On today’s BradCast: It’s been less than two weeks since he ordered the U.S. military invasion of a sovereign nation, killed about 80 people, kidnapped their leader and his wife to put them on trial for something or other here in the U.S., claimed he now “runs” their country and controls their natural resources, to exploit and sell as he pleases, the money from which will be held in offshore bank accounts controlled by him. Oh, and he’s now declared himself “Acting President” there. And we almost don’t discuss any of it anymore, because he’s moved on to his next several imperial conquests, not to mention his deadly militarized assaults of thousands of people who live in U.S. cities, including American citizens. As Jon Stewart recently asked in exasperation, “What are we even doing here?!” Good question, Jon. [Audio link to full program follows this summary.]
Before we try to make some kind of sense — any kind of sense — of all of that, a few other news items of note today…
- And then they came for the journalists… Donald Trump’s FBI raided the home of a Washington Post reporter on Wednesday, seizing her laptops, her phone and her smartwatch, as part of a supposed classified documents leak investigation requested by the Pentagon. The Post‘s Executive Editor described it as an “extraordinary, aggressive action [that] is deeply concerning and raises profound questions and concern around the constitutional protections for our work.” The New York Times characterized the raid on a journalist’s home as “a significant escalation in the Trump administration’s tactics in seeking information from the news media.” The journalist, Hannah Natanson, as AP explained, “has reported extensively on the federal workforce and recently published a piece describing how she gained hundreds of new sources — leading one colleague to call her ‘the federal government whisperer.'”
- Here we go again?… In Qatar today, some personnel at a major U.S. air base that houses thousands of troops are reportedly being advised to evacuate immediately, amid growing unrest in Iran, the killing of hundreds of anti-government protesters by the ruling regime in Tehran, and Trump’s vows to those protesters that “help is on the way.” The base, Al Udeid Air Base outside of Doha, was targeted in Iran’s response to the U.S. attack on nuclear facilities last July.
Then, as Mad King Trump saber rattles with both Iran and, perhaps even more incredibly, our NATO ally of Greenland, there is still the matter of his recent invasion of Venezuela less than two short weeks ago, and the power vacuum left in its wake as he tries to convince reticent American oil companies to go plunder the nation’s vast oil reserves.
None of it is lawful. And, of course, none of it makes any sense. But, also, none of it is over, even if he, we, the media have, for the moment, moved momentarily on to other Trump-induced nightmares.
“This isn’t close to over,” argues my guest today, NICHOLAS GROSSMAN, International Relations professor and political scientist at the University of Illinois. He is quick to compare Trump’s rush to praise himself for the attack and abduction of Venezuela’s President, Nicolas Maduro, to George W. Bush‘s infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech in 2003, just after the initial assault on Iraq, before the nation would quickly devolve into years-long, deadly chaos and violence.
“Tactically,” Grossman concedes, the operation in Venezuela “was very impressive. But not strategically so.” He describes reports in recent days of runs on banks, stores, and paramilitaries in the streets, arguing that the “competitions for power” are just beginning. “The situation is likely to devolve rather than stabilize. Or just have a spate of violence, and then at which point the regime re-stabilizes. It’s unclear why that would be better than where it was with Maduro in charge.”
Grossman, who teaches classes on terrorism insurgency, national security policy and 21st century technology and warfare, wrote about Trump’s unlawful assault last week, detailing how it is likely to make things worse, not better, in Venezuela, the United States, and elsewhere in the region.
Moreover, he tells me today, despite Trump’s rhetoric, all of this is unlikely to result in a rush of American oil companies to exploit the nation’s resources. “This is where the lack of any sort of follow-on plan creates such a problem,” says Grossman. “There is not a reliable security situation there, especially long term. There’s not reliable rule of law.” Add that to a glut of oil already on the market keeping prices (and profits) low; a particularly dirty and difficult-to-refine crude available there; and it seems unlikely that any of this will actually pay off for anybody.
So, why, in fact, was it done in the first place? On that, argues Grossman: “It doesn’t really need to be only one reason. It’s many things possibly at once. A lot of it, I do think, is demonstration of power. Because they can.”
“Nothing Trump and his administration have done have seemed to conceive of national interest in the same standard way that Presidents, various leaders, voters of both parties, had in the United States for many years. There’s ‘because I can, because then people will be more afraid of me, because people will be more likely to pay me off.'”
He speculates on other explanations as well, and rings in on where Trump’s militaristic tirade is likely to bring the U.S. next, even if things begin to further devolve in Venezuela at the same time.
“The biggest effect seems to be that it has emboldened him. And emboldened actors such as Pete Hegseth, where they don’t think anybody can stop them. And they certainly don’t care about violating norms, or the long term risks of upsetting the international order.”
There is much more troubling stuff to chew over in my broad conversation with Grossman today. I hope you’ll tune in…
Don’t forget the Chevron doctrine (How Chevron Played the Long Game in Venezuela) or (Oil-Qaeda & MOMCOM Conspire To Commit Depraved-Heart Murder- 6).