Venezuela: A Closer Look Inside U.S. Operations /Larry Johnson & Lt Col Daniel Davis

** NEW MERCH ** Jackets & Sweatshirts, Thermo Mugs!!

Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store

The discussion critiques U.S. claims that intervention in Venezuela is going well and will improve conditions over time. The speaker rejects the idea that Venezuela’s oil is a major strategic prize, noting it accounts for less than 2% of global production, is expensive to extract, and costly to refine—making it economically marginal.

They argue that while U.S. intelligence agencies have long had contacts inside Venezuela’s military and intelligence services, exploiting internal divisions is very different from actually controlling the country. The continued relocation of the U.S. embassy to Colombia is cited as evidence that the situation remains unstable and dangerous.

The conversation emphasizes that Maduro’s removal has likely just replaced one corrupt elite with another, rather than producing meaningful reform. Venezuela is described as fragmented, with multiple factions competing for control—especially over oil revenues—and it is unclear whether any U.S.-aligned faction has real dominance. The speakers warn that U.S. officials consistently underestimate local actors, who are portrayed as politically savvy and capable of quietly undermining U.S. objectives.

They argue that a long-term “win–lose” arrangement—where Venezuela’s elites cooperate while most revenue flows outward—is unsustainable. Historically, U.S. relations with Latin America are framed as a pattern of dominance, exploitation, and short attention spans, where countries are closely managed only as long as they serve U.S. strategic interests, then abandoned.

The final portion sharply criticizes U.S. interpretations of the War Powers Act. The speaker argues that officials like Rubio misrepresent the law by claiming the president can use force freely for 60 days without authorization. Instead, they assert military force is only lawful after a declaration of war, congressional authorization, or an actual attack. Claims of “self-defense” are described as a loophole used to justify unilateral military action, with Congress reduced to funding decisions after the fact.

Overall, the exchange portrays U.S. policy toward Venezuela—and the region more broadly—as coercive, legally dubious, historically exploitative, and unlikely to produce stability or genuine improvement.