Isaac Sowell (23:21)
All right, that is it for with the left and the right, and some writers from abroad are saying, which brings us to my take. We woke up to a new world this week, and it's still hard to process the whole story, and it has more angles than I could ever cover in a single podcast. But I'm going to try to get to everything I can today. So here are 14 thoughts on the capture and arrest of Nicolas Maduro. Number one Maduro was an unequivocally repressive dictator the moment after he, quote unquote, won Venezuela's 2024 election, offered a chance to force him out of power by leveraging an audit of the actual election results against him. And I hoped then that a broad coalition of international leaders would do just that. They or we didn't. I want fewer rulers like Maduro in the world, and based on the widely reported real election results, most Venezuelans don't want him in power either. I'LL shed precisely zero tears for his arrests. And I hope a new leader brings forward a new set of values and a new vision for the Venezuelan people. But that future does not at all seem assured to me. Number two, this should be the final nail in the coffin for any notion of a Trump Doctrine. On foreign policy, there is no Trump doctrine. For nearly 10 years, American pundits have been trying to decipher one to make sense of Donald the Dove, who's also a strongman, who is also a Nobel Peace Prize candidate, who's also a warmonger, who's also a non interventionist. Some see a powerful leader restoring American strength on the global stage. Others see an anti establishment antithesis to George W. Bush, who is done dragging Americans into foreign wars. Part of Trump's brilliance is this incoherence. It's that in part he is all of these things which allows American voters to see whatever they want in him. It also really complicates the message for his most sycophantic supporters. It leaves them saying things like I'm as reflexively non interventionist as anyone can possibly be and I want America to rule over this hemisphere and exert its power for the good of our people. Which is something Matt Walsh said in a single tweet this week. Number three, Trump's foreign policy is guided by very few consistent principles, but a premium on personal relationships is one of them. This story provides two examples. Number one, Trump just pardoned Juan Orlando Hernandez, the former president of Honduras, who was tried and convicted for his role in one of the largest and most violent drug trafficking operations in the world. But Trump saw himself in Hernandez, who he thinks was unfairly prosecuted, so he set him free. Number two, the Washington Post is reporting that Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corinna Machado would be president right now if she had turned down 2025's Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump ardently sought. The report was based on two anonymous sources, so I wouldn't stake my credibility on its legitimacy. But it's completely plausible given the other examples we have of how personal slights and relationships often drive Trump's decision making. See also Zelensky, Putin, Bukele, Kim, Sheinbaum, Netanyahu, bin Salman, etc. Number four, though Maduro's overnight capture and extradition was shocking because of the spectacle of it all, it shouldn't have come as a surprise. I've been predicting for months in our newsletter, on the podcast on our YouTube channel that a land strike and a war were coming with Venezuela and that the only off ramp was Maduro stepping down, which he did not seem keen to do. I'm not happy to be right about those predictions, but they weren't particularly hard to make. The administration wasn't being shy. The question now is whether these strikes, this quote, unquote war, lasted for two hours and killed 80 people, or if we are in the beginning of a protracted conflict. Number five, I'm spending some time this month at my property in West Texas, where I'm recording this podcast right now, and it's one of the most remote places in the country where my neighbors spend more time working their various trades than following the news. Yet the capture of Maduro has broken through even here. Family and friends talk about it over meals. It comes up almost everywhere I go. Since I'm the quote, unquote news guy, I inevitably field questions about it when I run into friends. The most common one I'm getting right now is why? Why did we do this? And that's hard to answer. Number six, in the administration's telling, we took Maduro out because he is a drug kingpin who was killing Americans. But also we took him out because Venezuela stole our oil and now we're taking it back. But also it's to keep China or Russia or Iran out of the Western Hemisphere. But also maybe it's to put everyone else on notice to let leaders in Cuba and Colombia and also China and Iran know that Trump is just that crazy and they ought to respect it. Or maybe all of this was just to support democracy and our motivations were really the future prospects of the Venezuelan violent people. Again, here it'd be nice to know what the administration thinks, but deciphering it is impossible. Number seven, if I were Steel Manning for the administration, I'd argue simply that it's all of the above. All of this, the fight against drug smuggling, the message to China and Russia, the removal of a repressive dictator, the possibility of democracy, and the upside of controlling the oil together made such an extreme action worth the risk. That's an argument I could chew on for a bit, but it's not the one the administration is offering. And if it is, they aren't articulating it clearly or consistently. Number eight. Alternatively, maybe Trump just knew he could pull this off. The domestic politics work. Maduro is properly loathed by many Latinos residing in the United States. And perhaps enough people in Trump's orbit thought an overt demonstration of American power in the Global south justified the military risk. By all accounts, the military operation was a resounding Success pending more clarity about the accuracy and identity of the reported 80 people killed. In and out over quickly, Maduro brought back to the US alive and without any American soldiers killed. For some people, that might be most of what matters. Certainly it reflects extremely well on our military capability. For me though, the question of are we capable of removing Maduro? Was never really a question. The question is now what? And this is another question the administration does not seem to have a clear answer for. Number 10. The account from US officials is of a curiously perfect military operation. Spies fed reliable information to a special operations force that took out power in Caracas and then descended on Maduro's home, capturing him alive before he could lock himself inside a safe room. The troops maneuvers were all aided by rehearsals and a life size model of Maduro's fortress. Without being too conspiratorial, I think such a seamless operation invites reasonable questions about whether behind the scenes negotiating took place either with Maduro or the people around him. History suggests that if any backchanneling occurred, we'll learn more about it in the next six months to 50 years. But for now, we know only what we know, and it looks like a remarkable tactical success. Number 11 tactically, things going well is not proof positive that this move was smart or worth the risk. We found out after the fact that plans leaked to major newspapers which didn't print the story, per long held journalistic practices not to share information that could risk the lives of American soldiers. Even if Maduro or some members of top brass struck a behind the scenes deal to cooperate, the operation still carried significant risk and the fact that the first stage of this operation was successful does not guarantee that we've avoided a worst case scenario in the long run. Number 12 Trump says we are going to run the country for a bit, whatever that means, and that we're not afraid of boots on the ground. He might want to check with the American people on that one. Vice President Delsey Rodriguez, now sworn in as president, has been recognized by the Venezuelan armed forces, and Trump says she has no choice but to cooperate. Yet her public statements so far are a mix of defiant and pliant, and her background does not read like someone who will roll over for US interests. I'm not at all clear what her next moves are. At the same time, the administration suggests we're either getting ready to rebuild the country's oil infrastructure and administer elections Trump's definition of running the country, or we'll just keep applying pressure on Venezuela with sanctions and pushing it in the direction we've want Secretary of State Marco Rubio's definition of running the country. There is a very obvious tension between the administration's anti communist rhetoric and its apparent belief it can centrally plan another nation from afar. Number 13 if you made me bet all my personal belongings on the administration's true motivations here, cynically I'd bet the answer is oil. Venezuela is rich with the kind of oil we can refine. In the United States, Iran, Russia and China were already making inroads. As one Venezuelan celebrating in the streets put it, what do you think Russia and China wanted? The recipe for arepas? Trump has been talking more and more about the need to take back oil refineries he thinks Venezuela stole. This has, for what it's worth, also been the allegation from Venezuela that the Trump administration was coming for its natural resources. It's remarkable in the most dispiriting way possible to imagine that in 2026 the United States is still risking wars to protect and pursue its own oil interests. That Trump explicitly campaigned on non intervention for so long and now just says it out loud is only salt in the wound number 14. I have to ask, who wants this? Genuinely, if any tangible cost accumulates here, I suspect it is going to become a huge problem for the Trump administration politically. Just two months ago, the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard declared the United States strategy of regime change over. Democratic lawmakers say that Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth told them explicitly that they were not pursuing regime change in Venezuela. Whether you think this mission was unconstitutional or legally in bounds, with an unrestrained executive branch or simply a violation of international law, it certainly feels illegal and immoral. More instability in Venezuela could also mean more Venezuelan migrants, which means more Venezuelan refugees arriving at the US border, this time as a direct result of our own actions. If you pluck an American off the street and ask them about the prospects of kidnapping Venezuela's president and running the country for a bit, what percentage of people are going to express support? 2%? 5%? After running the campaign Trump ran, I have no idea how he sells any of this to the American American public. Successful mission or not, I for one have zero desire to see what's at the end of the road we just got on. We'll be right back after this quick break.