Alan Zweibel

But what if potential returns elsewhere are huge and there's less risk? Or maybe not so huge but still a lot less risk. Why would an oil company necessarily be interested in such a risk fraught proposition. That's why I speculated that Trump would find a way to subsidize them to lower or eliminate the risk.

Shirley’s main source is a lobbyist and one-time right-wing candidate for Minnesota attorney general whose full name is David Hoch. “EVERY Somali in MN is engaged in fraud. ALL of them,” Hoch posted on the now-deleted Instagram account. In November, he posted, “Even the Blacks have had enough of the demon Muslims.” https://archive.ph/VAS3B Nick Shirley, who shot and edited the video just portrayed David Hoch as a concerned citizen who happened to observe Somali day care centers that were near his office. Why doesn't the MSM report this?

It's weird that you don't see how this undercuts the Trump administration claim that it was protecting Americans from cocaine being transshipped via Venezuela.

Trump’s Venezuela Oil Revival Plan Is a $100 Billion Gamble Years of corruption, underinvestment, fires and thefts have left the nation’s crude infrastructure in tatters. Rebuilding it enough to lift Venezuela’s output back to its peak levels of the 1970s would require companies that could include Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips to invest about $10 billion per year over the next decade, said Francisco Monaldi, director of Latin American energy policy at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy... US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said during an interview with ABC Sunday that he expects US oil companies will be eager for the opportunity to drill for Venezuela’s heavy crude, which is key for refineries on the US Gulf Coast. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-venezuela-oil-revival-plan-002532814.html The article didn't note whether Rubio said that with a straight face.

The Trump administration is asking U.S. oil companies if they’re interested in returning to Venezuela once leader Nicolás Maduro is gone, four people familiar with the discussions told POLITICO. And so far, the answer is a hard “no.” The administration’s outreach to the industry, previously unreported, is the latest sign the White House is dreaming of a post-Maduro future for Venezuela — and how the world’s oil markets are both helping and hindering that goal. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/17/trump-oil-venezuela-return-00695292 This article is from Dec 17. It explains why US oil companies are very reluctant to get involved. For one thing oil prices are low. There are a lot of new oilfields out there as well old fields made more productive thanks to fracking. Given the decrepitude of Venezuela's infrastructure, it could cost $100 billion to revive those fields. And, of course, the situation in Venezuela looks to be very unstable. Why would oil companies take such a risk when there are plenty of attractive opportunities elsewhere. This is only speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if Trump offered to subsidize American oil companies, in other words bribe them. to get them to go back into Venezuela.

Barr's statement undercuts the rationale offered by Trump and Co. for going after Venezuela's transshipments of cocaine. Contrary to what was claimed by the US, according to actual experts in the field, most of the cocaine that passes through Venezuela is bound for Europe.

Here's what Trump said: “We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies – the biggest anywhere in the world – go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure – the oil infrastructure – and start making money for the country,” he said. “They will be reimbursed.” https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/trump-sees-us-oil-producers-spending-billions-in-venezuela?ref=latest In essence, it's what Trump repeatedly has said. Where has he ever said that he wants to reopen Venezuela to international oil companies? I decided to ask Gemini-AI if Trump had ever voiced such sentiments. Here's the question with the answer: Did Trump every say he wanted non-American oil companies to have access to Venezuelan oil? In his public statements following the January 2026 military operation, Donald Trump has not expressed a desire for non-American oil companies to have access to or control over Venezuelan oil fields. Instead, he has framed the mission as a "reclaiming" of assets specifically for United States companies. His rhetoric consistently distinguishes between American interests and those of foreign nations like China and Russia. Key Distinctions in His Statements"Our Companies" vs. Competitors: Trump has repeatedly argued that the U.S. "built" Venezuela’s oil industry and that the nationalization under the socialist regime was a "theft" of American property. He specifically named U.S. giants like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips as the entities that should return to "take back" their rights. The Status of China and Russia: He has characterized the involvement of Chinese and Russian state companies in Venezuela over the last two decades as part of the "theft" and "mismanagement" of the country's resources. His administration's "total blockade" was specifically designed to stop these countries from receiving "stolen" Venezuelan oil. Foreign Nations as Customers, Not Partners: While he has not invited foreign companies to operate the fields, he has stated that the U.S. will sell the oil to other nations. On January 3, 2026, when asked about China's energy needs, he told Fox & Friends: "I have a very good relationship with [President] Xi, and there’s not going to be a problem. They’re going to get oil." This implies a customer relationship where the U.S. controls the supply. Summary of the StanceTrump’s "America First" energy policy in Venezuela is focused on: Extraction and Operation: Reserved for U.S. oil majors. Reimbursement: Using the profits to pay back U.S. companies for past expropriations. Global Sales: Selling the resulting product on the international market, including to rivals like China, but only under U.S.-dictated terms.

Many Venezuelans welcome the ouster of Maduro, but worry his repressive regime remains in place President Trump ticked off a list of reasons for his decision to capture and arrest Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. He talked about the Maduro regime sending illicit drugs and gangs to the U.S. and nationalizing American oil-company assets. One thing that wasn’t mentioned: a desire to restore democracy in Venezuela. https://archive.ph/TBzA3#selection-539.0-543.95 Let's see how long expat Venezuelans continue to celebrate when they come to grips with the fact that the Trump administration is proposing to keep hands off Maduro's whole corrupt crew and leave the system in place just so long as they regain access for US oil companies to Venezuela's oil. I guess it's smart politics in the US though. I mean, if there is one sector of the economy that is beloved by Americans it's Big Oil. From the days of John D. Rockefeller, Big Oil has become synonymous for benevolence in the minds and hearts of virtually all Americans. This is going to play so well.

"Scale and cost make the theory laughable: Planning and executing a high-risk Delta Force raid into a hostile capital—with airstrikes, exfiltration under fire risk, and massive diplomatic fallout—just to distract from some PDF dumps? That's cartoon-villain logic. The operation cost lives (reported Venezuelan casualties), billions in prep and follow-on, and global condemnation. If Trump wanted a "diversion," he'd tweet something inflammatory or drop a tariff bomb—not risk American special operators' lives for a sideshow." Because Trump is a good person? Motive is America First, not cover-up: The Maduro indictment dates to 2020, the $50M bounty to 2025. Venezuela under Maduro became a state-sponsored narco-hub , sheltering Hezbollah/IRGC, and triggering the worst migration surge in hemisphere history. Removing him disrupts that directly—protecting American lives, borders, and security. That's the stated goal, backed by years of policy. This analysis clearly comes from oppositeworld. If it's of such long standing. what was the urgency to do it now? I'm not claiming that this necessarily was a motive for the current situation. Just that your reasoning is badly defective.

From the people who hosted this: Salvation BridgeDescription⚠️ Disclaimer: This is a fan-made channel, and its content is not affiliated with Barack Obama or his companies. The videos are inspired by Obama's public statements and ideas for educational and motivational purposes only, using a synthesized voice that does not belong to Obama. We use visual lip-syncing and dubbed narration to match the spoken words with on-screen footage, purely to enhance clarity, create a cinematic experience, and make the content more engaging for viewers. Our aim is to amplify the original message by making it easier to understand for the end consumer, helping us reach and educate more people with Barack Obama's valuable perspectives. We also make the messages of Obama more accessible to people who are deaf or hard of hearing by applying professional transcription to the majority of our videos. We share his visionary ideas in a respectful and inspiring manner, without any intent to mislead. More info https://www.youtube.com/@SalvationBridgeYT

Well, a significant portion of Venezuela's oil reserves have not been extracted because of sanctions imposed by the USA. Who will step in and sort the USA out. Anyway, to return to reality, in fact there is an overabundance of petroleum. That's why the cartel OPEC and then OPEC+ was created. To keep prices higher than they would be if there was a free market in place.

If the Trump administration "plan", if you want to dignify what the Rubio and Trump have so far laid out qualifies as such, then I doubt many Venezuelans would want to return. Maduro's cronies are still in charge. The security apparatus used to brutally suppress dissent, is still in place. The Trump administration already has been deporting Venezuelans back to Venezuela. It has revoked the TPS (Temporary Protected Status) of about 600,000 Venezuelans. When Maduro was in power, acceptance of deportees was intermittent. How it plays out now is anyone's guess.

Deflecting much? Have you read any of my current posts about the American assault on Venezuela? Any? Are they consistent with the neocon point of view? I call out this kind of brutality and bullying whether it comes from the USA, Russia, or China. I'm an equal opportunity condemer. Unlike you, my principles are consistent. I'm not one to use Orwellian language like "Special Military Operation" to describe Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Would you include Russia among those Nations?

Well, at least you're honest about the fact that you're lying. Doesn't speak well for the case you're making that you lie in order to make it.

No matter where those arms were coming from, was Venezuela posing a threat to the USA?

What President had or sough Congressional approval to engage in those acts?

In fact, there are very few meaningful similarities between the 2 situations. Even the most obvious one, the extraction of Maduro is very different from Noriega's. And in a very significant way. Maduro's abduction had to be clandestine because the US had no boots on the ground. Noriega was extracted ("abduction" doesn't really fit the bill as it's commonly used) through a kind of siege by US troops. And that was due to the fact that the US already had thousands of troops stationed in Panama because, under a treaty, they had a right to be there and patrol the Canal Zone. In fact, Panama was the HQ of The U.S. Southern Command which controls US military activity in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean (with the exception of US governed territories). One similarity I do see is the farcical hope that abducting Maduro will have different consequences for cocaine transshipments than what happened, or, rather, didn't happen, after Noriega's extraction.

Here's a link to a transcript of an interview on Face the Nation. I've linked to where Rubio tries to come up with a convincing answer about why the US expects good results from a government that retains what it calls "narcoterrorists" in high positions of power. He failed https://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-full-transcript-01-04-2026/#:~:text=But%20I%27m,you,-%2E

Hours after the U.S. invaded Venezuela to seize President Nicolás Maduro, President Trump sent a warning to the governments of Mexico, Cuba and Colombia that their countries could be next. Why it matters: The stunning attack on Caracas follows Trump's recent assertion of his own version of the Monroe Doctrine, and the president's comments that the U.S is not afraid to put "boots on the ground" in the country suggest that the administration won't hesitate to have an ongoing presence in the region. https://www.axios.com/2026/01/03/trump-maduro-venezuela-mexico-sheinbaum

Let's all be grateful that Noriega was removed. Otherwise, Panama might have become a major transshipment route for cocaine. Panama Sees Record Cocaine Flow Through Ports Bound for Europe Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino on Tuesday criticized port concession companies in the Caribbean region of the country for the surge in drug trafficking, mainly cocaine, bound for Europe. According to official data, of the 68 tons of drugs seized by Panamanian authorities in the first half of the year, 25 were confiscated in the Caribbean province of Colón—double the amount in the same period of 2024. “That is unsustainable and does not reflect well on port security,” Mulino said, visibly upset during a public event. https://ticotimes.net/2025/08/27/panama-sees-record-cocaine-flow-through-ports-bound-for-europe The article goes on to note that the cocaine is bound for Europe. Just like most of the cocaine transshipped through Venezuela: Drug boats from Venezuela are mainly moving cocaine to Europe — not fentanyl to the U.S., experts say President Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief say U.S. military strikes on suspected drug boats in waters off Latin America are saving lives by preventing narcotics from reaching America’s shores. But drug cartels operating vessels in the Caribbean, where roughly 50% of the airstrikes have taken place, are mainly moving cocaine from South America to Europe — not to the United States, according to current and former U.S. law enforcement and military officials as well as narcotics experts. And the deadliest drug of all, fentanyl, is almost exclusively smuggled over land from Mexico, the officials and experts say. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/drug-boats-venezuela-are-mainly-moving-cocaine-europe-not-fentanyl-us-rcna244583

For Venezuelans, our situation will not be fixed by Mr. Maduro’s departure, let alone by a foreign occupying force. We are not a nation held together by a government or a social contract, but a collection of individuals trapped in a struggle for survival. Replacing the man at the top will not dismantle the web of bosses, private loyalties, corrupt practices and institutional ruins that have replaced public life here. https://archive.ph/WBTyu The point of this article is that apart from various and widespread forces of repression, there really is no government in Venezuela anymore. How exactly does the Trump administration propose to subdue and to run this violence-ridden nation? It's twice as large as California and has a population of about 30 million. There apparently are 30,000 Cuban troops there to support the government and makes sure that the oil gets to Cuba. There's a large guerilla army that has Venezuela as its base to launch attacks on Colombia. Quagmire: a difficult, precarious, or entrapping position : predicament.

Same argument made after the US toppled Iraq. And their gratitude survived all the minor vicissitudes that followed?

US oil giants silent on Trump claim they will spend billions on Venezuelan oil industry US oil giants have so far remained silent on Donald Trump’s claim that they are primed to spend “billions and billions of dollars” rebuilding the Venezuelan oil industry following the ouster of Nicolás Maduro. Chevron, the only US oil company still operating in Venezuela, committed only to following “relevant laws and regulations” after the US president suggested American energy multinationals would be central to his plans for the country.... ExxonMobil, the biggest US oil company, did not respond to a request for comment. ConocoPhillips, another major player, said it was monitoring developments, and added: “It would be premature to speculate on any future business activities or investments.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/03/us-oil-trump-venezuela Why wouldn't they want to commit billions when it's not even clear that the US will send sizeable forces? On top of that, petroleum prices are already quite low because so many new sources have come on line.

Does anybody know what the plan is? Or even if there is a plan?