-
AAPL
213.43 (+0.29%)
-
BARC-LN
1205.7 (-1.46%)
-
NKE
94.05 (+0.39%)
-
CVX
152.67 (-1.00%)
-
CRM
230.27 (-2.34%)
-
INTC
30.5 (-0.87%)
-
DIS
100.16 (-0.67%)
-
DOW
55.79 (-0.82%)
Maduro’s capture wasn’t about oil
The image of Nicolás Maduro in US custody has inevitably resurrected the ghosts of foreign policy past. For the reflexively cynical observer, the narrative writes itself: a Republican White House, a Latin American strongman, and the world’s largest proven oil reserves. As with Iraq in 2003, the slogan of American imperialism and its ‘blood for oil’ foreign policy circulated on social media before the dust had even settled over Caracas. ‘The overnight strikes on Venezuela,’ declared the Guardian, and Trump’s neo-imperial ‘declaration that the US would run the country and sell its oil, have driven another truck through international law and global norms’. This is a comfortable, nostalgic critique, harking back to the heady days of 2003. It is also dangerously wrong.
Maduro was not merely a socialist pariah; he was a strategic landlord
To view the dramatic defenestration of the Venezuelan regime as a resource raid is to misunderstand the fundamental shift in American grand strategy. Washington did not decapitate the Venezuelan state because it needs more oil; it did so because it is preparing itself for a possible war with China.
The ‘oil imperialism’ theory collapses under the weight of basic data. The United States is no longer the energy-starved giant of the late 20th century. Texas alone now accounts for approximately 43 per cent of US crude oil production and 31 per cent of its refining capacity. America is awash in its own hydrocarbons. The strategic imperative, therefore, is not the seizure of Venezuelan crude, which is heavy, sour, and difficult to refine, but the protection of American infrastructure.
The vast refining and export complexes of the US Gulf Coast, the jugular of the Western economy, sit uncomfortably close to the Venezuelan littoral. In an era of hypersonic missiles and loitering munitions, the Caribbean is no longer a sleepy tourist lake; it is a vulnerable southern flank. The calculations in the Pentagon are straightforward and entirely rational: the distance from northern Venezuela to Houston is roughly 3,300 kilometres (2,050 miles); to the Panama Canal, it is barely 1,100 kilometres (680 miles).
This is where the great power competition with Beijing enters the calculus. For the last two decades, while Washington was bogged down in the Middle East quagmire, the People’s Republic of China has been quietly purchasing loyalty in the Western Hemisphere. The numbers are staggering. In 2024, trade between China and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) hit $551 billion (£400 billion). More pointedly, Venezuela accounted for roughly 44 per cent of China’s total development finance in the region since 2005.
Maduro was not merely a socialist pariah; he was a strategic landlord. He offered the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) a foothold in America’s backyard. The nightmare scenario for US planners was never a socialist Venezuela, but a weaponised one, a Caribbean outpost hosting Chinese intelligence capabilities, long-range bombers, or missile batteries. If socialism was the threat, why whack Venezuela and not Cuba?
This anxiety is inextricably linked to the future of Taiwan. American war planners understand that a conflict in the South China Sea would not remain local. If the US Navy attempts to blockade the Strait of Malacca or defend Taipei, Beijing’s countermove would be to threaten the American homeland or its logistics to force a negotiated settlement. A hostile Venezuela, armed with Chinese Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) systems, could hold the Gulf Coast hostage, effectively checking American power before a single carrier group leaves port.
Furthermore, the logistics of a Pacific war rely heavily on the Panama Canal. The commercial encroachments of Chinese firms in Panama have long worried Washington. With various Hong Kong-based entities holding interests in ports at both ends of the canal (Balboa and Cristóbal) the risk of closure during a crisis is non-zero. If the Canal is shut, the US Navy is forced to sail the long way around the Straits of Magellan. By removing Maduro, the US effectively breaks the northern arm of a potential Chinese pincer movement in the Caribbean.
The operation, ostensibly framed as a law enforcement action against ‘narco-terrorism,’ serves a dual purpose. The indictment detailing 25 years of state-sponsored cocaine trafficking provided the legal veneer, but the timing reveals the geopolitical intent. This is the implementation of a new, muscular Monroe Doctrine. It signals a retreat from the role of ‘Global Policeman’ and a pivot toward the ‘Regional Fortress.’ The Trump administration has signalled that it may tolerate chaos in the Donbas or the Levant. Still, it will not tolerate a peer competitor establishing a forward operating base in the Americas.
The fall of Maduro is also a sharp rebuke to the Kremlin, though less strategically damaging to Moscow than to Beijing. While Russia loses a platform for its own power projection and a rhetorical ally who validated Putin’s own authoritarianism, it is China that suffers the material loss. Beijing’s patient, expensive cultivation of influence has been undone in a night.
Ultimately, those seeking the logic of this intervention in ExxonMobil’s balance sheets are looking in the wrong place. This was not about corporate profits. It was about the grand chessboard of the 21st century. The capture of Maduro was a preparatory move, a clearing of the decks in preparation for a longer game of great-power competition. The United States has decided that if it must face the dragon in the Pacific, it will not have it breathing down its neck in the Caribbean.
Greenland, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico… who will the US target next?
When the earthquake is big, the porcelain rattles far and wide. And that’s exactly what’s happening now… in Cuba, Colombia, Mexico and even Greenland.
The plates are rattling after the Trump Administration’s swift, successful mission to capture Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, who was allegedly a major figure in the country’s international drug trafficking. Both husband and wife now face criminal charges in the US.
Who else is rattled? Well, the Democratic Party for one, but they are shaking with anger. They say that the raid was illegal and that they should have been consulted before any military action. The Trump Administration responds, quite plausibly, that no consultation was required, that disclosure to Congress would have leaked and jeopardized the mission, and that Congress was not notified in previous cases, notably the 1983 invasion of Grenada and the 1990 capture of Panama’s dictator, Manuel Noriega, who faced similar US warrants.
At home, both political parties face risks from the Venezuelan action. The Democrats, who begin every calculation with “what do we hate most about Trump now,” have managed to position themselves as supporters of a malign dictator who overrode a local presidential election, cozied up to China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba, and protected a brutal international drug cartel. Nice friends you got there.
The risk for Republicans is that US troops might be needed for a costly, long-term occupation since, despite Maduro’s ouster, his regime remains in place. If the US has to send in more troops to maintain order, if it is forced to maintain a significant ground force, the Democrats will say, quite rightly, “We told you so.” Voters will agree.
Ultimately, how voters react will hinge on two developments, both of which are still up in the air. Can the US find a supportive and effective government in Venezuela? That local support is vital if the US is to avoid a bloody, expensive occupation. Second, can US oil companies resume substantial production and do it quickly enough to affect US gas prices, at least before the 2028 election? Production cannot be restored much faster because Venezuela’s essential infrastructure degraded under the country’s corrupt, socialist leaders and because the local petroleum is difficult to process. It is “heavy oil,” which requires refining capacity. The good news is that Venezuela’s oil reserves are massive, dwarfing those of every other country, including Saudi Arabia. Trump stresses that bonanza and hardly mentions the restoration of the country’s democracy.
What about the global impact of the US action in Venezuela? Those begin with a clear message. When the Trump White House issues a threat, you better listen. Iran’s leaders didn’t and paid the price. Maduro was next in line. Trump has shown he is willing to use overwhelming force when our interests are at stake, and he believes he can do so without long-term entanglements.
Foreign leaders also saw that the US gave its foes ample warning. Trump acted only after trying to negotiate a safe exit for Maduro. When he refused, he ended up in a perp walk in Brooklyn.
The outcome strengthens Trump’s reputation for resolve and, as a result, the credibility of US threats around the world. You no longer hear the meme so popular only a few months ago: “Trump Always Chickens Out. After the swift strikes against Iran nuclear facilities and now the Venezuelan leaders, the TACO meme is dead. The poultry have come home to roost.
Whether this newfound reputation for resolve – and for success at low cost – endures will depend on whether the US can achieve its long-term goals in Venezuela without a burdensome, long-term commitment there. If the US gets bogged down, as it did in Afghanistan and Iraq, if US troops start dying on foreign soil, Trump will pay the price politically at home and abroad. Those troubles would undermine his willingness to act in other hot-spots and, thus, his credibility to issue effective threats.
Outside of Venezuela, where else is the porcelain rattling?
Cuba, for one. The communist regime there depends on economic and military support from Russia and Venezuela. Those are not strong partners these days. Russia can’t help much because it is tied down in Ukraine. Venezuela had been helping by sending oil in exchange for troops to protect Maduro. Now, that deal is dead, putting the Cuban regime in grave danger. The thugs in Havana must shudder when they look north at Trump and his tough-minded Secretary of State, whose family escaped from the island.
Although the US has a massive navy assembled in the Caribbean, it is unlikely to turn that force toward Cuba before the operation in Venezuela is complete. That means a successor government subservient to US interests. The more stable a pro-American government in Caracas, the nearer the day of reckoning in Havana.
Colombia is also endangered by the US action in Venezuela. Like the Maduro regime next door, it is a poster child for state-sponsored narco-terrorism. Until now, the US concentrated on Venezuela, though it has taken out some Colombian drug lines to North America in the Pacific. Now, with the Venezuelan pipeline stopped, the US can now devote more resources to stopping the flow from Colombia. Beyond that, direct intervention is unlikely.
Mexico can also expect to feel more US pressure. The key problems there are the drug cartels and their export of cocaine and fentanyl to US markets. The fentanyl is made from precursor chemicals shipped from China.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, who immediately denounced Trump’s action in Venezuela, is really caught between demands from Washington and threats from her country’s powerful cartels, which have proved willing to kill political leaders who cross them. One possibility would be direct US strikes on drug-processing plants inside Mexico.
Greenland, which is formally a Danish colony, also feels increasing pressure from the Trump administration. The US wants more control over the country to block the trans-Arctic naval routes used by Russia and possibly to exploit mineral resources.
Seizing Greenland would be easy, militarily. It would be difficult politically. Grabbing territory from a NATO ally would send tectonic shockwaves through the alliance and might end it. Still, Trump doesn’t seem to care much for America’s European partnership (the longest alliance in modern history). And he has just proven he is willing to carry through on his threats, though the threats to seize Greenland have been vague.
One common theme here is Trump’s focus on the Western Hemisphere, where he wants to exclude rival powers. That strategy put the US at odds with China, which has been building ties across South America and the Caribbean. China is also feeling the pinch from Trump’s trade restrictions. The only good news for Beijing is that it will benefit enormously from lower world oil prices. (Those hurt Russia and are compounded by sanctions on Russian oil exports.)
The real question for China, Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan is whether Trump’s focus on America’s backyard will reduce Washington’s deterrent posture in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia.
One area where that posture remains strong is the Persian Gulf. Trump has been very clear that America is “locked and loaded” and ready to bomb Iran again if the Mullahs and IRGC try to rebuild their nuclear and missile capacity.
Beyond that, long-time American allies are uncertain about America’s new direction in foreign policy. Their concerns are underscored by Trump’s increasing pressure on Ukraine. It’s not hard to see the stark change in US policy, where containing Moscow had been the stable North Star for eight decades. That star has dimmed, and allies are bound to wonder what other changes are in store. What will Trump’s new direction mean for them?
They are right to wonder.
Will Venezuela change?
The US military operation to track down, capture and fly Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro back to the United States for prosecution on drug trafficking charges went flawlessly. It was well-coordinated, meticulously planned and executed to a tee. Nearly two days after Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were taken into U.S. custody, details of the snatch-and-grab mission are beginning to percolate into the US media. It involved a cyberattack against Caracas’s electricity system, precision bombing against several Venezuelan airfields and ports, a low-flying helicopter assault on Maduro’s hideout and a CIA deployment that was operating in the country since August. By the time Americans woke up on Saturday morning, Maduro, a man the Trump administration slapped with a multi-count indictment back in 2020, was on a US warship headed to New York.
Yet if the attempt to arrest Maduro was clean, short and sharp, the Trump administration’s day-after plans for Venezuela are bumbling, confusing and hard to explain. Despite President Trump’s bombastic proclamation that the United States will now run Venezuela’s affairs until a viable, US-accepted political transition is in place, US leverage to implement such a lofty ambition will remain limited in part because the Maduro government is still very much alive. Unlike Iraq during the George W. Bush administration, there aren’t 150,000 U.S. troops occupying Venezuela right now – nor would the American public support such an extensive deployment of ground troops. When CBS News’ Margaret Brennan asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio how Washington planned to enact Trump’s occupation-from-a-distance strategy, he didn’t offer many specifics outside of reiterating what the United States hoped to see at the end of the process: a Venezuela that is a US partner rather than an adversary.
Indeed, it’s abundantly obvious what the Trump administration wants – and what it doesn’t. “You can’t flood this country [the United States] with gang members,” Rubio told NBC’s Meet the Press. “You can’t flood this country with drugs that are coming out of Colombia through Venezuela, with the cooperation of elements of your security forces. You can’t turn Venezuela into the operating hub for Iran, for Russia, for Hezbollah, for China, for the Cuban intelligence agents that control that country.” The fundamental question is how the White House intends to accomplish those dreams. One gets the sense that Trump and his senior advisers are still trying to determine what their plan is going to be.
Even so, we’re not flying totally blind. In the two days since Maduro was plucked out of the country, there are a few things we do know.
First, to the disappointment of many Venezuelan exiles in Miami who thought Washington would bestow its full support to opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, the Trump administration has thus far chosen to take a more pragmatic approach. Trump’s assertion that Machado didn’t have the respect of the Venezuelan population to rule successfully was undoubtedly a harsh thing to say in public, but it had the benefit of being true to a certain extent. The Venezuelan political opposition that Machado leads doesn’t possess a firm foothold in the country. Machado herself never articulated how she would govern Venezuela in a post-Maduro scenario beyond vague generalities such as tearing down the regime’s repressive apparatus, instituting a market economy and inviting American oil companies into Venezuela’s most lucrative sector. It’s highly unlikely the Venezuelan army and security services would have accepted her anyway. And she could never really offer a convincing explanation about how her ally, Edmundo Gonzales, who won last year’s presidential election and is currently residing in Spain, would be able to take his seat without buy-in from the old regime.
Take all these concerns into consideration and it becomes a bit clearer why the Trump administration is giving Delcy Rodriguez, Maduro’s former vice president, a chance to steer the post-Maduro ship. Trump has come to the conclusion that it’s better to work with someone within the system, however flawed, than give its chips to an alternative that is untested and may have the power to perform the job adequately. This is not necessarily a bad play: handing power over to Machado and Gonzalez would mean imploding the entire Chavismo political system that has ruled Venezuela for a quarter-century, a pie-in-the-sky ambition that would, in turn, require an extreme monetary commitment on the part of the United States and perhaps even an occupation of unlimited duration – one that could potentially spark a violent insurgency from those in the Venezuelan army who view a Machado-led Venezuela as existential for the institution’s power and prerogatives.
Whether or not this play works, none of us can say at this early stage. But the odds are stacked against the Trump administration. Delcy Rodriguez is commonly described as more moderate, gifted and technocratic than Maduro, but she is also a firm believer in Chavismo politics and has been a central player in that system since the days of Hugo Chavez. Her public comments to date, in which she blasted Washington for its aggression and demanded Maduro’s immediate release, don’t bode well for the vision Trump has in mind. The United States is in effect trying to transform Venezuela into a pro-American surrogate through officials who not only vomit at such a thought but have also spent their professional lives operating the very leftist authoritarian regime the United States seeks to destroy. It’s the equivalent of banging a square peg into a round hole and hoping enough pressure and fortitude will eventually mold the wood into a new shape.
At bottom, Trump doesn’t care about democracy in Venezuela. This entire campaign is about power, leverage and geopolitics, not ideology, moralism and governing philosophy. He would be perfectly fine with a friendly authoritarian who took Washington’s orders. But does such a person even exist? Is Delcy Rodriguez that person? And if she isn’t, is Trump prepared to plunge the US foreign policy establishment into even deeper involvement in Venezuela’s internal affairs? His threats to do so are emblematic of the Trump Corollary for Latin American: do what I want, or else.
The long history of kidnapping Latin American chieftains
One of the few benefits of being an anthropologist is the uncanny exhilaration one feels watching novel current events as re-runs from previous episodes in the history of mankind.
Donald Trump’s capture of Nicolás Maduro, President of Venezuela, is no exception. Kidnapping Latin American emperors is a continental tradition. It’s simply the most practical method for breaking the chain of command in the region. It triggers succession chaos, enables the extraction of resources and keeps the rest of the hierarchy more or less intact. In earlier centuries, it was Spain and Portugal. Today, it’s the United States.
In the colonial era, the objective was to secure enough gold to beat European rivals. Now, with an astonishing 90 percent of Venezuela’s oil produce heading to China, it’s about ensuring dominance over East Asia. And there has never been a better way of establishing dominance than by carrying out a good kidnapping.
Stuck in his cell in New York, awaiting trial, Maduro will take little comfort in the knowledge that he’s just the latest Latin American leader to go through this process
The first to try it in Latin America were the original Spanish conquerors led by Christopher Columbus. When he sunk his leather boots into the warm Caribbean sands in 1492, he discovered a continent of unprecedented size and a near-endless source of human slaves. But military resistance was immediate, and an Indian chieftain called Caonabó was the fiercest of all, directing surprise attacks that killed nearly all the men Columbus left on the islands when he regularly popped back to Spain. When the admiral heard the news, he sent a terrible deputy, Alonso de Ojeda, to sort out Caonabó and eradicate any opposition.
Ojeda, approaching the Indian chieftain peacefully with a mere handful of men, offered the chief some polished brass handcuffs and shackles, saying that they were “royal ornaments” worn by kings in Spain that offered them divine and magical properties. Caonabó believed him. And so he let the Spaniard put them on. Then, Ojeda snapped them shut, kidnapped the chief and galloped back to his settlement – effectively decapitating the native’s leadership. The entire culture crumbled soon after – and slaves poured into Seville. And I imagine the sketching of Caonabó’s face looked just like the shots of Maduro that have been circulating on social media today.
A few decades later, the conquistador Hernán Cortés landed in Tenochtitlan, present-day Mexico City, and discovered yet another ancient civilization. This time, though, the sheer scale and sophistication of the Aztecs surpassed even the greatest cities back in Europe. The Emperor Moctezuma II, feeling untroubled by a couple hundred badly-smelling foreigners, invited him into the city to show Cortés his personal aviary. The conquistador, following the Spanish tradition, immediately kidnapped him and put him under palace arrest.
Much like Trump’s recent announcement that the US would be running Venezuela for the time being, Cortés, too, governed the Aztec empire with Moctezuma as a puppet. The successful kidnap meant gold flowed back to Spain in abundance, but the emperor himself soon died after being taken onto the palace rooftop to try and calm his subjects. One of them, unhappy with the emperor’s performance, ended the whole charade by throwing a rock at his head.
Perhaps the most uncanny example happened a few years later, when another Spanish conquistador, Francisco Pizarro, landed on the shores of Peru to discover an even bigger empire: the Inca. Their emperor, Atahualpa, also looked upon these straggly foreigners with little cause for concern. A gambling man, Pizarro took the biggest risk of his life by getting his priest to read the Inca emperor the Requerimiento; a forced submission to Christianity with cultural roots in the Moorish tradition, recently expunged from Spain, of the summons to accept Islam or be attacked.
Atahualpa refused, as all self-respecting Latin American emperors did in the face of foreign conquest, but misjudged the cunning of the Spanish, who promptly closed the palace gates, locked out his army, butchered his bodyguards and, as per tradition, kidnapped the emperor and held him to ransom. Like Maduro, Atahualpa was handed a set of trumped up legal charges – in this case “idolatry” and adultery (the emperor enjoyed many wives). His kidnapping lasted eight months before the Spanish strangled him with an iron collar, but not before being forcibly baptized as “Don Francisco” after his conqueror and tormentor, Francisco Pizarro.
It did not surprise me to see that Nicolás Maduro, too, has already ended up in today’s cultural equivalent of the ritual humiliation once offered as forced baptism. Maduro and his sovereignty were instantly mocked online, videos of American eagles eyeing up his power, and quickly reposted on Donald Trump’s Truth Social feed. Stuck in his cell in New York, awaiting trial, Maduro will take little comfort in the knowledge that he’s just the latest Latin American leader to go through this process.
The long history of kidnapping Latin American Chieftains
One of the few benefits of being an anthropologist is the uncanny exhilaration one feels watching novel current events as re-runs from previous episodes in the history of mankind.
Donald Trump’s capture of Nicolas Maduro, President of Venezuela, is no exception. Kidnapping Latin American emperors is a continental tradition. It’s simply the most practical method for breaking the chain of command in the region. It triggers succession chaos, enables the extraction of resources, and keeps the rest of the hierarchy more or less intact. In earlier centuries, it was Spain and Portugal. Today, it’s the United States.
In the colonial era, the objective was to secure enough gold to beat European rivals. Now, with an astonishing 90 per cent of Venezuela’s oil produce heading to China, it’s about ensuring dominance over East Asia. And there has never been a better way of establishing dominance than by carrying out a good kidnapping.
‘Stuck in his cell in New York, awaiting trial, Maduro will take little comfort in the knowledge that he’s just the latest Latin American leader to go through this process.’
The first to try it in Latin America were the original Spanish conquerors led by Christopher Columbus. When he sunk his leather boots into the warm Caribbean sands in 1492, he discovered a continent of unprecedented size and a near-endless source of human slaves. But military resistance was immediate, and an Indian chieftain called Caonabó was the fiercest of all, directing surprise attacks that killed nearly all the men Columbus left on the islands when he regularly popped back to Spain. When the Admiral heard the news, he sent a terrible deputy, Alonso de Ojeda, to sort out Caonabó and eradicate any opposition.
Ojeda, approaching the Indian chieftain peacefully with a mere handful of men, offered the chief some polished brass handcuffs and shackles, saying that they were ‘royal ornaments’ worn by kings in Spain that offered them divine and magical properties. Caonabó believed him. And so he let the Spaniard put them on. Then, Ojeda snapped them shut, kidnapped the chief, and galloped back to his settlement – effectively decapitating the native’s leadership. The entire culture crumbled soon after, and slaves poured into Seville. And I imagine the sketching of Caonabó’s face looked just like the perp shots of Maduro that have been circulating on social media today.
A few decades later, the conquistador Hernán Cortés landed in Tenochtitlan, present-day Mexico City, and discovered yet another ancient civilization. This time, though, the sheer scale and sophistication of the Aztecs surpassed even the greatest cities back in Europe. The Emperor Moctezuma II, feeling untroubled by a couple hundred badly smelling foreigners, invited him into the city to show Cortés his personal aviary. The conquistador, following the Spanish tradition, immediately kidnapped him and put him under palace arrest.
Much like Trump’s recent announcement that the US would be running Venezuela for the time being, Cortés, too, governed the Aztec empire with Moctezuma as a puppet. The successful kidnap meant gold flowed back to Spain in abundance, but the emperor himself soon died after being taken onto the palace rooftop to try and calm his subjects. One of them, unhappy with the emperor’s performance, ended the whole charade by throwing a rock at his head.
Perhaps the most uncanny example happened a few years later, when another Spanish conquistador, Francisco Pizarro, landed on the shores of Peru to discover an even bigger empire: the Inca. Their emperor, Atahualpa, also looked upon these straggly foreigners with little cause for concern. A gambling man, Pizarro took the biggest risk of his life by getting his priest to read the Inca emperor the Requerimiento; a forced submission to Christianity with cultural roots in the Moorish tradition, recently expunged from Spain, of the summons to accept Islam or be attacked.
Atahualpa refused, as all self-respecting Latin American emperors did in the face of foreign conquest, but misjudged the cunning of the Spanish, who promptly closed the palace gates, locked out his army, butchered his bodyguards and, as per tradition, kidnapped the emperor and held him to ransom. Like Maduro, Atahualpa was handed a set of trumped up legal charges – in this case ‘idolatry’ and adultery (the emperor enjoyed many wives). His kidnapping lasted 8 months before the Spanish strangled him with an iron collar, but not before being forcibly baptised as ‘Don Francisco’ after his conqueror and tormentor, Francisco Pizarro.
It did not surprise me to see that Nicolas Maduro, too, has already ended up in today’s cultural equivalent of the ritual humiliation once offered as forced baptism. Maduro and his sovereignty were instantly mocked online, videos of American eagles eyeing up his power, and quickly reposted on Donald Trump’s Truth Social feed. Stuck in his cell in New York, awaiting trial, Maduro will take little comfort in the knowledge that he’s just the latest Latin American leader to go through this process.
Sunday shows round-up: Keir Starmer hasn’t ‘got the full picture at the moment’
Keir Starmer: ‘We simply haven’t got the full picture at the moment’
The US has struck Venezuela’s capital Caracas and captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. Maduro is now in detention in New York. In a press conference after the military operation, President Trump said that the US will ‘run the country until such time as we can do a safe… transition’, and that America’s ‘greatest oil companies in the world’ will be ‘very much involved’. In a long interview with Prime Minister Keir Starmer this morning, Laura Kuenssberg asked if an American attack on a sovereign state was in breach of international law, and whether the prime minister would condemn Trump’s actions. Starmer said it is a ‘fast moving situation’, that there was no UK involvement, and said he had been a ‘lifelong advocate of international law’. Kuenssberg noted that Nigel Farage has said the US action is ‘probably against international law’. Starmer said the government takes it ‘very seriously’, and he wanted to discuss with allies to gather ‘all the facts’.
Priti Patel on Maduro’s capture: ‘We’re not shedding any tears’
On GB News, Camilla Tominey asked Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel for the Conservatives’ reaction to the news coming from Venezuela. Patel called President Maduro ‘an oppressive tyrant… a terrible dictator’, and argued the US has been moving towards this action for a long time because of their national policy around drug trafficking. She said more information would need to come out around the legality of President Trump’s operation, but claimed it was ‘alarming’ that the British government doesn’t know more about the situation. Tominey asked Patel to clarify whether she supported Trump’s actions. Patel said her party support ‘the fact that Maduro has now gone’, and that the key thing is what sort of transition happens next in the country.
Starmer: ‘I will be sitting in this seat by 2027’
Laura Kuenssberg also asked Keir Starmer if he worries about his disastrous ratings in the polls. Starmer said he intended to be faithful to his ‘five year mandate to change the country’, and that he would be judged on whether he achieved that positive change. Kuenssberg pointed out that he would be judged much sooner in the upcoming May elections, and that many Labour politicians believe a change in leadership will be required if, as expected, the government performs badly in those elections. Starmer said that ‘every vote has to be earned’, but suggested local elections are not a ‘referendum on the Westminster government’, and are not a good predictor of the next general election. Kuenssberg asked if Starmer would step down under any circumstances if there were to be a leadership challenge. Starmer said that nobody wants to go back to the chaos of the leadership changes under the Tories, and claimed he would be here next year.
PM wants ‘closer alignment with the Single Market’
Laura Kuenssberg noted that some in the Labour Party have advocated for a customs union with the EU, and asked the prime minster if he would still rule that out. Starmer said the government has already taken steps to align with the Single Market on food and agriculture, and that it was in our national interest to have a ‘closer relationship with the EU’. Kuenssberg asked if Starmer meant the government is considering a relationship like that of Switzerland or Norway, who allow freedom of movement in exchange for access to the Single Market. Starmer said the government would consider aligning with the Single Market in other industries on a case by case basis, but ruled out freedom of movement.
Starmer hoping for peace in Ukraine this year
Security talks were held in Kyiv on Saturday between Ukraine and its allies. Ukraine has said a peace deal is ‘90%’ ready, with President Zelenskyy hoping for a summit in the US by the end of January. Laura Kuenssberg asked Keir Starmer if he thought 2026 could be the year that peace is achieved in the region. The prime minister said he hoped so, but that the key point is the security guarantee that would make any peace deal lasting. Starmer said ‘serious progress’ had been made on both the American and European sides on how to integrate potential security forces. Discussions around territory are the other ‘sticking point’, the prime minister noted, arguing that any decisions made have to be ‘for Ukraine, without being overly optimistic’. Starmer argued that peace in Ukraine would make a material difference in the UK, because fuel prices have increased dramatically as a result of the war.
AI could make degrees redundant
For decades, British politics has lived in the shadow of a major failure of social and economic policy: the imbalance between graduates and those who don’t go to university.
Many politicians have understood the need to do better for the ‘other 50%’ who don’t go to higher education. But few have delivered real change.
From Boris Johnson’s ‘levelling up’ to Keir Starmer’s newfound focus on ‘higher-level skills,’ the goal has remained constant: to provide a better deal for those who don’t go to ‘uni’.
Yet despite the speeches and the promises, the divide remains a major fault line of our politics. It explains Brexit (grads were Remain, non-grads Leave) and the crumbling of the Red Wall – Labour is increasingly the party of metropolitan graduates. It persists because no one has properly addressed slow wage growth and a perception of being ignored among many non-graduates.
What if the great rebalancing – that fabled parity of esteem – is delivered not by policymakers but by Artificial Intelligence?
The Reform UK platform has strong appeal for those who didn’t go to university and who feel alienated from a national conversation dominated by graduates and their liberal values. The British Social Attitudes study found that – across all age groups – only 5% of graduates voted Reform at the last election; it was 25% for non-grads.
In Whitehall, a graduate-dominated Civil Service has always struggled to take vocational education and training seriously – the promise of ‘parity of esteem’ for further and vocational education is seen as a bad joke by many in FE. At the highest level of economic policymaking, the Treasury naturally leans into comparative advantage – doing what we’re best at. That favours graduates, who gravitate to the South East and the financial services.
Dislodging PPE types from their (OK – our) perch is not easy. I used to run a think-tank trying to get UK policymakers to take non-university routes more seriously, and I largely failed. I concluded that as long as politicians, officials and journalists go to university- and want their kids to do the same – British discourse will favour HE and graduates.
But what if the solution isn’t a government white paper, some clever policies or even – gulp – some clever columns? What if the great rebalancing – that fabled parity of esteem – is delivered not by policymakers but by Artificial Intelligence?
The narrative surrounding AI and jobs is usually one of dread for the laptop classes. Graduate recruiting is waning as white-collar employers replace grads with machines. The latest reports say European banking is facing a bloodbath of automation. For the comfortable graduate, AI is starting to look like very bad news – not just for their own careers, but for their children’s prospects.
But there is an overlooked physical reality to this revolution. AI is not an ethereal concept; it requires vast, sprawling infrastructure – vast acres of data centres that need to be built, powered, and maintained. This is where the oceans of cash AI companies and institutional investors are spending will flow to. And money on this scale changes things.
In Britain, spending on these sites is projected to surge from £1.75bn today to £10bn annually by 2029, with nearly 100 new projects in the pipeline. Blackstone’s site at Blyth alone is expected to require 1,200 construction workers.
Here is the irony: you cannot prompt a data centre into existence. You need electricians, pipefitters, ventilation engineers, and steel fixers. You need specialists who can do industrial work to exacting standards and on time – delays are intolerable. These are very people the British economy is currently desperate for.
The Construction Industry Training Board says Britain’s construction industry faces a significant workforce shortage, needing approximately 239,300 new recruits over the next five years.
The economics here are not complicated. When demand for specialised industrial work surges and the supply of workers remains constrained by years of neglect, wages rise.
In the US, tradespeople moving into data centre construction are seeing pay jumps of up to 30%, with some earning well into six figures.
Britain is not America, but the mechanism is the same. Some recruiters in the UK already talk of ‘data centre premiums’ of 10-20% over traditional commercial work because the work is specialized and the schedules are tight.
As datacentre spending rises toward that £10bn-a-year trajectory, this premium will spread beyond the fenced-off server-farms into grid connections, substations, and the sprawling supply chain that supports them.
This isn’t just about the money in the bank; it’s about the status that politics measures. For years, governments have tried to make technical routes attractive through slogans and moving money around – but nothing really changed. By and large, the politicians’ kids kept choosing uni.
But a sustained wage premium for skilled manual work would change the default choice for teenagers and their parents when it comes to education and employment.
Public opinion is open to this. Nearly half of Britons think too many young people go to university, and the majority now see apprenticeships as better preparation for the future. BAE Systems – which runs coveted apprenticeships – says six in ten young people see apprenticeships as more appealing than a degree. For now, graduates’ lifelong earnings exceed non-grads’, but will that always be so?
If the graduate bargain continues to look less like a bargain – with fewer entry jobs and less security – the plumber becomes the new professional in terms of pay and esteem.
AI might just do what years of politicians fiddling couldn’t: make the trades the most rational, prestigious, and lucrative path for the next generation.
This shift is where AI could be politically transformative. For years, ministers have tried to rebalance Britain by changing slogans. AI offers a shift in the underlying labor market that makes trades visibly and immediately more attractive to the next cohort.
If you are 18 and can see graduate roles fading while skilled trades command higher wages and clearer progression, your calculation changes. And in time, society changes too. Keep an eye out for politicians talking publicly about their own children choosing a trade rather than a degree.
The Red Wall was lost and Britain left the EU because of a sense of economic and political alienation among those who didn’t go to university. Nigel Farage could well become PM for similar reasons. That would be a big change. But if the future belongs to the people who build datacentres rather than those who move money and data around, politics will change more dramatically still.
Maduro got off lightly
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator – or ex-dictator now – might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once he’s had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam Hussein looked when he was dragged out his “spider hole” in 2003 – or the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done with him.
Maduro didn’t lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried, and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that lifestyle.
‘Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was ensconced in his palace.’
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow. MAGA’s non-interventionist wing says he shouldn’t have acted against Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesn’t go far enough – now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy. Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of the left there’s outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as he’s done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say it’s a bad thing Maduro’s gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasn’t invaded Venezuela, and he hasn’t expressed idealistic aims for what comes next. Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at least have seized Iraq’s oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S. to dispose of Venezuela’s considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and democratic Venezuela.
‘I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country. She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect,’ the president said.
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right now Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge, and she’s cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since Maduro’s abduction have been defiant. And yet…
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he – along with the rest of his regime – knew he couldn’t do anything about it. Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was Maduro’s indispensable support. Do its leaders think there’s a deal to be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held socialist ‘elections’ all along. Is some hybrid between regime continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and foreign interests represent.
But Venezuela’s dilemmas are not so different from those facing many other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if Maduro’s policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone, the country’s next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a regime does for America’s interests as he defines them. That’s a lower standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past. George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to Trump’s successes, might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle among themselves, as well as with Trump’s America.
Labour MPs squabble over Venezuela
Oh dear. It seems that all is not well in the party of good comrades. The Americans’ stunning snatch-and-grab operation in Venezuela has divided opinion among Labour MPs. Jeremy Corbyn may no longer be running the show – but it seems some still mourn the ending of Maduro’s regime. Among them was Richard Burgon, Jezza’s onetime business spokesman. The hard-of-thinking socialist reacted with fury to Keir Starmer’s mealy-mouthed statement, tweeting that:
The Prime Minister should respond to an illegal bombing and kidnapping by Trump in exactly the way he would if Putin had carried it out. Either Keir Starmer believes in international law – or he doesn’t. You can’t pick and choose. Time to stand up to Trump’s gangster politics!
It prompted a fellow Labour MP to hit back quickly with new boy David Taylor writing on X that:
You’re in no place to lecture the PM on international ethics given your previous praise for Maduro – not to mention your 11 or so appearances on Putin-controlled Russia TV. Maduro was dictator who killed, tortured and repressed Venezuelans. Enjoy the ’emergency online rally’
Ding, ding, ding! Mr S gives this one to Taylor – good luck surviving in a party with Maduro enthusiasts. Talk about Caracas eh?
Reform and the real populist threat
We’re scarcely into the new year and already luminaries on the liberal left have resumed one of their favourite pastimes: issuing alarmist forebodings about the threat posed by populism, and imploring everyone that Reform UK must be stopped.
That is why Starmer and those on the left will always invoke the bogeyman of Reform and forever diabolise its brand of ‘populism’
Just as the final days of 2025 saw Gillian Tett of the Financial Times warn on Newsnight about ‘the rise of “The Three Ps”: populism, protectionism and extreme patriotism’, this year had barely got started before Sir Chris Powell, the New Labour former advertising strategist, chimed in to remind us of a great peril facing this country: the ‘existential’ and ‘new and terrifying threat’ embodied by Reform.
As Powell writes in the Guardian: ‘We are at a very dangerous moment. We simply cannot afford to allow Reform UK to have a free run, and become established and entrenched as a credible potential government in the minds of disenchanted voters.’ He concludes by urging Keir Starmer to undertake a ‘fundamental reset’ to see off this danger.
Leaving aside the reality that most people think the most ‘terrifying threat’ facing this country comes from people who actively hate it – those who appear to advocate for killing as many Jews ‘as possible’ or who think white people are ‘dogs and monkeys’ – the notion that Reform represents an ‘existential’ threat is obviously scaremongering hyperbole. Certainly, at the moment, a third of the electorate don’t agree.
When liberal-left dignitaries invoke the word ‘populism’ in such a derogatory fashion, they invariably have in mind demagoguery, the inclination by statesmen to appeal to the most grave concerns and fears of the populace, and promise in turn simple remedies – remedies which they either could not possibly deliver, or which would have a detrimental effect on the country if they did.
Some of Reform’s proposals in recent years have met this criterion. These include promising to nationalise the steel and water industries, and scrap the two-child benefit cap, all of which don’t cohere with their otherwise free-market stance, and which would all come at a punitive cost. Yet even Reform have started to show signs of coming to terms with reality, conceding that you can’t promise the earth to a restless yet jaundiced electorate that has had its fill of broken promises: in November, Farage announced modifications to the party’s fiscal policies, admitting that substantial tax cuts were ‘not realistic’ until spending is brought under control and borrowing costs reduced.
The same kind of realism has been conspicuously absent among that other ascendent, more recent, and far more naive populist movement: the Green party. Under the stewardship of Zack Polanski this organisation has jettisoned most pretence at being ‘green’ in its policies and has instead become green in its attitude. Seeing fertile appeal among a traditional hard left that has never understood economics, and appealing to the worst inclinations of a Generation Z mindset that believes everything should be free, and that all problems can be solved by ‘being really nice’, Polanski has steered his party into the realm of fantasy. His policies include seeking to weaken further our national borders, legalising most hard drugs, printing money and taxing to the hilt the super-rich. This cocktail of deranged utopianism would bring ruination upon this country.
Even those on the orthodox left, those whose remit is not to appeal to the most credulous instincts of the politically illiterate, recognise the folly of Polanski’s particular brand of populism. Only this week, the Fabian Society warned that the Greens were offering ‘unicorn’ solutions, with its general secretary, Joe Dromey, saying that Polanski’s wealth tax ‘won’t solve the kind of fiscal challenge that we face…we won’t be able to fund the public services that we need just by a wealth tax that affects the top 0.1 per cent of the population.’
Dromey naturally included Reform as the other dangerous face of populism: ‘one is offering you a unicorn, the other’s peddling hatred’. Such remarks are mandatory for those on the left, irrespective of hue. Progressive voices will always target Reform, forever spreading alarm and instilling fear about its ‘hatred’, because such verbal posturing assuages their egos and serves well their public image. By ignoring the biggest threat to this country today, its fragmentation along sectarian lines, through their evasion and by continually changing the subject, progressives permit themselves to look virtuous and superior to those ghastly, vulgarian merchants of ‘hate’.
Of course Sir Chris Powell doesn’t want ‘to allow Reform UK to have a free run’, and he needn’t tell Keir Starmer this. Our Prime Minister ensured as much last year by postponing local and mayoral elections in areas the party were widely predicted to win.
And that is why Starmer and those on the left will always invoke the bogeyman of Reform and forever diabolise its brand of ‘populism’: they just don’t trust the people.
Social media visa vetting would protect Britain’s Jews
You don’t need to be a fervent admirer of Donald Trump to recognise that, on matters of national security and cultural cohesion, he hits the bullseye our establishment prefers to evade. His administration’s recent proposal – requiring travellers from visa-waiver countries, including Britain, to disclose five years of social media history as part of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) – has drawn the usual transatlantic sneers: an assault on privacy, a chilling of free expression, another Maga excess.
Yet recent events show social media vetting can expose troubling views. If Britain wants to protect its Jewish citizens – especially young scholars besieged on university campuses – it should follow suit without delay.
I have friends who lecture in Oxford’s ancient colleges: moderate men and women who’ve spent decades nurturing young minds. Over quiet dinners in college halls, they confide what official reports only half-admit: Jewish undergraduates arrive wide-eyed with excitement, only to hide kippot under caps, avoid certain quads after dark, or whisper Hebrew in libraries to evade glares – or worse. The Community Security Trust’s (CST) figures are grim: thousands of anti-Semitic incidents nationwide in recent years, with campuses seeing sharp surges no amount of vice-chancellorial hand-wringing can conceal.
Britain, proud shelterer of the persecuted, must not become a haven for their tormentors
CST recorded 272 university-related anti-Semitic incidents in the 2023/24 academic year alone, a 117 per cent increase from the previous year. Though the number of reports fell to 35 in higher education for January to June of last year, levels remain historically high amid ongoing tensions.
My friends describe a more insidious drip of intimidation, often tied to protests importing rhetoric from distant conflicts. Many overseas students hail from regions where anti-Jewish sentiment is regrettably commonplace. They post freely online – endorsing violence against ‘Zionists’ in terms crossing into plain anti-Semitism – then submit polished visa applications.
We demand academic transcripts, bank statements, biometric data; we probe ties to terrorism. Yet we avert our gaze from digital trails revealing hostile intentions. Why? A misplaced delicacy about ‘privacy’ for those seeking the privilege – not right – of entry.
The controversy over Alaa Abd el-Fattah’s return illustrates how inflammatory online histories can resurface. Successive governments lobbied for this dual-national activist’s release from Egyptian prison. Keir Starmer was ‘delighted’ at his Boxing Day arrival. Days later, old posts emerged: appearing to be calls to kill ‘Zionists’, endorsements of violence, abhorrent statements.
Abd el-Fattah apologised unequivocally, claiming the context of his words was twisted – and if you believe that, I have a bridge in London to sell you. Britain has taken for a fool by chancers like this for decades.
This episode exposed an almost surreal, unbelievable oversight in due diligence – one Jewish organisations rightly called deeply concerning. Governments overlooked a public digital record for diplomatic gain, while ordinary visa applicants face no systematic social media checks.
The double standard is stark. Of course, privacy concerns are valid: mandating social media disclosure risks chilling speech, misinterpreting context, or biasing against certain nationalities. Implementation must be fair, with clear guidelines to distinguish incitement from debate. Yet when safety is at stake, the privilege of entry outweighs these risks – especially given existing requirements over things like criminal records.
Trump’s measure is no invasion; it’s prudence. Entry is a host’s courtesy. We already require proof of funds, health checks, criminal histories. Why baulk at public platforms where extremism festers? The proposal targets incitement to violence and terrorism support – not legitimate criticism of any government, including Israel’s. Had Britain mandated similar disclosure for student visas, how many contributors to campus intimidation might have been turned away?
This isn’t about closing doors; Britain benefits from talented foreigners. It’s basic stewardship: safeguarding our social fabric from imported division and hatred. In an age where ancient prejudices revive online and spill onto streets and quads, wilful blindness is negligence.
The Home Office should act: amend our Electronic Travel Authorisation (set to replace many visas) to require five years of social media identifiers. Let officers scan for anti-Semitic incitement or proscribed group support. Objectors can stay home; the rest – including frightened Jewish students seeking peaceful study – would rest easier.
Trump, for all his bluster, is grasping a timeless conservative truth: a nation blind to foreseeable harm abandons its core duty to protect. Britain, proud shelterer of the persecuted, must not become a haven for their tormentors. It’s time to follow America’s lead – with common sense, not cowardice.
Britain’s obsession with dogs is unhealthy
‘Puppiccino or hot dogolate, Bertie? Or will you try our special Christmas blend?’ The barista leaned across the counter, eyes fixed not on the man holding the lead but on the immaculately groomed corgi at his feet. For a moment, I wondered if this was a case of exceptionally poor diction and misplaced attention. Surely Bertie was the human member of the pair – the one capable of vocalising a preference? But no. Bertie’s tail wagged decisively. His companion – in another era known as the owner – translated boldly: ‘Bertie would like the Christmas blend, please.’
British coffee shops have long catered to a diverse clientele: caffeine addicts, closet sugar junkies (‘frappuccino with extra syrup and cream – no espresso’), ethical purists (‘five pounds for a cup of tea? Oh – organic leaves and sustainably sourced?! I’ll take a whole pot!’), and aficionados of alternative milks. Extending hospitality to dogs may have been the logical next step, but while it once felt like a novelty, it is now inescapable. Bertie is not unusual. He is a member of one of Britain’s fastest-growing demographic groups: canes in loco filiorum – dogs as substitutes for children.
In Britain’s case, dogs commandeer attention once devoted to raising the next generation
The numbers are striking. The UK now has over 11 million dogs, up three million in 15 years, with nearly a third of adults owning one, according to the 2025 PDSA PAW Report. Fertility rates, by contrast, have sunk to historic lows: around 1.4 children per woman in England and Wales, 1.25 in Scotland – well below population replacement level. Put plainly: fewer babies, more cockapoos. Some estimates suggest that roughly 7.5 million children under the age of ten live in the UK – over three million fewer than the country’s dogs. A stroll past the children’s play area in my local park makes the shift instantly visible. The swings are still. The dogs are not. Toddlers are routinely outnumbered three to one.
Amid this canine ascendance, Britain has built an evaluative culture around their inclusion. The annual DogFriendly Awards ranks pubs, cafes, attractions, and even entire towns by how welcoming they are to dogs. Cockermouth claimed the 2025 title, displacing last year’s winner, Bury St Edmunds. One wonders whether the town’s name gave this year’s champion a leg up. Dog festivals proliferate: Woofstock, DogFest, Dogstival – celebrations of canine culture complete with music, family entertainment and, in the words of one host, a ‘bustling marketplace featuring artisan food, crafts, and unique shopping stalls’. These festivals are not Crufts, where skills, intelligence, beauty or utility are judged. What is celebrated here is the dog’s full admission to the family table.
This reflects a population increasingly confused about how to order its loves and affections. Britain has long been fond of dogs (Queen Victoria owned no fewer than 88 collies!) and there is nothing wrong with this. They can be both delightful and useful. But the 21st century twist is that they have been hauled from the kennels into the kitchen by owners who style themselves as ‘mummy’ or ‘daddy’ to their furry pup. Dogs now have birthdays, personalised diets, and workplace wellbeing schemes built around their emotional support credentials. A friend was once instructed by a ‘dog behaviourist’ to feed her client – yes, the dog – chicken curry and rice. And, as Bertie demonstrates, dogs are now invited to exercise consumer choice. We are no longer merely fond of dogs; we have reorganised life around them.
C. S. Lewis warned that civilisation falters when secondary goods are promoted beyond their proper place – when what should decorate life is mistaken for what should direct it. When ‘second things’ are put first, he argued, we lose both the higher purposes of life and the lesser pleasures. ‘The woman who makes a dog the centre of her life’, he wrote with uncanny foresight, ‘loses, in the end, not only her human usefulness and dignity but even the proper pleasure of dog keeping’. His solution was simple: put first things first, and second things will follow.
Modern canine culture shows just how easily this inversion occurs. Dogs increasingly function as substitutes not only for children, but for life’s meaning and purpose – the very ‘first things’ that Lewis insisted must not be displaced. In Christian terms, those first things are not vague ideals but a clear ordering of life: ‘Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you’ (Matthew 6:33). God before goods, purpose before comfort.
When that order weakens and first things recede, a vacuum opens, into which the second things advance. Passion and attention do not disappear; they are redirected. In Britain’s case, dogs commandeer attention once devoted to raising the next generation, sustaining communities, and orientating life beyond the self – towards God, moral formation, enduring responsibility, and the cultivation of the soul.
It is fitting that it should be a parish in Lewis’ spiritual home – the Church of England – that offered so precise an illustration of the age this Christmas. St John the Baptist Church in Holland Park marked the Nativity with dog-friendly carol services, in which five priests blessed hundreds of dogs and presented their owners with a certificate. A service celebrating the birth of a child – not merely any child, but the one Christians proclaim as God incarnate – was thus proclaimed to pews full of pets. Well-meaning, warmly received, heavily-attended; a quiet surrendering to the idea that the modern path to transcendence may run not through repentance or reverence, but through paws and wagging tails.
The stable at Bethlehem did indeed house animals, but their presence framed the scene; they played no part in it. It was the shepherds who came to worship the child Jesus – not their sheep. Yes, St. Francis preached to the birds and spoke tenderly to animals; but he did so in a world bursting with children, families and vocations, and from a life ordered uncompromisingly around God. We, by contrast, usher our dogs onto centre stage in a country where those first things have thinned out. The difference is not affection but order.
Other churches will doubtless follow suit. Just like the coffee shops and much of the public square, they will be keen to remain welcoming, relevant and inclusive. Perhaps, in time, Bertie will be offered not only a Christmas blend but also a liturgical role. Asked whether he renounces Satan and all his works, he will respond as he always does: with a hopeful wag, a wary growl, or indifferent silence. And somewhere between that silence and the stillness of the swings in the park, we may pause to reflect; and in that pause, decide to restore our attention to the enduring responsibilities that give life its meaning, especially those expressed through raising the next generation. Someone, after all, will need to interpret for Bertie’s offspring.
Kim and Putin’s growing bromance should make us nervous
As Kim Jong-un himself announced at a New Year’s Eve event in Pyongyang, 2025 was an ‘unforgettable year’ for North Korea. During the final weekend of the year, the Supreme Leader supervised a ‘nuclear-capable’ long-range strategic cruise missile test, which he termed an ‘exercise of war deterrence’ against the ‘security threats’ facing Pyongyang.
The test followed a week of oily letters between Kim and his new best friend, none other than Vladimir Putin. The Russian leader lauded the ‘heroic dispatch’ of North Korean troops to assist Russia’s war against Ukraine as an example of the ‘militant fraternity’ between Pyongyang and Moscow. Even if dynamics in the Ukraine war change this year, the West cannot afford to overlook the mounting security threats the ties between these two ‘invincible’ allies present.
Seven years ago, Kim and Donald Trump were in the throes of exchanging what the US president infamously called ‘love letters’. Fast forward to 2026, and Putin has taken Trump’s place. In response to Putin’s missive, the North Korean leader gushed that Pyongyang’s relations with Moscow had become a ‘sincerest alliance of sharing blood, life, and death in the same trench’. It was a not-too-subtle reference to North Korea’s deployment of approximately 14,000 to 15,000 troops to the Kursk region, which, Kim added, would be ‘eternally recorded’ in the history books as a ‘great biography of the alliance’.
Moscow and Pyongyang know that developing a nuclear programme does not come cheap
To welcome the new year, Kim praised North Korean troops serving in Russia for ‘heroically’ preserving his country’s ‘dignity and honour’. Last year marked a significant juncture in Russia-North Korea relations, being the first time since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that both countries referred to each other as ‘allies’.
Kim wants to keep his relations with a client who has so far sent over 12 million rounds of artillery, several hundred missiles, and troops, engineers, construction workers, and deminers to aid Russia’s war machine. At the same time, the North Korean leader’s quest for recognition as a de facto nuclear-armed state has intensified, in no small part owing to remuneration from Russia in the form of military and (likely) missile technology and, at the very least, knowledge. Only last week, Kim inspected factories producing short-range missiles and rockets. Slowing down missile and nuclear development, let alone denuclearising, is one New Year’s resolution the North Korean leader will not be making.
North Korea’s last nuclear test – its sixth – was in 2017. Only Kim can decide whether 2026 will see the long-awaited seventh test. On the one hand, there is no better time than the present. The impotence of the United Nations security council means that Pyongyang can escape sanctions-free. On the other hand, Kim may choose to hold off and, instead, pursue a meeting with Donald Trump to bolster the North Korean leader’s legitimacy, all the while offering vacuous concessions and persuading the man who offered to take him to a baseball game to give him and his country his much-craved recognition.
Trump and Kim failed to meet last October prior to the Asia-Pacific Economic Community (APEC) summit in Seoul. With the American president now focused on negotiating an increasingly elusive peace in Ukraine, a tête-à-tête with ‘Little Rocket Man’ may not be high on the White House’s agenda.
What we can be more certain about, however, is the widening and deepening cooperation between North Korea and Russia. Moscow’s end-of-year gift to Pyongyang of a portrait of Kim Yo-jong, the vitriolic sister of Kim Jong-un, was more than a mere gesture. Earlier in the year, Moscow pledged to bankroll films praising North Korean soldiers for ‘liberating’ the Kursk region, highlighting Moscow’s indebtedness to its Cold War client.
Both countries also know that developing a nuclear programme does not come cheap. Last year, North Korea stole over £2 billion in cryptocurrency, an increase of over 50 per cent from its earnings in 2024. With comparably fewer attacks last year (than in 2024), Pyongyang’s ability to steal exorbitant sums of cash through new means is only improving. North Korea may be known as a hermit kingdom, but when it comes to funding its weapons of mass destruction programme and filling the Supreme Leader’s slush fund, rapid adaptation is essential. We should not rule out Pyongyang cooperating with Moscow in the cyber domain.
As North Korea prepares for the year ahead, Kim will want to write the next chapter of his ‘great biography’ by strengthening ties with Russia. With Pyongyang underscoring its intention to deter Seoul, Washington, and their allies, the West cannot sit idly by. In Great Britain, one of our own New Year’s resolutions must be to show greater resolve in combatting these strengthening ties between Moscow, Pyongyang, and Beijing. The next time North Korea tests a ‘new’ missile or unveils a ‘new’ weapon, the prospect of Russian involvement in their design or creation is likely to be higher than before.
Before we combat these expanding threats, however, we must get our own house in order. As Keir Starmer, Yvette Cooper, and the Labour party try and patch over their initial praise for the return of Alaa Abd-el-Fattah to our shores, a worrying question remains. If Britain in 2026 openly embraces someone like him, how will it respond to Russia, North Korea, and China, who will do all they can to exploit Britain’s weaknesses?
Can the ‘Donroe doctrine’ really change Venezuela?
During the early hours of Saturday January 3, an official statement from the White House, signed by President Trump, confirmed that the US had captured both President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and taken them out of Venezuela.
At 2 a.m. sharp, thunderous sounds echoed through the capital city, part of what Trump called today “an assault not seen since World War Two… one of the most stunning displays of military might and competence in American history.” It was certainly an attack unlike anything ever seen in Venezuela. Within two hours, all of Caracas looked like a massive fireball, communications were down and areas were without power.
The US deployed fighter jets in strategic areas: they bombed and destroyed the Port of La Guaira (Venezuela’s most important port), as well as El Cuartel de la Montaña, a security and military base created by Hugo Chávez on top of a mountain, as well as various military and intelligence installations. The headquarters of the DGCIM – Directorate General of Military Counterintelligence – burned down.
The Maduro regime issued a lengthy official statement, attributing the attack to the United States, saying, “The objective of this attack is none other than to seize Venezuela’s strategic resources, particularly its oil and minerals, attempting to forcibly break the nation’s political independence. They will not succeed.”
Military sources told me that the Army and National Guard control access routes to major cities. The attack took Venezuelan authorities and military forces completely by surprise, and they were unable to repel the attacks, which ceased after almost two hours. However, airspace over Caracas remains filled with American fighter jets. AH-1Z helicopters struck against military and intelligence targets, including airports, barracks, the Federal Legislative Palace and Fort Tiuna, the country’s largest military base. Many areas of Caracas were without power, including the poorest neighborhoods and the Higuerote Military Base, home to all of Venezuela’s war helicopters, which the US attacks destroyed.
This puts the Venezuelan military in a truly precarious position. Only one major objective remains, where the battle will be fierce: the city of Maracay.
A high-ranking military officer told me around 3 a.m. today that all troops have been assembled and are now confined to their barracks to prepare for a potential ground engagement, as well as to secure the Libertador Air Base in Maracay.
The military is blocking access to all major cities, with main avenues closed off by tanks and military vehicles. Unofficially, this officer told me that while the threat was present, Maduro foolishly hadn’t expected it to escalate, as he had called for dialogue with Trump the previous day, offering cooperation in the fight against drug trafficking and even facilitating oil negotiations.
The US has been laying the groundwork for the strike for nearly a month. On December 9, an American MQ-4C Triton drone (for aerial, land and sea monitoring and surveillance) was detected days later, another similar drone crossed the skies over Maracay.
On December 19, there was an explosion in the La Goajira region, also in Zulia state. They found fragments of an American missile. At midnight on December 24, a massive explosion occurred at a chemical plant in Zulia state, a major oil-producing region.
Then, on the night of December 29, there was another explosion in a warehouse at the racetrack in the city of Valencia, Carabobo state. Sources confirm the existence of a clandestine fentanyl laboratory there.
“We didn’t see this coming, since President Maduro was counting on the possibility of dialogue,” said the source, who wished to remain anonymous.
So why mobilize such a force against a country where the militias seem like something out of an absurdist comedy, where everything is in disarray, and where Maduro looks like a clown who can’t find his way back to the circus? The answer: the real threat was never Maduro. It’s everything behind him that Hugo Chávez began to build through his alliances with Iran, Syria, Russia and China. This is the real enemy, a very dangerous one.
Despite Trump saying “we are going to run the country” until there can be a judicious transfer of power, a “proper transition,” the US has yet to establish complete control.
Maracay is the capital of Aragua state in the heart of Venezuela. Fewer than half a million people live in these valleys along the Venezuelan coast. But strategically, it’s a key city for the Venezuelan military.
Most importantly, it’s home to the Libertador Air Base, the headquarters of Venezuela’s elite fighter jets as well as a large array of dangerous, modern combat aircraft. The base also houses the 83-I UAV Squadron, which operates Iranian-made reconnaissance and attack drones, assembled locally. Last year, between November 28 and 30, the base hosted the Venezuela 2025 Industrial Aeronautics Expo, where aerial displays featuring these operational systems were held. To date, the drone factory remains shrouded in secrecy, although sources within the institution have confirmed to me that Iranian and Russian specialists operate it.
And all of this is the result of that first meeting between Iran and Venezuela in 2005, which established the alliance. Hezbollah’s presence is confirmed, and its cells are expanding throughout almost the entire country. More than 10,000 soldiers are on the ground, ready for anything. If the US has to enact a “much bigger wave” against Venezuela, as Trump says, this will be the target.
Second, but no less important, this area houses the central base of the terrorist organization Tren de Aragua, which Trump has often denounced. Everyone knows where it’s located: inside Tocorón prison, controlled by narco-terrorists and leaders of all organized crime in Venezuela, who have managed to create their own networks outside of Venezuela. They’ve been involved with Black Lives Matter, riots in the United States and international crimes.
Tocorón prison is like stepping into the Twilight Zone: there are restaurants, spas, swimming pools and tunnels for the leaders to come and go – all under the protection of the regime. Nobody in this country messes with Tren de Aragua. These men, supported by the drug trafficking of the Cartel of the Suns, Hezbollah, Colombian guerrillas and the Chavista regime, are the true masters of evil and power.
In the initial attack, Donald Trump has essentially eliminated all military components in Caracas and taken Maduro.
However, the command center for drug trafficking and organized crime, the base of drones capable of engaging in combat and the stronghold of Hezbollah leaders in Maracay, remain untouched. This is the region that could decide the end of more than a quarter-century of dictatorship.
Until last night, the daily life of a Venezuelan largely consisted of trying to find food for the day and being careful not to get stopped by police and/or military personnel, or people in plain-clothes who work for the government and operate with impunity. They’ll take your phone and search to see if you’re criticizing the government, and if so, that’s it, you’ll disappear. This has happened to many fellow journalists. They simply vanished. The regime even created an app called Venapp, so you can become a snitch and send information on anyone who supposedly threatens the government. You can’t trust anyone, not even your family. That’s why, for Venezuelans, it was better to get drunk, buy things with money sent by relatives abroad and, for some, hold onto the hope that the regime would end someday.
That day seems to have finally arrived in the early hours of this morning, in a way few could have imagined. Not even Maduro himself, who just a couple of days ago was dancing and cracking jokes on national television.
But we’re only seeing all this through Instagram and TikTok, since the Venezuelan state seized all media outlets years ago. Every day, without exception, Maduro addressed the nation, repeating the same thing: everything is fine. So very few Venezuelans actually watched or listened to the national media. Their favorite distraction was watching Turkish and Korean soap operas, since the Venezuelan telenovela industry, once one of the most important in the world, has disappeared.
Now, for the first time in decades, Venezuelans have woken up to an unfamiliar country. The places where they used to go for breakfast empanadas are closed, as are markets and bakeries. This morning, a different Venezuela dawned, one for which most of us are unprepared. The parties, the drinking and the games are over. Welcome to a new reality.
At 5 a.m., the American planes disappeared, as did several key figures in the Chavista regime. Rumors abound of dead Chavista leaders. For now, only one fact is clear: the entire military force in Caracas is inactive, destroyed. It only took a few hours to make it happen. The “Donroe Doctrine” is now in place. And Nicolás Maduro has fallen.
The keffiyeh crew’s curious silence on Iran
And just like that, the left loses interest in the Middle East. In 2025, they spoke of little else. They culturally appropriated Arab headwear, poncing about in China-made keffiyehs. They wrapped themselves in the Palestine colors. They frothed day and night about a “murderous regime” – you know who. And yet now, as a Middle Eastern people revolt against their genuinely repressive rulers, they’ve gone schtum.
It is especially electrifying to see Iran’s young women once again raise a collective middle finger to their Islamist oppressors
What is it about revolts in Iran that rankle the activist class? These people love to yap about “resistance” and “oppression.” Yet the minute men and women in Iran rise up in resistance against the oppressive theocracy that immiserates and subjugates them, they go coy. Their solidarity evaporates. Their flag-waving ends. They go back to tweeting about TV.
It’s happening again as the latest Iranian uprising enters its seventh day. In cities across Iran, people are protesting the economic mismanagement and clerical tyranny of the Islamist ruling class. It started a week ago, in Tehran, when shopkeepers shuttered their businesses and hit the streets to express their anger about yet another sharp fall in the Iranian currency against the US dollar. They were swiftly joined by other Iranians furious about declining living standards.
The protests are morphing into a collective rage against theocracy itself. Students have joined: young women and men sick of being told what to wear and how to think by the ayatollah classes. It is now the largest revolt to have shaken Iran since the uprising in 2022 over the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, a young woman from Iranian Kurdistan who was accused by the morality police of not wearing her veil properly.
There have been images of unimaginable bravery from the past week. We’ve seen young women dancing and laughing, their hair freely flowing, in defiance of those cranky old men who think such “sinful” creatures should cover up and shut up. We’ve seen a lone man sitting in the middle of the road, blocking the way of the regime’s riot goons on their motorbikes. It has echoes of Tiananmen Square’s “tank man.”
For those of us who love liberty, who support the freedom of the individual against the dictates of theocratic strongmen, these are stirring scenes. It is especially electrifying to see Iran’s young women once again raise a collective middle finger to their Islamist oppressors. Women in Iran face huge legal and social discrimination – that many are throwing off their hijabs and saying “No more” is a wonderful blow for equality against cruelty.
So where are the solidarity marches? Where are the gatherings outside Iranian embassies to echo the protesters’ cry for an end to the sexist, regressive rule of the ayatollahs?
It’s an anti-war uprising too. Protesters are chanting “Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, my life for Iran!,” in glorious protest against the regime’s wasteful spending on its anti-Semitic proxy armies of Hamas and Hezbollah. Where are the Western anti-imperialists to cheer this demand for social spending over the squandering of billions on a medieval war of attrition against the world’s only Jewish state?
This is where we get to the ugly truth of the left’s creepy silence on Iran. Where Iranian progressives understand that Hezbollah and Hamas are brutal outfits doing the bidding of a ruthless regime, our activist class has a tendency to view them as “resistance” movements.
They could never get behind the Iranian people’s cry for those neo-fascist militias to be defunded because they are drunk on the delusion that these terrorists are an important bulwark against the “real menace” in the Middle East: Israel. Their Israelophobia has so thoroughly shattered their moral compasses that they bristle at the very suggestion that Iran should stop funding Israel’s hateful foes and instead should focus on improving the lot of the Iranian people.
We end up in the truly perverse situation where the privileged keffiyeh classes of the West instinctively want the Iranian regime to survive – in order that it might continue sticking it to evil Israel – while the young of Iran dream of the regime’s withering away. The revolt in Iran has exposed not only the crisis of legitimacy of the ayatollah classes but also the treachery of Western progressives. It’s now clear that their luxury cause of madly hating Israel takes precedence over everything else, including offering solidarity to the freedom-yearning people of Iran. Your liberty will have to wait, guys – we haven’t destroyed the Jewish state yet.
There’s another ingredient in their moral cowardice – the fear of being thought “Islamophobic.” A generation raised to believe that everything from criticizing the Koran to dissing the hijab is a form of bigotry is never going to be able to stand with people who are throwing their hijabs on to open fires and taking the mick out of their Islamic rulers. The left’s sniveling silence on Iran speaks to how far they have fallen down the well of moral relativism.
Maduro’s fall could galvanize the Iranian opposition
On the afternoon of December 28 in a Tehran electronics bazaar, shopkeepers (known as bazaaris) shuttered their shops and walked out, outraged at a planned gas price rise and crippled at the continuing slide in the value of the Iranian currency and the government’s powerlessness to shepherd Iran’s economy toward something better than corruption, unemployment and inflationary cycles. Tehran’s Grand Bazaar was quick to follow suit. A day or so later, several of Tehran’s most prestigious universities staged demonstrations. Smaller cities and towns have since taken up the baton of resistance, with government offices attacked and people openly calling for Khamenei’s death and the return of the Pahlavi dynasty, at a time when one of Iran’s major international allies, Venezuela, is in the process of having its state dismantled by US air strikes and military operations. The fall of the Maduro regime has the distinct potential to galvanize the Iranian opposition as yet another of Tehran’s foreign policy pillars comes tumbling down.
The Islamic Republic has only bad cards to play
Yet as the protests enter their sixth day, it’s important to stress that daily life in Iranian cities large and small continues relatively uninterrupted. “It’s not yet on the same scale as it was in 2022 when millions joined in the Women, Life Freedom protests,” one Iranian said to me yesterday. And although some of Tehran’s bazaars remain shuttered and protests are continuing, Friday prayers across Iran went ahead as planned, showing that for the time being, the Islamic Republic remains in control. But as the regime marks the anniversary of the death of Qasem Soleimani and celebrates a public holiday to mark the birth of the First Imam, few in positions of power will be anything other than extremely uncomfortable at where this could lead, especially after a summer and fall which saw striking Iranian workers, a military humiliation at the hands of Israel and the US and a steady increase in executions of political dissidents.
Iran’s embattled president Masoud Pezeshkian, cutting a forlorn figure, said yesterday that he had instructed the interior ministry to “listen to the legitimate demands of the protesters through dialogue with their representatives.” And at the same time, he performed a pointless reshuffle at the Central Bank of Iran, and the government’s announcement of a bank holiday that might calm things down both smacked of desperation. Bank holidays are surely for celebrations, not voids in which to bury bad news. Iranian hardliners, reaching for the nearest hoary cliché, have been quick to blame it all on Israel and the US.
Wherever these protests lead in the coming days, what is abundantly clear is that the Islamic Republic has only bad cards to play. It has no economic cushion with which to remedy the currency crisis, a short-term imperative to replenish its missile arsenal in preparation for the next Israeli attack and a sense of acute vulnerability that drives it to execute anyone it suspects of being an Israeli spy. Khamenei will rely on the Islamic Republic’s enforcers, the Basiij (a volunteer arm of the IRGC whose ranks now allegedly swell with Syrian and Afghans drafted into kill Iranian protesters) to terrify protesters into remaining at home. There will be more deaths, more arrests and more executions in Iran’s prisons.
Accordingly, Donald Trump’s full-throated support for the protesters came cloaked in a threat that should the Islamic Republic kill any more protesters, the US is ready to intervene. As I’ve written before in these pages, Iranian nationalism, be that on the streets or in the corridors of power, is hardwired to react badly to the faintest whiff of foreign intervention. For all the hatred of the Islamic Republic, any direct US intervention to support the protestors carries a huge risk of discrediting those brave protestors in the eyes of those Iranians who remain at home, but who nonetheless despise what the regime is doing to their country. We saw this over the summer when Bibi Netanyahu tried to rally the Iranian opposition; it largely fell flat. No one in Iran wants to be seen to be doing the bidding of a foreign power.
Trump and other foreign powers must strike a balance between supporting protest and avoiding falling into the trap of discrediting those protestors by associating them with notions of “foreign subversion.” This would play directly in to the hands of Khamenei who loves nothing more than to paint all those who disagree with him as “agents of the West and the Zionists.”
‘Long live the Shah!’ is a slogan that is guaranteed to infuriate the mullahs
Much has been made, as is often the case, of the chants calling for the return to Iran of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last Shah. It was always a beloved trope of UK Foreign Office diplomats to reach, lazily, for the “no one in Iran likes Reza Pahlavi” stick, pointing out that his father’s rule was a long time ago and not nearly as sepia-toned and wonderful as its apologists claim. And while there isn’t a huge amount there with which to disagree, as the Islamic Republic’s wheel of repression turns yet again, the Pahlavi prince’s popularity has only increased. Iranians, pushed to the point of starvation and threatened by Israeli and US bombs, find themselves reaching for the half-light of a partially remembered idyll when their country was richer and freer. Not the stuff of revolutions, those sage mandarins would have you believe, from behind a desk in Whitehall.
But surely the half-light of partially remembered idylls is exactly the sort of hazy counterpoint that drives revolution? Ayatollah Khomeini’s own revolutionary ideology as communicated on scratchy cassette tapes passed around Iran reached back into an almost totally fictional Islamic past, with a dollop of anti-imperial rhetoric. He famously refused to elaborate on his vision for a post-Pahlavi Iran, choosing instead to reach back into a past that never existed, from which he himself claimed to be an emissary of sorts, and talk in angry generalities about the evils of “imperialism” and exhorting the Iranian people to throw off the mantle of oppression, and so on.
That Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi is in no way interested in (or perhaps suited to) the role of the next ruler of Iran is, perhaps, beside the point. The protesters themselves know this too; “Long live the Shah!” is a slogan that is guaranteed to infuriate the mullahs. That he is in no way minded to return to Iran to lead the revolution is by the by, it seems. But as the chants, no doubt amplified to the nth degree in anti-Islamic Republic Western outlets, calling for Reza Pahlavi to return to Tehran in triumph reverberate across Iranian cities, we must look seriously at the power of memory in Iran and the role an idealized memory of his father’s rule might play as the crisis unfolds. And in the absence of any real alternative to the Islamic Republic, perhaps something is better than nothing?
Maduro’s fall could galvanise Iran’s opposition
On the afternoon of the 28 December in a Tehran electronics bazaar, shopkeepers (known as bazaaris) shuttered their shops and walked out, outraged at a planned gas price rise and crippled at the continuing slide in the value of the Iranian currency and the government’s powerlessness to shepherd Iran’s economy towards something better than corruption, unemployment and inflationary cycles. Tehran’s Grand Bazaar was quick to follow suit. A day or so later, several of Tehran’s most prestigious universities staged demonstrations. Smaller cities and towns have since taken up the baton of resistance, with government offices attacked and people openly calling for Khamenei’s death and the return of the Pahlavi dynasty, at a time when one of Iran’s major international allies, Venezuela, is in the process of having its state dismantled by US airstrikes and military operations. The fall of the Maduro regime has the distinct potential to galvanise the Iranian opposition as yet another of Tehran’s foreign policy pillars comes tumbling down.
The fall of the Maduro regime has the distinct potential to galvanise the Iranian opposition
Yet as the protests enter their sixth day, it’s important to stress that daily life in Iranian cities large and small continues relatively uninterrupted. ‘It’s not yet on the same scale as it was in 2022 when millions joined in the Women, Life Freedom protests,’ one Iranian said to me yesterday. And although some of Tehran’s bazaars remain shuttered and protests are continuing, Friday prayers across Iran went ahead as planned, showing that for the time being, the Islamic Republic remains in control. But as the regime marks the anniversary of the death of Qassem Soleimani and celebrates a public holiday to mark the birth of the First Imam, few in positions of power will be anything other than extremely uncomfortable at where this could lead, especially after a summer and autumn which saw striking Iranian workers, a military humiliation at the hands of Israel and the US and a steady increase in executions of political dissidents.
Iran’s embattled president Massoud Pezeshkian, cutting a forlorn figure, said yesterday that he had instructed the interior ministry to ‘listen to the legitimate demands of the protesters through dialogue with their representatives.’ And at the same time, he performed a pointless reshuffle at the Central Bank of Iran, and the government’s announcement of a bank holiday that might calm things down both smacked of desperation. Bank holidays are surely for celebrations, not voids in which to bury bad news. Iranian hardliners, reaching for the nearest hoary cliché, have been quick to blame it all on Israel and the US.
Wherever these protests lead in the coming days, what is abundantly clear is that the Islamic Republic has only bad cards to play. It has no economic cushion with which to remedy the currency crisis, a short-term imperative to replenish its missile arsenal in preparation for the next Israeli attack and a sense of acute vulnerability that drives it to execute anyone it suspects of being an Israeli spy. Khamenei will rely on the Islamic Republic’s enforcers, the Basiij (a volunteer arm of the IRGC whose ranks now allegedly swell with Syrian and Afghans drafted into kill Iranian protestors) to terrify protestors into remaining at home. There will be more deaths, more arrests and more executions in Iran’s prisons.
Accordingly, Donald Trump’s full-throated support for the protestors came cloaked in a threat that should the Islamic Republic kill any more protestors, the US is ready to intervene. As I’ve written before in these pages, Iranian nationalism, be that on the streets or in the corridors of power, is hardwired to react badly to the faintest whiff of foreign intervention. For all the hatred of the Islamic Republic, any direct US intervention to support the protestors carries a huge risk of discrediting those brave protestors in the eyes of those Iranians who remain at home, but who nonetheless despise what the regime is doing to their country. We saw this over the summer when Bibi Netanyahu tried to rally the Iranian opposition; it largely fell flat. No one in Iran wants to be seen to be doing the bidding of a foreign power.
Trump and other foreign powers must strike a balance between supporting protest and avoiding falling into the trap of discrediting those protestors by associating them with notions of ‘foreign subversion.’ This would play directly in to the hands of Khamenei who loves nothing more than to paint all those who disagree with him as ‘agents of the West and the Zionists.’
‘Long live the Shah!’ is a slogan that is guaranteed to infuriate the Mullahs
Much has been made, as is often the case, of the chants calling for the return to Iran of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last Shah. It was always a beloved trope of Foreign Office diplomats to reach, lazily, for the ‘no one in Iran likes Reza Pahlavi’ stick, pointing out that his father’s rule was a long time ago and not nearly as sepia toned and wonderful as its apologists claim. And whilst there isn’t a huge amount there with which to disagree, as the Islamic Republic’s wheel of repression turns yet again, the Pahlavi prince’s popularity has only increased. Iranians, pushed to the point of starvation and threatened by Israeli and US bombs, find themselves reaching for the half-light of a partially remembered idyll when their country was richer and freer. Not the stuff of revolutions, those sage Mandarins would have you believe, from behind a desk in Whitehall.
But surely the half-light of partially remembered idylls is exactly the sort of hazy counterpoint that drives revolution? Ayatollah Khomeini’s own revolutionary ideology as communicated on scratchy cassette tapes passed around Iran reached back into an almost totally fictional Islamic past, with a dollop of anti-imperial rhetoric. He famously refused to elaborate on his vision for a post-Pahlavi Iran, choosing instead to reach back into a past that never existed, from which he himself claimed to be an emissary of sorts, and talk in angry generalities about the evils of ‘imperialism,’ and exhorting the Iranian people to throw off the mantle of oppression, and so on.
That Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi is in no way interested in (or perhaps suited to) the role of the next ruler of Iran is, perhaps, beside the point. The protestors themselves know this too; ‘Long live the Shah!’ is a slogan that is guaranteed to infuriate the Mullahs. That he is in no way minded to return to Iran to lead the revolution is by the by, it seems. But as the chants, no doubt amplified to the nth degree in anti-Islamic Republic Western outlets, calling for Reza Pahlavi to return to Tehran in triumph reverberate across Iranian cities, we must look seriously at the power of memory in Iran and the role an idealised memory of his father’s rule might play as the crisis unfolds. And in the absence of any real alternative to the Islamic Republic, perhaps something is better than nothing?
Why Trump captured Maduro
Donald Trump likes to start the new year with a bang – or better yet a series of loud bangs. On January 3, 2020, his first administration ordered the drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force. Exactly six years later, his second administration has carried out a large-scale regime-change operation in Venezuela, blowing several sites to smithereens and capturing the Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and his wife and flying them out of the country. This after a series of military strikes against Venezuelan and cartel targets in recent weeks and months. There had been strong rumors in Washington that Trump would order the operation in the run-up to Christmas. But he’s waited until the start of 2026 before pulling the trigger.
By changing the guard in Venezuela he has removed one of the last major oil-exporting administrations that oppose American interests
Few will mourn the departure of Maduro – a left-wing tyrant whose regime has grown ever more corrupt and oppressive as the years have gone by. Venezuela is a gangsterish system in which citizens struggle for food, snitch on each other to the authorities through social media, and drug cartels operate with impunity. But the question of what comes next is of course now paramount. America has been quite successful in recent years at regime decapitation. It’s the change part that proves really difficult.
The Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, who was so careful to praise Trump after receiving the award in October, declared three weeks ago that her country had already been invaded – by Russia and Iran.
‘We have the Russian agents, we have the Iranian agents. We have terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, operating freely in accordance with the regime,’ she said.
‘We have the Colombian guerrilla, the drug cartels that have taken over 60 per cent of our populations and not only involved in drug trafficking, but in human trafficking in networks of prostitution. This has turned Venezuela into the criminal hub of the Americas.’
Corina Machado supports Trump’s maximalist pressure campaign against Maduro. We must wait and see if she will play a role in whatever plans the Trump administration now has for Venezuela.
The reports of Hezbollah and Iranian activities in the region are also an important part of the story. Will the regime-change strikes on Caracas be swiftly followed by another similar mission on Tehran? It’s perhaps no coincidence that Bibi Netanyahu just attended Trump’s New Year party in Mar a Lago.
Trump has a deep obsession with energy prices and it’s notable that every country he threatens or attacks happens to have enormous oil reserves. On Christmas Day, he ordered strikes on Nigeria, apparently as a ‘Christmas present’ to protect Christians but cynics suspect other motives.
By changing the guard in Venezuela he has removed one of the last major oil-rich nations whose governments oppose American interests. The other big two are Iran and Russia. Given the increasing talk inside American corridors of power of a peace deal over Ukraine – and the business possibilities stemming from a rapprochement between Moscow and Washington – the Trump foreign-policy agenda of 2026 could already be clear. War with Venezuela and Iran and fossil-fuel-rich peace with Mother Russia. Total energy dominance – the idea will make beautiful sense in Trump’s mind. But as his predecessors George W Bush and Barack Obama discovered, the problem with forcibly removing leaders is controlling what happens next.
Why Trump captured Maduro
Donald Trump likes to start the new year with a bang – or better yet a series of loud bangs. On January 3, 2020, his first administration ordered the drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force. Exactly six years later, his second administration has carried out a large-scale regime-change operation in Venezuela, blowing several sites to smithereens and capturing the Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and his wife and flying them out of the country. This after a series of military strikes against Venezuelan and cartel targets in recent weeks and months. There had been strong rumours in Washington that Trump would order the operation in the run-up to Christmas. But he’s waited until the start of 2026 before pulling the trigger.
By changing the guard in Venezuela he has removed one of the last major oil-exporting administrations that oppose American interests
Few will mourn the departure of Maduro – a left-wing tyrant whose regime has grown ever more corrupt and oppressive as the years have gone by. Venezuela is a gangsterish system in which citizens struggle for food, snitch on each other to the authorities through social media, and drug cartels operate with impunity. But the question of what comes next is of course now paramount. America has proven quite successful in recent years at regime decapitation. It’s the change part that proves really difficult.
The Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, who was so careful to praise Trump after receiving the award in October, declared three weeks ago that her country had already been invaded – by Russia and Iran.
‘We have the Russian agents, we have the Iranian agents. We have terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, operating freely in accordance with the regime,’ she said.
‘We have the Colombian guerrilla, the drug cartels that have taken over 60 per cent of our populations and not only involved in drug trafficking, but in human trafficking in networks of prostitution. This has turned Venezuela into the criminal hub of the Americas.’
Corina Machado supports Trump’s maximalist pressure campaign against Maduro and will no doubt play an important part in whatever plans the Trump administration has now for Venezuela.
The reports of Hezbollah and Iranian activities in the region are also an important part of the story. Will the regime-change strikes on Caracas be swiftly followed by another similar mission on Tehran? It’s perhaps no coincidence that Bibi Netanyahu just attended Trump’s New Year party in Mar a Lago.
Trump has a deep obsession with energy prices and it’s notable that every country he threatens or attacks happens to have enormous oil reserves. On Christmas Day, he ordered strikes on Nigeria, apparently as a ‘Christmas present’ to protect Christians but cynics suspect other motives.
By changing the guard in Venezuela he has removed one of the last major oil-exporting administrations that oppose American interests. The other big two are Iran and Russia. Given the increasing talk inside American corridors of power of a peace deal over Ukraine – and the business possibilities stemming from a rapprochement between Moscow and Washington – the Trump foreign-policy agenda of 2026 could already be clear. War with Venezuela and Iran and fossil-fuel-rich peace with Mother Russia. Total energy dominance – the idea will make beautiful sense in Trump’s mind. But as his predecessors George W Bush and Barack Obama discovered, the problem with forcibly removing governments is controlling what happens next.
Listen to the latest Americano with Freddy Gray:
Trump says the US has captured Venezuela’s Maduro
Donald Trump’s undeclared war in Venezuela against the Marxist regime of President Nicolas Maduro has erupted into the open. Trump says the US has captured Venezuela’s leader and his wife. In a statement on Truth Social, Trump wrote:
The United States of America has successfully carried out a large scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolas Maduro, who has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country. This operation was done in conjunction with U.S. Law Enforcement. Details to follow. There will be a News Conference today at 11 A.M., at Mar-a-Lago. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP.
Trump’s statement emerged after the US carried out strikes on sites inside Venezuela, including military facilities. Explosions were heard early this morning as smoke rose over the capital Caracas.
The Venezuelan government said that it “rejects, repudiates, and denounces before the international community the extremely serious military aggression perpetrated by the current Government of the United States of America against Venezuelan territory.” But those words won’t deter Trump from pressing on with his military campaign.
For several months, Trump has ordered strikes against smuggling boats who he says are delivering narcotics to the US. These attacks have taken more than 100 lives at sea since September. Last week, the CIA hit a docking area inside Venezuela which was allegedly used by the smugglers. It was the first piece of direct American action on Venezuelan soil of Trump’s presidency. This morning’s strikes demonstrate how Trump has dramatically stepped up his campaign.
Why is Trump so intent on removing Maduro from power? One reason is that he blames the Venezuelan President for wrecking American communities. Trump says he has flooded cities with illegal migrants and supplied them with drugs such as cocaine and fentanyl which have devastated their social fabrics and boosted crime.
The President may also be interested in getting access to Venezuela’s untapped oil reserves. Estimated at around 300 billion barrels, Venezuela’s reserves are larger than those in Saudi Arabia. The US recently boarded and seized two Venezuelan tankers that Trump accused of exporting oil in defiance of US sanctions.
Despite being an economic basket case, Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves. Under Maduro’s socialist rule – and that of his charismatic predecessor Hugo Chavez, who died of cancer in 2013 – the country has been reduced to dire poverty and mass unemployment. The country is predicted to have an inflation rate of 548 percent in 2025, and more than eight million people – a third of the entire population – have fled abroad, making dangerous journeys to the US and other countries in South America. This exodus has fueled social unrest.
Finally, Washington is ideologically opposed to Maduro, who international observers charged with rigging his last presidential election victory in 2024. The country’s leading opposition leader, Maria Corina Machado, who had been living underground since that poll for fear of arrest, won the Nobel Peace Prize in November for her “peaceful resistance to repression.” She openly backs Trump’s anti-Maduro campaign.
The ongoing confrontation is the most serious clash between the US and one of its Latin American neighbors since the long but unsuccessful campaign to bring down the communist Castro dictatorship in Cuba in the 1960s. President Trump is famously averse to getting the US involved in foreign “forever wars,” but in the case of Venezuela he seems ready to make an exception.