Bank of America: Its True Standing and What the Numbers Reveal
Generated Title: Trump's Caribbean Moves: Just Another Chapter in America's Latin America Playbook?
The drumbeat of military exercises near Venezuela, coupled with increased airstrikes on boats suspected of drug trafficking, raises a familiar question: is this a new chapter in US foreign policy, or a continuation of a long, and often turbulent, history in Latin America? Recent actions by the Trump administration echo patterns established over decades, if not centuries.
Echoes of the Past
The article "A timeline of CIA operations in Latin America" (published yesterday, November 26, 2025) lays out a clear, if unsettling, chronology. From the Banana Wars of the late 19th and early 20th centuries—military interventions to protect US corporate interests—to the Cold War era interventions aimed at ousting left-leaning governments, the US has consistently projected its power south of the border. The "Good Neighbor Policy" of the 1930s, promising non-interference, appears more an exception than the rule.
The CIA, established in 1947, became a key instrument of this policy. Guatemala in 1954, Cuba in the 1960s, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, Chile in the 70's – the list goes on. Elected leaders overthrown, US-friendly dictators installed, all fueled by anti-communist fervor and, often, the protection of US economic interests. In Chile, for example, the CIA provided funding to undermine Salvador Allende, who planned to nationalize Chilean copper companies – many of which, unsurprisingly, were owned by US interests.
Operation Condor in the 1970s, a network of right-wing military dictatorships across six Latin American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and Paraguay) supported by the CIA, represents perhaps the darkest chapter. The stated goal: crushing political dissidents and communist sympathizers. The tactics: intelligence sharing, prisoner exchange, and torture. The result: at least 97 documented deaths, according to Plan Condor, a joint initiative by Latin American organizations and the University of Oxford. (The true number is likely far higher.)
Even interventions framed as humanitarian or anti-drug efforts, like the 1980s invasion of Grenada or the 1989 invasion of Panama, fit this pattern. The US consistently acts to ensure its interests, as defined by Washington, are paramount.
The Venezuela Question
Trump's current stance towards Venezuela – allegations of drug trafficking, military build-up, and the possibility of a land operation – mirrors these historical precedents. The claim that Venezuela is responsible for drug trafficking, as the article suggests, may be a smokescreen for regime change. (A familiar tactic.) But is this just history rhyming, or a perfect repeat?
The key difference, perhaps, lies in the geopolitical context. The Cold War provided a clear ideological framework for US intervention. Today, the rationale is murkier. Is it about drugs? Regional stability? Or simply asserting US dominance in its "backyard"?
And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling. The stated justifications don't quite align with the scale of the potential intervention. What, precisely, is the US trying to achieve in Venezuela? Details on the administration's long-term strategy remain scarce, but the short-term implications are clear: increased regional instability and a further erosion of trust in US intentions.
The Bolton Factor
The article referencing John Bolton ( "John Bolton thinks America is past 'peak Trump'") adds another layer of complexity. John Bolton thinks America is past “peak Trump”, Bolton, a long-time advocate for aggressive US foreign policy, suggests that America is moving past the Trump era. But does that mean a shift away from interventionism, or simply a more "competent" execution of it?
Bolton’s involvement, even as an outside commentator, signals a continuity of thought within certain circles in Washington. The belief that the US has a right, even a responsibility, to shape events in Latin America persists, regardless of who occupies the White House.
The Same Old Song and Dance?
The historical data paints a clear picture: US intervention in Latin America is not an anomaly, but a recurring theme. While the justifications may change – communism, drugs, democracy – the underlying motivation often remains the same: protecting US interests and asserting regional dominance. Whether Trump's actions in the Caribbean represent a departure from this pattern remains to be seen. But based on the historical evidence, the odds aren't looking good.