of the “five.” However, Cabello confirmed that Macero was not at the headquarters and had left the premises weeks earlier.
Machado also failed to mention that her mother had left the country around the time of the “operation,” which is an important and convenient omission, as it would lead the public to assume there was a backstage deal.
Luis Gonzalo Pérez, a close administrator of her social media accounts, reported on social media that the release of these individuals was due to “high-level negotiations.”
Venezuelan journalists Sebastiana Barráez and Nitu Pérez Ozuna, also allied with the far-right Venezuelan opposition, spread the narrative of the negotiations. Yet, Barráez later deleted the video in which she commented on the matter.
Several international media outlets, including Spain’s ABC, reported that “the release of opposition figures was part of a direct agreement between the Trump administration and the Maduro regime,” according to Venezuelan opposition sources familiar with the matter.
However, the circle of communicators allied with Machado boasted about promoting the “escape” version, even paying for promoted tweets on the social media platform X.
As the days passed, following Diosdado Cabello’s revelation of Corina Parisca’s departure from Maiquetía Airport, several of these propagandists admitted that there had indeed been a negotiation, but exclusively regarding the case of Machado’s mother.
For the State Department, it is a ‘movie’
In a recent press conference, spokesperson for the US State Department, Tammy Bruce, contradicted Secretary of State Marco Rubio and extremist María Corina Machado regarding an alleged operation to extract opponents from the embassy in Caracas.
Bruce described the circulating reports as “movie stories,” a clear reference to rumors that CIA officers had taken advantage of the situation to rescue opponents accused of serious crimes.
The opening question was posed by journalist Carla Angola, who cited Argentinian press reports that a secret operation had been carried out to remove opposition activists from the headquarters.
In her response, Tammy Bruce clarified: “Well, it sounds like a movie to me. Maybe in a few years, or maybe from five years ago. Of course, I won’t comment on gossip, speculation, and amazing stories, but at this point, those are stories.”
The US official also said that she was unaware of, or preferred not to comment on, the issue of behind-the-scenes negotiations.
These statements likely generated discomfort within the State Department. The following day, the Spanish-speaking spokesperson for the department, Natalia Molano, referred to a “successful operation” that led to the “rescue” of those involved.
The context and ambiguous use of words
On several occasions, Diosdado Cabello has insisted that he “cannot provide certain details” about the negotiations that led to this incident.
He clearly alludes to completely discretionary decisions and actions by the Venezuelan government, within the framework of difficult behind-the-scenes talks with the US government.
To date, neither the US government nor any security agencies that could claim responsibility for the “rescue” have issued any statement or revealed specific logistical or operational details of the alleged operation.
In purely official terms, the only thing that exists from the United States is a post by Marco Rubio from his personal account on X.
It’s also worth remembering that US officials often use the terms “rescue” and “hostage release operations” when conducting exchanges or negotiations with a government to free US or other citizens.
Until now, the silence of other Chavista spokespeople, such as President Nicolás Maduro Moros, has been notable. The events were revealed during his trip to Russia, where he visited at the invitation of President Vladimir Putin and held meetings with the Russian and Chinese governments. Clearly, the issue was not at the top of the national leader’s list of priorities.
Translation: Orinoco Tribune
OT/JRE/SF
