SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
imperialism
'Unconscionable and Impeachable': Experts Appalled at Report of Marco Rubio Acting as Venezuela 'Viceroy'
"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said one critic.
Jul 11, 2026
Some critics of the Trump administration are reacting with horror to revelations that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been serving as the de facto ruler of Venezuela.
According to a Saturday report in The New York Times, Rubio for the last several months has been acting informally as the "viceroy" of Venezuela ever since its recognized president, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted by the American military in January and brought to the US to face charges related to "narco-terrorism."
The Times' sources revealed that Rubio "effectively controls Venezuela’s finances, the distribution of its natural resources, and its government" and "is deeply involved in the country’s day-to-day operations," while maintaining regular contact with acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez.
Under current arrangements, the US Treasury Department takes in revenue from Venezuela's exports, including its petroleum, and then disperses the money back to the country through its private banks with strict conditions set by Rubio over what it can be spent on.
In explaining the system, the Times likened it to "parents handing out allowances to children," adding that it gives Rubio "immense leverage over... Rodríguez, who depends on the money to pay workers and prop up the national currency."
Elizabeth Saunders, professor of political science at Columbia University, described Rubio's power over Venezuela as "insane," as well as "derelict, unconscionable, and impeachable."
"The secretary of state's time is scarce, valuable, and not outsourcable," Saunders emphasized.
Orlando J. Pérez, professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas at Dallas, said the Times report made a mockery of Rubio's professed claims to want to bring democracy back to Venezuela.
"It appears Rubio has transformed from democracy promotion warrior," Pérez commented, "to transactional realpolitik operative!"
Kenneth Roth, former executive director at Human Rights Watch, wrote that US control over Venezuela appeared similar to the kind of imperial power wielded by European nations in the 19th Century.
"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said Roth, "with Marco Rubio as the viceroy and Washington controlling the country’s oil revenue and dictating major foreign and domestic policies. Democracy has been relegated to the distant future."
Bradley Simpson, historian at the University of Connecticut, also saw the current US arrangement with Venezuela as a return to overt imperialism.
"We are literally back in the Dollar Diplomacy days of the 1910s," Simpson wrote, "when the United States invaded countries and took over their financial systems and ran them as effective colonies. Flagrantly illegal, enormously corrupt. Where is the organization of American states or UN in denouncing this?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Grim and Stupid': Trump Hints at US Ground Invasion to Seize ‘Total Control’ of Iranian Oil
Senior officials have warned that an invasion of Iran’s Kharg Island could cause many American casualties. But Trump said the US would “make a fortune.”
Jun 11, 2026
While promising more strikes against Iran on Thursday, President Donald Trump suggested that the US would soon be "taking" Kharg Island in an imperialist bid to seize "total control" of the country's oil and gas market, an operation that would likely require ground troops.
“The United States will be hitting Iran (Whose Navy, Air Force, Radar, Anti Aircraft, and all other forms of Defense, together with most of its offensive capability, are GONE!), VERY HARD TONIGHT,” the president wrote in a Truth Social post, following days of strikes that hit military infrastructure and also damaged a pair of reservoirs that left around 20,000 people without drinking water.
“At some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island, and other oil infrastructure points, and assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets, much like we have with Venezuela, which is working out brilliantly for both Venezuela and the United States of America,” he added.
It's not the first time Trump has threatened to take the island, which handles about 90% of Iran's crude oil exports and is of paramount importance, as Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the US-Israeli war has sent oil prices skyrocketing and resulted in the most severe inflation the US has seen in over three years.
Like in Venezuela, where Trump said the point of the US operation to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro was to "get the oil flowing" to US corporations, the president said his objective in taking Kharg Island was explicitly about enriching the US by using raw force to commandeer Iran's natural resources.
Trump: "My preference has always been to take Kharg Island. I don't know that America has the stomach for it, to be honest with it. You'd make a fortune." pic.twitter.com/5ub1HK4WMH
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 11, 2026
"My preference has always been to take Kharg Island," he said on a phone interview with Fox News on Thursday morning. "I don't know that America has the stomach for it, to be honest with you. You'd make a fortune..."
“We did it with Venezuela,” he continued. "Venezuela’s worked out great for everybody. We’ve taken millions and millions of barrels of oil out of Venezuela. We’ve brought them to Houston and various other places, Louisiana. Refineries that we have that are incredible, they’ve gone 24 hours a day. Making a fortune.“
However, he said he wasn't sure that the country, which is strongly opposed to strikes against Iran according to recent polls, "has the appetite" for it.
As senior CNN political correspondent Aaron Blake explained, "it's widely assumed that taking and keeping Kharg Island would require ground troops," an idea that just 18% of Americans said they supported in a May survey from the Institute for Global Affairs. Even Republicans were more likely to oppose boots on the ground than to support them, according to that poll.
The Trump administration has had plans drawn up to invade the island as far back as March, but they were reportedly shelved as US officials feared large numbers of American casualties, especially as Iran had prepared for an invasion by laying anti-personnel and armor mines.
Despite being aware of the plan's unpopularity with the American public, Trump said on Thursday that taking Kharg Island would be "a guarantee if I want to do it."
President Trump is now publicly claiming that the United States will SEIZE KHARG ISLAND. What are the advantages to doing so, what are the disadvantages, and is this a viable strategy?
Let’s start with the disadvantages first, because… it’s grim. And stupid.
One of the key… pic.twitter.com/yZeVAPRB3D
— Brett Erickson (@BrettErickson28) June 11, 2026
Brett Erickson, a sanctions and geopolitical-risk expert who serves as managing principal of Obsidian Risk Advisors, said the idea was "grim and stupid."
“Their exports [from the island] are not even close to what they were prior to the war, or even throughout March and the first half of April,” he explained. “In the last five weeks, Iran has loaded a whopping one vessel at Kharg Island.”
He added that since the island is a "fixed position," it "would constantly come under fire from drones and missile barrages."
"We would likely, in the absolute best case, lose hundreds of lives," he said. Worst case? Well into the thousands. Would it change anything about the war? No. It literally would not matter."
The only thing to be gained, he added, would be "a lot of Americans dying for an oil export hub that is not being used, and that is blockaded anyway."
Asked by reporters on Capitol Hill about Trump's threats to invade the island, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) hardly seemed bullish on the idea. He said he believed Trump was "communicating directly with our adversaries over there," adding, "I would not put too much stock in the details of that right now."
But the idea does have its cheerleaders. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who is credited with helping Israel persuade Trump to launch the war in the first place.
The notorious war hawk, who previously compared taking Kharg Island favorably to the World War II Battle of Iwo Jima, where the US suffered 26,000 casualties, said on Thursday that Trump was “right to put on the table the taking of Kharg Island” and thanked the president for “going the extra mile to obtain a diplomatic solution to the Iranian conflict.”
US Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) argued that invading the island without approval from Congress "would be brazenly unconstitutional."
"American troops would die during the invasion," he said. "And then every day Iran would try to kill more American troops on Kharg Island."
Four Republicans joined every Democrat last week to pass a war powers resolution meant to halt Trump's ability to wage war against Iran without approval from Congress.
In the wake of Trump's threats to invade the Island, Lieu said the "Senate must pass the House’s war powers resolution."
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Do We Reclaim Our Future From War?
Are we stuck with pending war, and actual war, from now on... until we blow up the planet? I don’t believe that at all.
Jun 07, 2026
Is war simply part of human nature? It’s been absurdly “ordinary” throughout my lifetime, and continually expanding its power and psychological reach.
And unless you’re in the middle of it—unless you’re digging for a dead child beneath a bombed building—war is just an abstract horror. It’s necessary. It’s what keeps us safe. Glory, glory hallelujah.
“You ask: What is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory—victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.”
Hmmm...
We’ve spent multithousand years now turning war into the building block of civilization. You know: Create an empire. Defend, defend, defend.
This is Britain’s new prime minister, Winston Churchill, speaking in 1940, just as World War II has opened its jaws. In that context, yes, his words make sense, but the paradox hiding in those words—the speech titled “Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat”—is that with victory there may be no survival either. The Good War gave us, of course, the nuclear bomb. It gave us much of the military hell that’s happened in my lifetime. It also gave us, along with a multitrillion-dollar annual global military budget, a sense of eternal necessity to be ready for the next evil monster who wants to get us.
That’s it? We’re stuck with pending war, and actual war, from now on... until we blow up the planet? I don’t believe that at all, but I started digging back into history to get a fuller sense of what others thought. Who are we?
As Steve Taylor, writing some years ago in Psychology Today, noted:
Our view of human nature determines our view of the human race’s future. If we believe that human beings are innately warlike, then there is no reason for us to believe that our future holds anything else but more of the chaos and conflict that has filled our past. But if we believe that conflict is not innate to us and that our aggression is due to external factors rather than being "hard-wired" into us, then we’re entitled to have a different vision of the future.
There seems to be a consensus among historians that we didn’t start organizing for—and waging—war until about 10,000 years ago, during the Neolithic era, when agriculture began replacing hunter-gathering as humanity’s primary source of survival. A key component of agriculture was, and is, possession and development of land, which began sending waves of change through human consciousness: protect, protect, protect! Land turned into property. And thus, for thousands and thousands of years now, people have been collectively re-envisioning their relationship with each other.
Obviously, this is a quickie look at human history. My point is simply to push the idea that war isn’t inevitable, but rather a response to significant change. I now jump ahead to 1895, when New York Journal owner William Randolph Hearst sent a photographer to Cuba to cover the insurrection going on there against Spanish colonial rule. The photographer cabled Hearst that there was no war to cover, to which Hearst responded: “You furnish the pictures. I'll furnish the war.”
And Yellow Journalism was born! And war has remained media’s friend ever since. It’s headline news. There’s fighting, slaughter, and eventual victory—for someone. And the victor controls the narrative.
Well, actually, it’s the media that controls the larger narrative. That is to say, the media creates the context: War is real. It’s what we do. In essence, it’s the bookend of every historical period, the arbiter of social change and, therefore, human evolution. Any questions?
OK, here’s where I start losing my sanity. War may not be part of humanity’s DNA, but it certainly seems to be accepted as though it were. We’ve spent multithousand years now turning war into the building block of civilization. You know: Create an empire. Defend, defend, defend. And ultimately transcend, as a new empire emerges. And then another. Whatever we do in between our wars—live in peace, more or less—may have value, but it’s not all that interesting. It’s just the lull between glorious battle cries.
And thus war starts to seem like who we are. Obviously, it’s part of who we are, because we’ve made it so, but whatever serious value it has in the moment is minimal. Mostly it’s incredibly destructive. It’s an addiction. It’s the lavishly funded antithesis of human connection: with one another, with Planet Earth.
As Rupert Ross writes in his excellent book about Aboriginal wisdom, Returning to the Teachings: “The principle of wholeness thus requires looking for, and responding to, complex interconnections, not single acts of separate individuals. Anything short of that is seen as a naïve response destined to ultimate failure.”
Oh God. Wholeness. Connection. This is the opposite of war. The meaning and complexity of these concepts requires enormous exploration, but for the moment I end with a story about heart-ripping courage and connection—about the nature of peace – that I initially wrote about nine years ago.
This happened in 2017, on a commuter train in Portland, Oregon. A man started screaming racial slurs at—started waging war with—two teenage girls on the train, one of whom was wearing a hajib. He shouted, “Go back to Saudi Arabia!”
Several passengers intervened, standing between the girls and the screamer, pushing him away. The screamer had a knife; he started slashing. Two people were killed, a third was injured. The killer fled the train. He was later arrested. But, oh my God, another act of public horror had occurred. People did what they could. A woman knelt by one of the dying men—Taliesin Namkai-Meche—holding him, comforting him. He said to her, “Tell them, I want everybody to know, I want everybody on the train to know, I love them.”
Those were his last words.
As I hear them again, I realize that this is who we are, even if we don’t know what they mean. They sear the soul with doubt, with cynicism. How can we reclaim them? Do we have it in us to be so deeply loving? The only larger question is this: How do we reclaim—and start creating—our future?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular