Podcast Summary: "Panama 1989 to Venezuela 2026: What History Can Teach Us Pt. 2"

Podcast: It Could Happen Here (Cool Zone Media & iHeartPodcasts)
Date: February 4, 2026
Hosts: Andrew Sage & James

Episode Overview

This episode continues the series examining U.S. interventions in Latin America, focusing on the 1989 invasion of Panama and drawing parallels to recent U.S. involvement in Venezuela. The hosts, Andrew Sage and James, delve into the history and consequences of foreign intervention, exploring how U.S. motives repeatedly trump the agency, autonomy, and lives of those living in the affected countries. Throughout, the conversation challenges binary and state-centric thinking, emphasizing the complexity and diversity of resistance and responses on the ground.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. U.S. Imperial History in Panama

(00:36 - 04:51)

• Early 20th-century Panama functioned as a U.S. protectorate, with the U.S. manipulating Panamanian politics to retain control over the canal and other interests.
• Panama’s independence from Colombia in 1903 was orchestrated by the U.S. for strategic gain.
• Racial hierarchy structured both the canal’s construction and Panamanian society, fueling ongoing resistance and demands for treaty reform.

2. The 1968 Coup and Rise of Omar Torrijos

(04:51 - 06:35)

• Discusses the 1968 military coup that overthrew President Arnulfo Arias, led initially by Major Boris Martinez.
• The power quickly shifted to Omar Torrijos, who, though publicly reformist—pushing land reform and negotiating the return of the Canal—had deep ties to U.S. intelligence.
• Torrijos' reforms were limited in benefits and often served other elite interests. Meanwhile, Panama became a hub for offshore banking and money laundering.

3. Manuel Noriega’s Dictatorship

(06:35 - 13:24)

• After Torrijos’ suspicious death in a plane crash (noted wryly as a common fate for political leaders in that era), Noriega emerged as the new U.S.-trained dictator.
• Noriega, formerly a CIA asset, was known for human rights abuses, drug trafficking, and facilitating U.S. regional operations.
• Despite knowledge of Noriega's criminal activities, the U.S. tolerated him until he became inconvenient, especially after Iran-Contra political changes and an increase in drug war rhetoric domestically.

4. The U.S. Invasion of Panama (1989)

(14:30 - 22:41)

• After Noriega annulled election results and repressed opposition, U.S. pressure intensified.
• The murder of a U.S. marine lieutenant provided the final pretext for intervention.
• The invasion, on December 20, 1989, saw massive violence: entire neighborhoods were destroyed, thousands detained, and civilian deaths likely numbered in the thousands.
  • Quote – Andrew: "It was the worst destruction Panama had seen since Colombia's thousand days war. 18,000 people lost their homes. At least 516 Panamanians were killed by official Pentagon counts. Internal army estimates, however, put civilian deaths closer to 1,000." (17:11)
• Noriega was eventually captured and tried in the U.S., but Panama's drug transit and money laundering continued unabated.

5. Selective Outrage and Hypocrisy in U.S. Foreign Policy

(19:29 - 22:23)

• The U.S. justified Panama’s invasion as a moral and democratic necessity, ignoring similar or worse actions by allied regimes in the region (e.g., mass killings in Guatemala and El Salvador).
  • Quote – Andrew: "You can condemn US imperialist aggression without carrying water for their image...the hypocrisy of the United States...selective outrage." (19:29)
• The episode highlights the double standards: atrocities by U.S. allies were overlooked, while those who became inconvenient (like Noriega) were removed.
• The aftermath left Panama devastated and under effective U.S. military administration for months, with self-determination further undermined.

6. Drawing Parallels to Venezuela (2026)

(23:14 - 32:17)

• The discussion moves to contemporary events in Venezuela, noting striking similarities:
  • Both countries saw leaders deposed who were initially U.S. partners but became uncooperative.
  • Justifications for intervention (drugs, democracy, American lives) are similar; sanctions hurt the population more than leaders.
  • Quote – James: "The US didn’t go to liberate people, it went to liberate the canal. It’s so disappointing to see people still look at foreign policy in binary terms." (25:06)
• The hosts stress the U.S. pattern of abandoning complex local realities once their immediate objectives (e.g., access to the canal, oil) are achieved.
• There is a call for solidarity with people, not regimes or states, and recognition of the diversity within protest movements and societies. The simplification or authoritarianism seen in "internet leftism" is critiqued for being both binary and condescending.

7. Complexity, Agency, and Solidarity

(26:08 - 30:57)

• The hosts discuss positive, grassroots experiments in Venezuela (communes, cooperatives) thriving despite state co-optation and U.S. pressure.
  • Quote – Andrew: "Venezuelan people have managed to innovate and create, you know, these kinds of projects where they can exercise their autonomy, exercise their voice and their self determination." (26:08)
• They advocate for principled solidarity—criticizing both state violence and foreign intervention, while respecting local perspectives.
  • Quote – James: "Our solidarity should be with the Venezuelan people. They should be the ones who get to decide who rules Venezuela." (27:35)
• A consistent theme: U.S. intervention is ultimately about American interests, not local liberation.

8. Closing Thoughts: The Rhymes of History

(30:57 - 33:30)

• Though the contexts differ (“Noriega and Maduro are not interchangeable. Panama in 1989 is not Venezuela in 2026”), the justifications and patterns of U.S. intervention are familiar.
• U.S. legal and moral logic is applied selectively, with international law deemed irrelevant to American interests.
• Memorable closing line – Andrew: "History does not repeat, but it's good to know because I find it often rhymes. All power to all the people. Peace." (33:25)

Notable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• James (on Noriega's role in mediation):
  "He was committed to a non-carceral solution, you know. Great to see." (09:24)
• Andrew (on US sanctions & public reaction):
  "You try to make the people suffer and instead people end up standing with their government, even if they have critiques of that government." (11:36)
• Andrew (on the burning down of neighborhoods in Panama):
  "Entire neighbourhoods were destroyed. El Torrillo, a poor, mostly black and mestizo community built originally for canal workers, was bombed and burned to the ground." (17:18)
• On media narratives:
  "The images of his opposition figures being beaten by his military saturated US televisions to reinforce the racialized image of the savage Panamanian. Because... the opposition figure in question was white." (14:50)
• Andrew (on solidarity):
  "I think our solidarity has to remain with people and not with states." (13:24)
• James (on Western leftist condescension):
  "There is a racialized component to the way that the American left talks to people in the global South... people in Venezuela are extremely aware of the consequences of US intervention." (27:52)

Important Segment Timestamps

• U.S. Empire in Panama - Early History: 00:36 - 04:51
• 1968 Coup & Torrijos: 04:51 - 06:35
• Noriega Rises & U.S. Relationship: 06:35 - 13:24
• Invasion of Panama: 14:30 - 22:41
• Parallels to Venezuela: 23:14 - 32:17
• Closing Reflections: 30:57 - 33:30

Tone and Style

The episode blends historical analysis with wry, sometimes dark humor ("the band that was forced onto all the iPods", "Maybe that was a CIA op - Bono... also part of the invasion of Panama") and a critical, anti-imperialist perspective. It balances condemnation of U.S. militarism with a refusal to valorize those like Noriega or Maduro, focusing instead on the lived experience and agency of ordinary people.

Final Takeaways

• U.S. military interventions are often justified via convenient narratives, but primarily serve American interests.
• Both Panamanian and Venezuelan examples reveal that real change must be determined by local people, not imposed from abroad.
• Listeners are urged to reject simplistic, binary frameworks and to support genuine grassroots agency and diverse perspectives.
• The patterns of intervention are depressingly consistent—even as the rationales update, the suffering of affected populations is perennial.

"History does not repeat, but it does often rhyme." (Andrew Sage, 33:25)