Apple News In Conversation Trump didn’t take military action against Venezuela in his first term. Here’s what changed.
Jan 8, 2026
Jonathan Blitzer, a New Yorker staff writer known for his insights on immigration and foreign policy, dives into the complexities of U.S. military actions in Venezuela. He discusses how political motivations shifted the Trump administration's focus to Venezuela and critiques the administration's framing of the 'war on drugs.' Blitzer also analyzes how oil plays a symbolic role and highlights the risks associated with Delcy Rodríguez's new position. He emphasizes the uncertainty surrounding U.S. demands and the implications for both Venezuela and Venezuelans in the U.S.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Venezuela As A Regional Keystone
- Venezuela became a clear target due to long-standing U.S. political designs and regional dynamics tied to Cuba and Nicaragua.
- Marco Rubio and hardline advisers framed Venezuela as strategically important for toppling allied socialist regimes.
Trump's First-Term Reluctance Explained
- Trump historically used saber-rattling but resisted committing troops during his first term due to intervention complexity.
- That ambivalence shaped inconsistent postures toward Venezuela until the recent escalation.
Weak Public Evidence Behind Boat Strikes
- The administration's maritime strikes lacked clear public evidence tying those boats to fentanyl shipments or the stated overdose rationale.
- Traditional Coast Guard interdiction norms were bypassed, raising questions about motive and intelligence.