The RPI Challenge

Every Dollar DOUBLED Until  Dec. 31st!  January 19th.

$109,503 of $125,000 raised

Donate Today!

Featured Articles

Marco-Terrorism: The US Enters A New Age Of Neoconservatism

by | Jan 5, 2026

In the interregnum between the Republican administrations of George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump, the foreign policy of the former of the two presidents served as the largest obstacle keeping the party from returning to the White House. Although the Democratic Party under President Barack Obama continued the Bush-era foreign policy by perpetuating the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq while expanding it to Syria, Libya, and elsewhere through covert operations, the Republican Party’s unwillingness to disavow itself from an overt neoconservative foreign policy aimed at nation-building the world over served as its Achilles heel, which led to Obama being elected to consecutive terms in the Oval Office in 2008 and 2012. 

The renaissance of the Republican Party under Trump was made possible by disavowing that neoconservative ideology, an ideological shift that catapulted him to the presidency in 2016 and again in 2024. However, since returning as head of state for a second term, Trump’s embrace of the neoconservative foreign policy that he once stood against is poised to mark the undoing of the movement he led, which reshaped conservative politics in the United States.

Deposing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro marks the apotheosis of Trump’s transformation from a political iconoclast into another rank-and-file member of the neoconservative establishment. Operation Absolute Resolve, which captured Maduro under a contrived justification little more than an iteration of the lies that drew the US into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, is a watershed moment in US history for reasons far beyond its impact in reshaping the geopolitical landscape of the Americas. It marks the moment in which Trump signaled his irrevocable assimilation into the neoconservative Republican establishment he once sought to defy. By waging a regime change war of his own, Trump hasn’t just jeopardized his political legacy: he has penned the death letter for the future of American conservative populism.

Authorship of that obituary cannot be attributed to Trump alone. Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State whose nomination served as the preface foreshadowing the downfall of the political movement that Trump cultivated with the promise of prioritizing the interests of the American people above its political elite, can rightfully be credited as its co-writer. The leadership of Rubio as Secretary of State has accelerated Trump’s departure from the America First ideology past a point of no return.

During Trump’s first presidential campaign, Rubio was not just a candidate competing against him for the Republican nomination but one who Trump highlighted as an adversary representing everything wrong with the Republican Party. Rubio’s track record of being a politician cast from a neoconservative mold was one of the defining juxtapositions that accentuated the breath of fresh air Trump brought to the American political landscape so crucial to his rapid political ascent. Though Rubio would move past that animosity and align himself with Trump following his election as the 45th US President in 2016, he remained a steadfast proponent of neoconservatism in the US Senate. In that role, Rubio incessantly urged the Trump administration to pursue a more interventionist foreign policy. That background made the decision by Trump to nominate Rubio as the Secretary of State for his second administration a glaring red flag, immediately beckoning questions about the president’s commitment to his core campaign promises before he was even inaugurated for a second time. In less than one year since returning to the White House, the foreign policy of the second Trump administration, shaped by Rubio, stands as the greatest betrayal of everything the president once stood for.

A pillar of Rubio’s political career has always been his overt desire to reshape the political landscape of Latin America. Being the son of Cuban immigrants allowed Rubio to capture the key conservative vote of Latin Americans in Florida, who were integral to electing him to the US Senate for the three consecutive terms he served from 2011 until being confirmed as the Secretary of State of the second Trump administration in 2025. The overthrow of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro represents the apex of Rubio’s political career and the most profound piece of evidence of the influence he has not only in the current Trump administration but also in reshaping the future of the Republican Party.

If the vision Rubio has for the Republican Party mirrors that which he has for Venezuela, then its future appears to be just as precarious. Following initial remarks from Trump, Rubio, and Hegseth, which put forward the premise that the US would “run” Venezuela following the ouster of Maduro, the haphazard construction of that plan became apparent once the shock and awe of Operation Absolute Resolve waned. The initial pretense that the US would be in charge of governance of Venezuela came to a crashing halt just a day after it was proclaimed. In speaking with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, Rubio stated that the US would not formally run Venezuela; instead, it would continue its naval blockade of the country in order to control its oil exports. In turn, the economic impact of that blockade would give the US leverage to force the Venezuelan government to act in accordance with US political demands. In effect, Rubio’s plan for Venezuela is continuing to put the country under siege with the threat of escalated military intervention, which seems as if it is an inevitability more than it is an alternative.

The increasing likelihood of further military action taken by the US against Venezuela has been illustrated by the rapidly deteriorating outlook the Trump administration has on its future diplomacy with Acting President of Venezuela Delcy Rodriguez. In the immediate aftermath of Rodriguez being sworn in as Maduro’s successor, Trump conveyed how she had spoken with Rubio in a manner that portrayed her in a demure light, being willing to give in to the US’ demands. “She had a long conversation with Marco, and she said, ‘We’ll do whatever you need,’” Trump told reporters on Saturday, concluding, “I think she was quite gracious, but she really doesn’t have a choice.”

However, direct remarks from Rodriguez not filtered through the lens of the Trump administration’s account of their conversations with her came in stark juxtaposition to that portrayal. While Rodriguez stated Venezuela was willing to forge a cooperative relationship with the US under her leadership, she demanded the release of Maduro and his wife, characterizing the US as an imperialist aggressor.

Subsequent remarks from Trump did little to undermine Rodriguez’s characterization of the US, as his tone starkly shifted far from the auspicious outlook he initially offered. When speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump was asked what he needed from Rodriguez in the immediate aftermath of Maduro’s ouster. Trump demanded that Rodriguez provide the US with total access inside Venezuela, stating, “We need total access. We need access to the oil and to other things in their country that allow us to rebuild their country.” Those expectations perfectly align with Rubio’s demand that Venezuela make the national interest of the US the number one priority in reshaping its government. If Rodriguez doesn’t adhere to those demands, Trump has threatened that “she will face a situation probably worse than Maduro,” clarifying that further strikes on Venezuela are being considered if the Rodriguez government does not capitulate to the will of the US.

The explicit demand of putting control of Venezuela’s oil industry into the hands of the US from Trump exposes the true motives behind his decision to overthrow Maduro. Like in the case of Iraq, where the fabricated connections of support for terrorism and development of weapons of mass destruction were used to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein, the accusations of “narco-terrorism” levied against Maduro appear to be nothing more than a narrative woven by the Trump administration to hide its true motives behind. Just like in Iraq, control of natural resources like oil, which Venezuela has the most reserves of in the world, appears to be the driving force behind the US operation to overthrow Maduro. 

Further evidence of this web of lies was exposed in the indictment filed against Maduro in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which makes zero references to fentanyl, making the Trump administration’s claims about the drug being trafficked to the US from Venezuela as one of the pertinent reasons for the overthrow of Maduro tantamount to the WMDs the Bush administration claimed were being developed under the regime of Saddam Hussein. As in the case of Iraq, Rubio made the fallacy of the motive of “spreading democracy” to Venezuela utterly apparent when he remarked that it is too early to discuss holding elections in the country.

Another parallel between Iraq and Venezuela is how each country is a component of a larger overarching foreign policy aimed at broader regime change in their respective regions of the world. According to Trump, Venezuela is not the only country facing the threat of the full force of the US military under the doctrine forged by Rubio. Just as Bush and Obama expanded the War on Terror in the Middle East to Iraq, Syria, Libya, and beyond, Trump has extended the threat of US intervention across the Caribbean toward Cuba. “I think Cuba is going to be something we’ll end up talking about, because Cuba is a failing nation right now, a very badly failing nation, and we want to help the people,” Trump stated, virtually rendering Cuba as the next target of the US’ regime change wars. Rubio distilled this outlook into a succinct message, leaving little room for doubt when he spoke to NBC News’ Meet The Press regarding Cuba, saying, “they’re in a lot of trouble.”

Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, has forever held the overthrow of its government as his political raison d’etre. The Secretary of State expounded on Trump’s remarks, characterizing Cuba as the nation responsible for propping up the Maduro government. “I don’t think it’s any mystery that we are not big fans of the Cuban regime, who, by the way, are the ones that were propping up Maduro,” he told Meet the Press. Rubio went as far as to paint the fantastic picture that Maduro was being guarded by Cuban bodyguards at the time of his capture by US Special Forces, an assertion echoed by Trump Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick. “He was not guarded by Venezuelan bodyguards. He had Cuban bodyguards.” Rubio claimed, further alleging that Cuban operatives had been placed in charge of the inner machinations of Venezuela’s national intelligence.

In the buildup to the US taking military action against Venezuela, Cuba was not the only country that Rubio tried to implicate as being behind the Maduro regime. No neoconservative narrative would be complete without attempting to implicate Iran, which Rubio did by claiming how the Maduro regime served as an Iranian proxy by allowing Hezbollah to operate within the country. In elucidating his vision for the future of Venezuela, Rubio stated that eradicating the presence of Hezbollah in the country was central to the US plans for the country. “It’s very simple, Okay? In the 21st century, under the Trump administration, we are not going to have a country like Venezuela in our own hemisphere, in the sphere of control and the crossroads for Hezbollah, for Iran, and for every other malign influence in the world. “That’s just not going to exist,” Rubio told NBS News.

Implicating Iran in propping up the Maduro regime carries the hallmark of the Zionist influence that has been at the core of American neoconservatism since its inception. This dynamic was highlighted by Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodriguez. During a nationally televised address, Rodriguez claimed, “Venezuela is the victim and target of an attack of this nature, which undoubtedly has Zionist undertones. It is truly shameful.” Rodriguez’s remarks highlighted the continued anti-Zionist position of Venezuelan leadership, which has unabashedly proclaimed since the ascent of Venezuelan revolutionary Hugo Chávez to the country’s presidency in 1999.

Operation Absolute Resolve was launched just days following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s fifth visit to the US to meet with President Trump since he took office in January of 2025. Over 2 decades ago, on September 11th, 2002, Netanyahu made the magnitude of his influence on US foreign policy clear when he testified before Congress to compel the country to invade Iraq. The overthrow of Maduro in part on the basis of being an Iranian proxy comes amidst intensified pressure by Israel on the US to resume military operations against Iran. During Netanyahu’s most recent visit to the US, President Trump reiterated his position against the Iranian government. In the wake of Operation Absolute Resolve, Netanyahu was one of the first foreign leaders to applaud the Trump administration for the regime change, likely viewing it as a portent of US support for the overthrow of the Iranian government he has made his ultimate aim.

In the eyes of Marco Rubio and the rest of the neoconservative establishment, whose ultimate aims are inextricably tied to that of Zionism, Venezuela is a nexus point for an expansive interventionist US foreign policy that spans from Cuba to Iran. While claims of the Venezuelan regime engaging in “narco-terrorism” served as the initial pretense for US military intervention, the rhetoric following the ouster of Nicolás Maduro shows that a neoconservative US foreign policy revitalized under Rubio’s leadership that could be characterized as “Marco-Terrorism” served as its true motive. Venezuela appears to be little more than a stepping stone toward achieving the impact Rubio seeks to have on global geopolitics, ranging from Latin America to the Middle East. In achieving this aim, Rubio does not just look to transform the global political landscape. He also seeks to redefine the core tenets of the Republican Party in line with his vision for the world. In doing so, the neoconservatives have not only captured Venezuela, but they have also regained control of America’s conservative political apparatus.

Reprinted with author’s permission from ZeroHedge.

Author

Recent Posts

Categories

Donate Today!