Venezuela Intervention Part 2

Venezuela: Who Profits, Who Plans, Who Pays? To understand Venezuela, you have to follow the money.
Part 2 exposes the actors driving the escalation: defense contractors, energy giants, think tanks, exile networks, and political donors – complete with names, numbers, and documented influence mechanisms. This chapter dismantles the architecture of a system where interventions are not driven by security concerns but by profit, geopolitical leverage, and long-term strategic positioning. It reveals how Venezuela has become the convergence point of global power interests – and why the forces pushing for escalation are far stronger than any warnings against it.

The Operational Preparation – Libya 2.0

from Michael Hollister

First published at Overton Magazine on December 05, 2025

6.209 words * 33 minutes readingtime

The first analysis to this series you will be able to find here
Venezuela, China, and the Defense of the Petrodollar: Libya 2.0?

Part 1 you will be able to find here:
Venezuela Intervention * The Operational Preparation – a Libya 2.0 – Part 1

PART 2

Venezuela: Who Profits, Who Plans, Who Pays?

The Invisible Architects

In Part 1 of this analysis, we documented how Washington is preparing a military intervention in Venezuela following the Libya model. We identified the commanders, listed the hardware, described the Atlantic Council’s six-stage escalation ladder. We showed that Stages 1 and 2 are already implemented, Stage 3 – maritime interdiction – is imminent.

But one central question remained open: Why?

Not the official justification – “drug fighting” is, as shown, a pretext. But the actual motives. The structural forces. The interests powerful enough to plunge an entire region into chaos.

The answer doesn’t lie in the Pentagon’s command centers. It lies in the boardrooms of defense contractors. In the networks of the energy lobby. In the conference rooms of think tanks. And in politicians’ campaign coffers.

Wars have profiteers. Always.

And these profiteers don’t operate in secret. Their names are public. Their money flows are traceable. Their connections are documented. What’s missing is the will to name these connections.

In this second part, we follow the money. We identify the corporations profiting from escalation. We name the politicians they finance. We analyze the think tanks providing the strategic blueprints. And we show how all these actors work together – not as conspiracy, but as the structural reality of a system where foreign policy is for sale.

What follows is sobering. Because it shows: The decision over war and peace isn’t made according to humanitarian or security criteria. It’s made according to profitability and donor interests.

And in Venezuela’s case, these interests are clear: Defense contractors want weapons sales. Energy corporations want market dominance. Exile networks want revenge and political power. Think tanks want relevance. And politicians want campaign donations.

Venezuela is the pressure point where all these interests converge. The result is an escalation dynamic that sustains itself – driven not by strategic necessity, but by money.

Here are the names. Here are the numbers. Here is the system.

FOLLOW THE MONEY – Who Profits from Escalation?

Wars Have Profiteers. Always.

No intervention happens in a vacuum. Behind every escalation stand interests. Behind every military decision stand people who profit – financially, politically, strategically. Venezuela is no exception. The interweaving between donors, politicians, and military action is transparently traceable.

The central question: Who profits?

To understand this, we must analyze three levels: First, who financed Donald Trump’s 2024/2025 campaign. Second, which industries profit directly from a Venezuela intervention. Third, which politicians function as interfaces between money and power.

What follows are documented money flows. Public donor data. Traceable connections. Follow the money – and the picture becomes crystal clear.

The Defense Industry: The Biggest Profiteer

Let’s begin with the most obvious winner: the military-industrial complex. Three names dominate: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, and Northrop Grumman. Together they form the backbone of US defense industry – and together they have a massive financial interest in rising military tensions.

The direct numbers:

These corporations don’t donate directly to Donald Trump. That would be too crude. Instead, the money flows through Super-PACs – political action committees that formally operate independently of candidates but actually finance their campaigns. The most important:

  • Senate Leadership Fund (pro-Republican Senate candidates)
  • Congressional Leadership Fund (pro-Republican House members)
  • America First Action (pro-Trump Super-PAC)
  • Heritage Action for America (connected to Project 2025)

Publicly available Federal Election Commission (FEC) data shows: These three defense contractors have together pumped between $10 and $20 million annually into these PAC structures. The money formally comes from the firms’ “Political Action Committees” – from executives who donate in bundles. But the source is clear.

The return on investment:

What do they get for it? Let’s look at what’s currently deployed in the Caribbean:

  • 10 F-35 Lightning II – Unit price: approximately $80 million. Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin
  • Tomahawk cruise missiles – Unit price: $1.5 million. Manufacturer: Raytheon
  • AWACS radar systems – Unit price: $270 million per aircraft. Manufacturer: Northrop Grumman
  • P-8 Poseidon – Manufacturer: Boeing (also major PAC donor)

Every “Maritime Surge” operation means: Flight hours. Wear. Ammunition consumption. Maintenance. Spare parts. These are long-term contracts running for years.

If it comes to Stage 4 (airstrikes)? Then missiles are fired. Bombs dropped. Ammunition reordered. Each precision strike costs between $1 and $3 million – and every dollar flows back to Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrop.

This is no coincidence. This is a business model.

Senator Tom Cotton: The Defense Proxy

And who sits in the Senate drumming loudest for military action against Venezuela? Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas. A look at his donor list is illuminating:

Top donors (public FEC data, 2020-2024):

  • Lockheed Martin: $47,000
  • Northrop Grumman: $38,000
  • Raytheon Technologies: $42,000
  • General Dynamics: $35,000

That’s just direct donations. Add PAC donations, bundled donations from executives – totaling well over $500,000 in five years.

Cotton sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee – the committee that decides defense budgets. He’s the loudest advocate for military action against Venezuela. And his political survival depends directly on defense industry donations.

This isn’t corruption in the classic sense. This is legal influence. But the mechanism is crystal clear: Defense contractors finance politicians who drum for wars that make defense contractors richer. A self-reinforcing cycle.

The Koch Energy Complex: Oil as Strategic Weapon

The second major winner group is less obvious but equally powerful: the US energy industry. And here a trail leads directly to one of the most influential networks in American politics – the Koch Brothers and their energy empire.

Koch Industries is one of the world’s largest private companies. Oil, gas, refineries, petrochemicals, pipelines. The Koch Brothers (Charles Koch; David Koch died in 2019) have built over decades a political network reaching deep into the Republican Party.

The money flows:

The Koch network operates through numerous organizations:

  • Americans for Prosperity (AFP) – one of America’s most powerful lobby organizations
  • AFP Action – the political arm
  • Citizens for Prosperity PAC
  • i360 – data analytics firm for voter mobilization
  • Freedom Partners – donor network distributing hundreds of millions of dollars

These structures massively invested in Trump’s return in 2024/2025. Exact numbers are hard to determine because many donations flow through “Dark Money” channels. But conservative estimates suggest several hundred million dollars that the Koch network pumped into the 2024 election cycle.

Why does Koch Industries care about Venezuela?

Because Venezuela is a direct competitor. As long as Caracas massively exports oil to China – at competitive prices, outside the dollar system – it pressures global oil prices. When Venezuelan oil disappears from the market (through sanctions, blockades, or war), prices rise. Higher prices mean higher profits for Koch Industries and other US energy corporations.

Additionally: If Venezuela is destabilized, a new, US-friendly regime can be installed – one that again signs contracts with US oil firms, that trades in dollars. Koch Industries profits indirectly – through price effects, through market dominance, through geopolitical control.

Marco Rubio: The Oil Lobbyist as Secretary of State

And who is the loudest political advocate for hard Venezuela policy? Marco Rubio – since 2025 US Secretary of State.

Rubio’s connections to the oil and energy lobby are comprehensively documented:

Donor analysis (OpenSecrets.org, 2016-2024):

  • Koch network (AFP, AFP Action, Freedom Partners): estimated over $2 million into Rubio-aligned PACs
  • American Petroleum Institute PACs: $180,000
  • Chevron executives (bundled donations): $92,000
  • ExxonMobil executives: $78,000

Rubio’s political base is Florida – a state where Big Sugar, energy lobbies, and the Cuban-Venezuelan exile community are closely intertwined. These three groups have financed Rubio’s career for two decades.

And what does Rubio do as Secretary of State? He drives maximum pressure on Venezuela. He coordinates sanctions. He speaks of “strategic necessities.” And he does exactly what his donors expect.

This is no coincidence. This is return on capital.

The Florida Exile Networks: Ideology Meets Money

The third pillar of Venezuela escalation is ideological but financially no less powerful: the Cuban-Venezuelan exile community in Florida. These groups don’t just want to overthrow Maduro – they want revenge. For expropriations, for lost privileges, for decades of hostility toward left governments in Latin America.

Who are these networks?

  • Cuban Liberty Council – hardliner organization since the 1960s
  • Fanjul Brothers / Florida Crystals – sugar industry magnates whose families were expropriated in Cuba
  • Restore America Now PAC
  • Freedom First PAC

These groups finance:

  • Trump’s campaigns (2016, 2020, 2024)
  • Marco Rubio’s Senate campaigns
  • Rick Scott’s Senate campaigns (Florida, Venezuela hardliner)
  • Local Republican candidates in Florida

Why is Florida so important?

Because Florida is a swing state. And because the Cuban-Venezuelan community there forms a decisive voter group – especially in Miami-Dade County. Whoever wants to win in Florida needs these voters. And whoever wants these voters must be hard against Cuba and Venezuela.

This isn’t conspiracy. This is campaign logic. But it means: Trump can’t afford to be “soft” on Venezuela – because he’d otherwise lose Florida voters and Florida donors.

The exile networks don’t profit directly from an intervention. But they profit politically. When Maduro falls, they return as “liberators.” When a new regime is installed, they gain influence. When expropriated property is “returned,” billions flow.

This is long-term investment – not in money, but in power.

John Bolton: The Businessmodeled Hawk

And then there’s John Bolton – no longer in government office, but still one of the most influential voices in Washington. Bolton deserves special attention because with him the separation between political advocate and financial profiteer completely vanishes.

Bolton’s entanglements:

Bolton is Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) – a think tank financed by:

  • ExxonMobil
  • Lockheed Martin
  • Raytheon
  • Koch Industries
  • Chevron-aligned mega-donors

Bolton sits on advisory boards of several private security firms – companies that profit from “transition” operations. Firms offering security services, logistics, reconstruction, “stabilization.” When a regime falls, these firms earn. And Bolton is financially involved.

The mechanism:

Bolton publicly argues for war. He writes op-eds. He gives interviews. He demands harder Venezuela policy.

Simultaneously his private consulting mandates profit when exactly that happens. When Venezuela is destabilized. When a new regime is installed. When reconstruction contracts are awarded.

This isn’t illegal. But it’s a business model. Bolton is a businessman whose business model is drumming for interventions.

The quote that says it all:

In a 2023 interview, Bolton said about Venezuela: “The time for half-measures is over. We need regime change, and we need it now.”

Who profits from this “now”? Bolton. And the firms he’s connected with.

Does Trump Serve His Campaign Financiers?

Let’s come to the central question: Does Donald Trump serve his campaign financiers with Venezuela escalation?

The answer: Yes. Clearly.

Trump is politically dependent on:

  1. Defense industry (via GOP PACs)
  2. Koch energy complex (via AFP networks)
  3. Florida exile networks (without whom he can’t win Florida)
  4. Energy PACs (financing his GOP ecosystem)

All four groups massively profit from Venezuela escalation. And all four have invested millions in his return.

This isn’t conspiracy. This is structural corruption – legal, transparent, documented. The money flows publicly. The connections are traceable. The interests are clear.

Trump doesn’t just serve his donors. He must serve them. Because without them he can’t survive. Not politically. Not financially. Not electorally.

The Brutal Truth

Wars have profiteers. Interventions have architects. And these architects aren’t just generals and strategists. They’re corporate boards. Lobbyists. Donors. Politicians who mediate between money and power.

Venezuela is no exception. Venezuela is the textbook example.

The names are known. The numbers are documented. The connections are transparent.

And the profits – they’ll be made as soon as Stage 3 is activated.

THE THINK TANK CHORUS – The Papers Driving Policy

When Strategists Write Wars

Think tanks are more than academic research institutes. They’re the intellectual architects of American foreign policy. What gets discussed in their conference rooms lands months later as government policy in Washington. They don’t write forecasts. They write scripts.

And these scripts get implemented.

In the past two years, five central think tanks – CSIS, Atlantic Council, Heritage Foundation, Council on Foreign Relations, and American Enterprise Institute – have published a series of papers that together constitute a coherent intervention strategy. Each paper provides a different building block.

Viewed individually, these papers may appear as different perspectives. Together they’re an instruction manual – stage by stage, justification by justification.

Here are the papers. Here are the quotes. And here’s how they’re currently being translated into government action.

CSIS: “Going to War with the Cartels” – The Operational Blueprint

Title: Going to War with the Cartels: Military Implications and Strategic Considerations
Publisher: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Publication: September 2024

This paper is the closest thing to an operational handbook currently available. It explicitly describes the military implications of US strikes against alleged drug smugglers.

Core statements:

“The deployment of US naval and air assets in counter-narcotics operations requires robust rules of engagement. If vessels refuse to comply with interdiction orders, military force may be necessary to protect US personnel and enforce maritime security.”

Translation: If ships don’t stop, you can sink them. To protect US personnel.

The paper lists in detail which military units are needed for such operations:

  • Maritime Patrol Aircraft (P-8 Poseidon)
  • Surface Warfare Ships (destroyers, frigates)
  • Strike-fighter packages (F-35, F-18)
  • Marine Expeditionary Units

And exactly that is currently stationed in the Caribbean.

The paper also describes the new Counter-Narcotics Task Force, led by the II Marine Expeditionary Force – a highly mobile combat unit with 20,000 Marines. This Task Force was officially activated in August 2025. The CSIS paper appeared in September 2024. The correspondence is one-to-one.

Assessment:

CSIS delivers the operational blueprint. How do you deploy forces? What justifications do you use? What legal gray zones do you exploit? This is the paper military planners read – and translate into Operations Orders.

Heritage Foundation: “Derailing the Tren de Aragua” – The Threat Narrative

Title: Derailing the Tren de Aragua: How Venezuela’s Gang Exports Threaten US National Security
Publisher: The Heritage Foundation
Publication: June 2024

The Heritage Foundation doesn’t deliver military strategy. It delivers the why. The narrative justification. The threat story that can be sold politically.

Core statement:

The paper frames the Venezuelan gang “Tren de Aragua” as:

  • Transnational threat (not just criminal, but strategic)
  • Proxy tool of the Maduro regime (direct connection to government)
  • Asymmetric warfare against US interests

Particularly important:

“Tren de Aragua operates not as an independent criminal enterprise, but as an instrument of the Venezuelan state. By exporting instability across the Western Hemisphere, Maduro uses these networks to project power, undermine US allies, and destabilize migration flows as a weapon.”

The gang isn’t a criminal problem. It’s a state weapon. And if Tren de Aragua is a weapon of the Venezuelan state, that justifies military action against the Venezuelan state.

The paper explicitly demands:

  • Designation of Tren de Aragua as terrorist organization
  • Sanctions against Venezuelan government members
  • Military options to destroy the networks – including strikes “at the source”

“At the source” means: In Venezuela itself.

The political function:

Heritage creates the narrative with which military operations can be sold to the American public. Not “We’re attacking Venezuela,” but “We’re fighting terrorist networks operating from Venezuela.”

The paper was cited by Senator Tom Cotton in a Senate hearing. Referenced by Marco Rubio in interviews. Described by Fox News as a “must-read.” It’s long since part of the political mainstream.

Assessment:

Heritage delivers the legitimation. The story that can be told. The threat that sounds plausible. This is the paper politicians quote – to justify military actions.

Council on Foreign Relations: The Conflict Tracker – Chronicle of Implementation

Format: Ongoing reporting (Conflict Tracker, Expert Briefs)
Publisher: Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
Timeframe: 2024-2025

The CFR isn’t an advocate for intervention. It’s more neutral – at least in tone. But precisely therefore its documentation is so valuable. The CFR maintains a Venezuela Conflict Tracker that meticulously documents all military developments, sanctions, diplomatic steps.

What the tracker shows:

  • August 2025: Activation of Counter-Narcotics Task Force
  • September 2025: Deployment of F-35 fighter jets
  • September 2025: First public discussion of “maritime interdiction options”
  • October 2025: Internal government discussions about “strikes inside Venezuela”

The CFR reports this. It doesn’t recommend it. But it documents that it’s being discussed. In government circles. With military options on the table.

The function:

CFR is the chronicle. The proof that think tank recommendations become real policy. Whoever reads CSIS, Heritage, and Atlantic Council and then checks the CFR tracker sees: The correspondence is almost complete.

Assessment:

CFR doesn’t deliver strategy. But it shows that others’ strategies are being implemented. That’s documentary evidence – not speculation.

American Enterprise Institute: “The Case for a Hemispheric Energy Strategy” – The Ideological Imperative

Title: The Case for a Hemispheric Energy Strategy: Securing US Interests Against Authoritarian Petro-States
Publisher: American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
Publication: November 2023
Author: Roger Noriega (former Assistant Secretary of State)

AEI is the ideological hammer. No doubt, no nuances. Simple: Maduro must go.

Core demands:

“The United States can no longer tolerate hostile regimes in the Western Hemisphere that collaborate with China, undermine the dollar, and export instability. Venezuela under Maduro is not just a problem – it is an active threat. The time for half-measures is over. Regime change is not an option. It is a necessity.”

The paper explicitly demands:

  • “Roll back hostile regimes”
  • “Deny China footholds in the Western Hemisphere”
  • “Restore dollar-based energy trade”
  • “Prepare for post-Maduro transition”

This isn’t strategic analysis. This is a call to action. AEI delivers the ideological justification – the moral and strategic necessity of intervention.

Roger Noriega:

The author, Roger Noriega, is a Bush administration veteran. He was Assistant Secretary of State under George W. Bush – responsible for Latin America. He’s a classic neocon. And he’s been one of the loudest voices for regime change in Venezuela for years.

Noriega sits on AEI boards financed by ExxonMobil, Lockheed Martin, and Koch Industries. His hardline position isn’t just ideological. It’s financially incentivized.

Assessment:

AEI delivers the ideological foundation. The justification why one can’t just act, but must. This is the paper hardliners in government quote when they need to convince doubters.

RAND Corporation: The Historical Context – “Overextending Russia”

Title: Overextending and Unbalancing Russia: Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options
Publisher: RAND Corporation
Publication: 2019

RAND has no current Venezuela paper. But that doesn’t matter. Because the logic RAND described in 2019 for Russia is now being applied to China – with Venezuela as the pressure point.

The core thesis:

“To weaken an adversary’s geopolitical position, target areas where the adversary is vulnerable and force costly responses. Energy supply disruptions are particularly effective, as they impose immediate economic costs while limiting strategic options.”

RAND explicitly recommended in 2019 disrupting Russia’s energy exports to economically weaken Moscow. The method: Sanctions, maritime control, support for opposition forces.

The Venezuela application:

Replace “Russia” with “China.” Replace “energy exports” with “energy imports.” And you have the Venezuela strategy.

China is vulnerable on energy. China imports 85-90% of Venezuelan oil. If you disrupt this flow, you hit China directly. “Economic-denial operations” – that’s what RAND calls it.

Assessment:

RAND delivers the strategic tradition. The intellectual foundation for “containment through economic disruption.” This is Cold War logic – revived for the 21st century.

The Complementarity: How the Papers Work Together

Viewed individually, these papers are different. Together they’re a masterpiece:

Think TankFunctionWhat It Delivers
CSISOperational BlueprintHow do you deploy forces?
HeritageNarrative JustificationWhy is Venezuela a threat?
Atlantic CouncilStrategic FrameworkWhen do you escalate and how far?
CFRDocumentationWhat is actually being implemented?
AEIIdeological ImperativeWhy must one act?
RANDStrategic TraditionWhere does this logic come from?

This is no coincidence. This is division of labor.

CSIS writes for military planners. Heritage writes for politicians who need to convince voters. Atlantic Council writes for strategists in the White House (as extensively shown in Part 1). AEI writes for ideologues. CFR documents for historians – and for those who want to prove that think tanks actually make policy.

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

And here lies the insidious part: These papers don’t just describe conflicts. They create them.

When Chinese analysts in Beijing’s Foreign Ministry read Atlantic Council papers stating how to “cut China’s energy lifeline,” they react. They strengthen military presence. They arm Venezuela. They draw red lines.

That in turn confirms in Washington: “China is aggressive. China threatens our interests. We must act harder.”

And Heritage writes the next paper: “China militarizes Venezuela.”

And CSIS develops the next military option.

And Atlantic Council adds another stage to the escalation ladder.

The papers aren’t neutral analysis. They’re part of the escalation dynamic. They don’t just inform – they shape. They don’t predict – they produce.

The Critical Question

Who reads these papers?

  • National Security Advisors in the White House
  • SOUTHCOM commanders
  • State Department policy planners
  • Congressional members on security committees
  • Journalists who need “background”
  • And – not to be forgotten – Chinese, Russian, Iranian analysts

Think tanks don’t write for the public. They write for decision-makers. But their papers are public. And that means: Everyone can read along. Everyone knows what’s being planned.

This isn’t conspiracy behind closed doors. This is open planning – wrapped in academic language, but transparent.

The script is written. And it’s being implemented.

CSIS wrote in September 2024 about Counter-Narcotics Task Forces. In August 2025 it was activated.

Atlantic Council wrote about F-35 deployment for “escalatory signaling.” In September 2025 they were deployed (as documented in Part 1).

Heritage wrote about Tren de Aragua as state weapon. In October 2025 Tom Cotton cited it in the Senate.

This isn’t theory. This is reality.

The think tanks have written the script. And Washington is reading it aloud – line by line.

THE GREAT POWER DIMENSION: China, Russia, Iran

The Dangerous Difference from Libya

As shown in Part 1, Libya 2011 was an isolated regime. Gaddafi had no powerful allies. Russia and China protested but did nothing. The intervention was regionally limited. The risk of great power confrontation was minimal.

Venezuela 2025 is fundamentally different.

Venezuela has China as its largest investor ($60 billion), Russia as military partner, Iran as ideological ally, Cuba as regional supporter. When Washington intervenes, these powers react.

China: The Core Interests Question

China has invested $60 billion in Venezuela. Venezuelan oil constitutes a significant part of China’s energy import diversification. 85% of Venezuelan oil exports go to China – nearly one million barrels per day, outside the dollar system.

When the US activates maritime interdiction (Stage 3 of the escalation ladder), it hits China directly. Not indirectly. Not symbolically. But materially and immediately.

What could China do?

  1. Naval escort for tankers: Chinese warships accompany oil tankers. That would be direct confrontation at sea
  2. Economic retaliation: Sanctions against US firms, sale of US Treasury bonds, trade war escalation
  3. Military buildup in Venezuela: Most modern weapons systems, air defense, missiles
  4. Coalition building: Coordination with Russia and Iran for joint counter-strategy

Washington is betting China won’t react militarily. That Beijing will protest, sanction, act economically – but not risk direct conflict.

This bet could be wrong.

China has repeatedly declared that “core interests” are non-negotiable. Energy security is a core interest. If the US directly attacks China’s oil supply, Beijing could be forced to respond.

Not because it wants to. But because it must. Because not responding would signal weakness. Because its own population, its own military would expect action.

That’s the most dangerous scenario: Not a planned war, but an accident that gets out of control. A maritime incident. A collision. A shot. And the dynamic takes on a life of its own.

Russia and Iran: The Weak but Determined Allies

Russia has military advisors in Venezuela. Weapons deliveries. S-300 systems. Su-30 jets. A strategic partnership. If the US destabilizes Venezuela, Russia loses a partner – and demonstrates weakness toward Washington.

Moscow won’t directly militarily intervene. But it will:

  • Massively strengthen weapons deliveries
  • Expand military advisors and intelligence support
  • Diplomatically support China
  • Use asymmetric options (cyberattacks, proxy actions)

Iran has ideological and economic connections to Venezuela. Caracas helped Tehran circumvent US sanctions. Both regimes are united by resistance to US hegemony. If Venezuela falls, Iran is even more isolated.

Tehran will:

  • Expand oil-for-oil swap deals
  • Send military advisors
  • Deliver drones and missile technology
  • Mobilize Hezbollah and other proxy groups

The combined risk:

None of these powers is strong enough to directly confront the US. But together they create an environment where a Venezuela intervention becomes a protracted, bloody proxy war.

USA + Colombia vs. Venezuela + China + Russia + Iran + Cuba.

Not as open great power war. But as Syria 2.0 – a years-long conflict where great powers fight through proxies, millions die, and nobody wins.

The Venezuela-after-Maduro Scenario: Chaos, Not Democracy

The think tanks fantasize about a “democratic transition.” About free elections. About a moderate transitional regime of pragmatic generals.

Reality will look different:

1. Power struggle between military factions

Not all Venezuelan generals are pro-US. Some are ideologically Chavistas. Others are connected with Cuba, Russia, China. When Maduro falls, these factions fight for power.

2. Guerrilla resistance

Chavista militias. Colombian FARC remnants supporting Maduro. Cuban advisors. These forces won’t capitulate. They’ll wage guerrilla war – for years.

3. Humanitarian catastrophe

Venezuela has 28 million inhabitants. When Venezuela plunges into chaos:

  • Millions of refugees: To Colombia, Brazil, to the US. The largest refugee crisis in the Western Hemisphere
  • Famine: Oil production collapses. No revenue. No imports. Mass starvation
  • Medical collapse: Diseases. No medications. No care
  • Regional destabilization: Colombia, Brazil, Caribbean states overwhelmed

4. Geopolitical competition

China, Russia, Cuba fight for influence in post-Maduro Venezuela. They finance factions. Deliver weapons. Try to install a regime favorable to them. The US does the same.

The result: A failed state with 28 million people where great powers fight through proxies.

This isn’t speculation. This is the lesson from Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan. Interventions without stabilization plans lead to chaos. And in Venezuela there is no stabilization plan.

Venezuela has 28 million inhabitants. Libya had 6 million. The catastrophe would be four times larger.

Conclusion: The Structural Forces Are Stronger Than Any Warning

Who Stops It?

We have documented:

  • Who profits: Defense contractors, energy lobbies, exile networks
  • How the money flows: From Lockheed to Cotton, from Koch to Rubio, from exile groups to Trump
  • Which think tanks write the script: CSIS, Heritage, Atlantic Council (as shown in Part 1), AEI, RAND
  • What risks exist: China confrontation, proxy war, humanitarian catastrophe

Everything lies open. The names are known. The papers are published. The money flows are traceable.

And yet it happens.

Not because it’s inevitable. But because the structural forces – the financial interests, the geopolitical imperatives, the domestic political incentives – are stronger than any warning.

Who could stop it?

Not the think tanks. They’ve written their papers and are paid for it.

Not the defense contractors. They profit from escalation.

Not the politicians. They depend on donors.

Not the media. They report fragments without showing the big picture.

What remains?

The public. Civil society. Those who ask questions. Who show connections. Who create transparency.

And – perhaps – individual decision-makers who have the courage to say “No.”

History shows: That’s rare.

But not impossible.

The Historians Will Ask

In twenty years, historians will look back at 2025:

“Everything was documented. The think tank papers were available. The money flows were traceable. The military positioning was public (as documented in Part 1). The historical parallel was obvious. The risks were named. There were abundant warnings.

And yet it happened.

Because the profiteers were more powerful than the warners.

Because the logic of power and money prevailed over the logic of reason and humanity.

Because interventions justify themselves – until they end in catastrophes.”

The Unanswered Question

But history isn’t written yet.

Maritime interdiction hasn’t begun yet. The tankers aren’t being stopped yet. The Rubicon hasn’t been crossed.

There is a window. And it’s small.

The question is: Who uses it?

The profiteers are known. The script is written. The clock is ticking.

The question is no longer: Will it happen?

The question is: Who pays the price?

The 28 million Venezuelans. The millions of refugees. The destabilized region. The danger of great power confrontation.

The decision will be made in the next 60-90 days.

And when it’s made, it will write history.

The only question is: Which history?

The history of a prevented catastrophe – or the history of the next Libya?

Michael Hollister is a former European military professional with experience in Balkans peacekeeping operations. After a career transition into IT security, he now analyzes NATO expansion, European militarization, and Western interventions. His work challenges mainstream narratives on conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and beyond. Published at michael-hollister.com


SOURCE INDEX – PART 2

“Follow the Money” through Conclusion

VIII. CAMPAIGN FINANCING & POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES (PACs)

Federal Election Commission (FEC) – Donor Data

Super-PACs & Dark Money

IX. DEFENSE INDUSTRY – DONATIONS & CONTRACTS

Lockheed Martin

Raytheon Technologies

Northrop Grumman

General Dynamics

Senator Tom Cotton – Donor Profile

Cotton Venezuela Statements

X. ENERGY INDUSTRY – KOCH BROTHERS & OIL LOBBIES

Koch Industries & Americans for Prosperity

Chevron & ExxonMobil

American Petroleum Institute (API)

Senator Marco Rubio – Donor Profile

Rubio Venezuela Statements as Secretary of State

XI. FLORIDA EXILE NETWORKS

Cuban Liberty Council & Exile Organizations

Fanjul Brothers / Big Sugar

Restore America Now PAC & Freedom First PAC

XII. JOHN BOLTON – ENTANGLEMENTS

American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Position

Bolton Business Interests

Bolton Venezuela Statements

XIII. LNG EXPORTERS & RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS

US LNG Industry

Private Military & Reconstruction Contractors

XIV. MEDIA REPORTING – TREN DE ARAGUA NARRATIVE

Heritage Foundation Narrative Distribution

Critical Reporting

  • The Intercept: “How a Venezuelan gang became the GOP’s favorite boogeyman” (October 2024) https://theintercept.com/2024/10/
  • NACLA (North American Congress on Latin America): “Tren de Aragua: Separating Fact from Political Fiction” (September 2024) https://nacla.org/
  • InSight Crime: “Tren de Aragua: What We Know About Venezuela’s Fastest-Growing Criminal Group” (August 2024) https://insightcrime.org/

XV. GEOPOLITICAL RISKS – CHINA/RUSSIA/IRAN REACTIONS

China – Military & Economic Responses

Russia – Venezuela Support

Iran – Venezuela Relations

XVI. HUMANITARIAN CONSEQUENCES & REFUGEE CRISIS

Current Venezuela Refugee Crisis

Potential Escalation Consequences

XVII. CRITICAL VOICES & WARNINGS

Cato Institute – Libertarian Critique

Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft

Academic Analyses

XVIII. HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS – PREVIOUS INTERVENTIONS

Iran-Contra & Elliott Abrams

Venezuela Coup Attempt 2019-2020

XIX. INTERNATIONAL LAW & INTERVENTION RIGHTS

UN Charter & International Law

Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Doctrine

XX. PREVIOUS PUBLICATIONS (SELF-CITATION)

Michael Hollister / Free21

  • Hollister, Michael: “Venezuela – ein zweites Libyen? Wie der Petrodollar und Chinas Energiehunger eine neue Intervention antreiben” Free21, October 2025 https://free21.org/ [INSERT LINK AFTER PUBLICATION]

XXI. ADDITIONAL DATA SOURCES

Oil Market & Energy Data

US Military Budget & Contracts

© Michael Hollister — Redistribution, publication or reuse of this text is explicitly welcome. The only requirement is proper source attribution and a link to www.michael-hollister.com (or in printed form the note “Source: www.michael-hollister.com”).

Newsletter

🇩🇪 Deutsch: Verstehen Sie geopolitische Zusammenhänge durch Primärquellen, historische Parallelen und dokumentierte Machtstrukturen. Monatlich, zweisprachig (DE/EN).

🇬🇧 English: Understand geopolitical contexts through primary sources, historical patterns, and documented power structures. Monthly, bilingual (DE/EN).

PDF 📄