Venezuela, US Power, and Media Failure: A Critical Look at British Foreign Reporting
by Jaffa Levy
·
A British broadsheet let’s call it the Imperial Bugle, it’s blasts much admired amongst Britains nostalgia news network, has taken American threats against Venezuela and turned them into a piece of imperial fantasy, dressing unlawful killings and economic strangulation in the language of strategy, while refusing to ask the only question that matters, by what right does a powerful state kill and coerce beyond its borders.
There is a peculiar moment in the post colonial panic press, when journalism no longer reports the world, it fantasises it. This week this broadsheets crossed that line completely. Its breathless report on supposed American preparations to topple Venezuela was not journalism. It was performance, a fevered mix of war theatre and imperial nostalgia presented as analysis.
Aircraft carriers invoked like deities. Tomahawks praised like sacred relics. The intelligence agencies conjured as omniscient puppeteers. And seventy five dead men in boats, unnamed, uncounted, unrecognised as human, reduced to an afterthought at the bottom of a paragraph.
What the broadsheet refused to ask was the moral question that underpins all of this.
What gives a powerful state the right to kill beyond its borders, without law, without scrutiny, without consequence.
Because that is what those seventy five deaths were, not policy, not strategy, not order, but extrajudicial killings. Homicide with a flag. But this Victorian moral Mindset Daily did not flinch. It swallowed the talking points whole. It allowed lethal force to pass as narrative colour The
This is not journalism. It is complicity.
Morality does not disappear when the trigger is pulled by a state rather than a criminal. The rule of law does not evaporate because the victim is poor or foreign or labelled a narco. Human dignity does not dissolve because a missile was launched from a billion dollar vessel instead of a rusty pistol.
The broadsheet chose not to notice. That is its first moral failure.
The Mosaddegh failure
The broadsheet casually claimed the coup against Mohammad Mosaddegh occurred in nineteen fifty six.
It did not.
It occurred in August nineteen fifty three.
But the date is the smallest part of the failure.
Mosaddegh was democratically elected, not a dictator. His offence was to nationalise Iranian oil, threatening Anglo American corporate interests. The coup reinstalled the Shah, whose security apparatus tortured thousands. The result was decades of repression that led directly to the nineteen seventy nine revolution.
Invoking Mosaddegh as a Cold War anecdote, and getting it wrong, exposes both historical ignorance and the moral amnesia of interventionists.
The coup was not regime management. It was the foreign overthrow of democracy for resource control. Iran still lives in its shadow. That was the first precedent the broadsheet reached for. It already discredits the entire article.
The Empires editorial office framed the Caribbean as if it were still an imperial lake, a zone where American power may loom, kill, seize, intimidate, blockade, and intervene with automatic legitimacy. The broadsheets vocabulary was the old colonial dialect, stability operations, precision options, coercive leverage, all of it constructed to hide the blood.
The military theatre followed. The carrier presented as a floating cathedral. Cruise missiles ready for launch. Stealth aircraft in Puerto Rico. Armed drones circling. Strategic bombers offshore.
This is the choreography of intimidation. The broadsheet treated it as entertainment.
Reality is not a film.
The Panama comparison collapses
The broadsheet leaned heavily on the invasion of Panama in nineteen eighty nine as a template for Venezuela.
This is unserious.
Panama is tiny, Venezuela is continental. Panama has one main city, Venezuela has many dense urban centres. Panama had United States bases, Venezuela has none. Panama had no loyalist militias, Venezuela does. Panama was controlled terrain, Venezuela contains mountains, forests and insurgent friendly spaces.
Comparing the two is like comparing a pub fight to a continental war. The analogy is not just weak, it is misleading. It invites readers to believe that a quick decapitation is feasible, when in reality any ground campaign in Venezuela would be costly, protracted and politically toxic.
Then the paper assured readers that Venezuelan air defences would crumble instantly, that the long range systems are irrelevant, and that American jets would fly freely. A war narrative written by someone who has never had to count bodies.
The S300 Air Defence myth
The claim that Venezuelan long range air defence systems are not fit to counter American force is a fantasy.
Even a degraded network creates real operational cost. Long range threat envelopes force attacking aircraft to fly specific corridors. Russian advisers assisted Venezuelan crews for years. Batteries can be moved and disguised. They integrate with shorter range systems and man portable teams. Suppression requires multiple waves of intelligence, electronic warfare and kinetic strikes.
Yes, the United States can overwhelm them eventually. But not instantly, not painlessly, and not without risk. There is always the possibility of losses.
The broadsheet sold the idea of risk free war. Such a thing does not exist.
Then came the most revealing claim in the whole piece, the ten thousand American troops gathered in the region, presented as if that number could topple and occupy Venezuela.
This is doctrinal ignorance at its purest.
Ten thousand troops, no invasion possible
Ten thousand personnel is not an invasion force for a country the size of Venezuela.
Iraq required more than one hundred fifty thousand coalition troops and still collapsed into insurgency. Afghanistan involved more than one hundred thirty thousand foreign troops and never stabilised. Classic counter insurgency ratios, even on paper, call for hundreds of thousands of security personnel across a population of thirty million.
What can ten thousand actually do. Enable strikes. Control sea lanes. Run logistics. Support intelligence. Assist a coup once it has begun. Provide a rapid reaction force.
What they cannot do is conquer and hold Venezuela.
The broadsheet confused presence with plan. It mistook theatre for intention.
Once the illusions fall away, the real picture emerges. The hawks around Washington are not preparing another Mesopotamia. They are preparing something colder.
Strangulation.
Blockade logic.
Decapitation as an option.
Internal fracture as the desired outcome.
Blockade logic, the real strategy
The public argument is framed as narco policy. The operational reality looks like economic and maritime constriction.
Use the narco label to justify naval interdiction. Frighten shipping companies and insurers. Choke oil flows. Interrupt essential imports. Drain foreign currency. Drive internal panic. Amplify splits inside the elite.
This is siege by another name. A blockade without the political cost of declaring one.
The broadsheet then floated the idea of covert operations, as though public boasting about them had any link to how real clandestine work is done. It swallowed the theatre without noticing the blade behind it.
The decapitation option
The plausible logic is simple.
Wait for economic and political instability. Target leadership nodes, convoys, compounds, aircraft. Incentivise military betrayal with threats and promises. Trigger an internal revolt at the top. Fly in limited American forces to assist stabilisation and secure key sites.
This is not a clean operation. It is political warfare backed by force. It relies on Venezuelans killing Venezuelans while foreign power provides surveillance, fire support and diplomatic cover.
That was the unspoken reality behind the broadsheet story, a management of violence outsourced to local actors, with global power reserved for the decisive blows and the photo opportunities.
Then came Libya, invoked without context, offered as precedent, presented as if it had been a tidy success.
The Libya fracture
The Libya intervention did not restore order.
It created a broken state, competing governments, militia rule, human trafficking routes, weapons proliferation across the Sahel, terrorist footholds and a vacuum of authority that still has not been filled.
To offer Libya as a model is to confess analytical bankruptcy. It is to take a decade of suffering and present it as a case study in responsible force.
And then, as always, the drug war excuse. The disinfectant poured over every American action in Latin America.
The drug war illusion
Evidence from international monitoring bodies and independent researchers is clear.
Venezuela is not the primary cocaine route into the United States. Most flows travel through Central America and Mexico. American and European banks launder enormous volumes of drug money for profit. Killing suspects at sea without trial is extrajudicial force, not law enforcement.
The narco framework is a pretext, not a justification. It exists to make readers feel that lethal power is being used for their safety, rather than for geopolitical leverage.
Moral conclusion
The broadsheet narrative collapses because it was never about truth. It was about theatre, intimidation and a comfortable illusion of American inevitability.
The moral indictment is plain.
Killing seventy five people without trial is not enforcement. It is unlawful violence.
Blockading a country into collapse is not policy. It is collective punishment.
Enabling coups is not democracy. It is the engineering of internal bloodshed to suit external interests.
Treating Venezuela as a chessboard is not geopolitics. It is domination dressed as order.
Journalism that reports this without judgement has abandoned its conscience. A newspaper that cannot even get Mosaddegh date correct has no authority to lecture any nation. A press that treats foreign corpses as footnotes has surrendered its moral claim.
