پشت پرده مذاکرات دولت ونزوئلا با مخالفان

شورای راهبردی آنلاین – گفتگو: کارشناس مسائل آمریکای لاتین درباره از سرگرفتن مذاکرات دولت ونزوئلا و مخالفان سیاسی پس از یک سال تعلیق و متعاقب آن کاهش برخی تحریم‌های آمریکا علیه دولت نیکلاس مادورو گفت: «این روزها ونزوئلا در نگاه سیاست خارجی آمریکا نسبت به بسیاری کشورها از جمله برخی کشورهای خاورمیانه ارجحیت دارد؛ چرا که راحت‌تر می‌توانند با این کشور کنار بیایند و به دلیل نزدیک بودن، نفت ارزان‌تری را از این کشور می‌خرند.»

هادی اعلمی فریمان در گفتگو با سایت شورای راهبردی روابط خارجی افزود: «آمریکا فعلا ونزوئلا را برای خرید نفت ترجیح داده است و از سوی دیگر پیشبرد مذاکرات نفتی را به پیشرفت مذاکرات سیاسی بین حکومت ونزوئلا و مخالفان منوط کرده‌اند. بنابراین مادورو نیز فرصت را از دست نداد و مذاکرات را مجددا احیا کرد.»

اعلمی‌فریمان درباره روابط بین کاراکاس و واشنگتن توضیح داد: «روابط بین ونزوئلا و ایالات متحده آمریکا بعد از جنگ اوکراین وارد مرحله جدیدی شده است. زمانی که جنگ اوکراین اتفاق افتاد بسیاری از تحولات جامعه بین‌المللی را تحت الشعاع خود قرار داد؛ یعنی روابط از روال عادی خارج شد، تقسیم‌بندی‌ها و قطب‌بندی‌ها مجددا اعمال شد، بحران انرژی پیش آمد و اروپا نیز وضعیت متفاوتی پیدا کرد.»

این کارشناس با اشاره به اینکه در وهله نخست، اهمیت مسئله انرژی بعد از بحران کرونا بسیار افزایش یافت، ادامه داد: «بعد از بحران کرونا شاهد کاهش تقاضای انرژی بودیم و بسیاری از تحلیلگران مطرح می‌کردند که بعد از اتمام بحران کرونا، شاهد تقاضای انرژی به صورت تصاعدی در سراسر جهان خواهیم بود. زمان مطرح شدن این بحث‌ها همزمان شد با جنگ اوکراین و تحولات روسیه و این بحران انرژی از آنجا شروع شد، زیرا آمریکایی‌ها در مسائل داخلی خود از آنجایی که بحث انرژی با افکار عمومی گره خورده، به تامین انرژی راحت و ارزان نیاز دارند.»

اعلمی فریمان درباره چگونگی راه‌های رفع نیاز انرژی آمریکا گفت: «آمریکایی‌ها چند گزینه پیش‌روی خود داشتند. ابتدا در نظر داشتند بحث عربستان، قطر، کویت و کشورهای شورای همکاری خلیج‌فارس را دنبال کنند که تقریبا جوابی نگرفتند؛ سپس می‌خواستند احتمالا از طریق سرمایه‌گذاری روی برجام و ایران انرژی خود را تامین کنند که این مسیر نیز به دلیل نیمه‌کاره ماندن مذاکرات احیای برجام بی‌نتیجه ماند. در وهله بعدی آمریکا روی ونزوئلا حساب کرده بود و در آخر نیز ذخایر استراتژیک خود را مدنظر داشتند.»

کارشناس مسائل آمریکای لاتین در ادامه با اشاره به اینکه نقشه راه مذاکرات بین مادورو و مخالفان از سال 2019 در مکزیک و با میانجیگری برخی کشورها مانند نروژ، هلند، روسیه و مکزیک آغاز شد، توضیح داد: «این نقشه راه یک تفاهم نامه اولیه داشت که به نقشه راه نروژ معروف است و برخی از اصول و مبانی آن عمدتا شامل موارد زیر است: تضمین حقوق سیاسی تمام شهروندان، تعیین جدول زمانی برای برگزاری انتخابات، لغو تحریم‌های بین‌المللی، احیای حقوق گروه‌ه‌های معترض سیاسی، اجازه ورود کمک‌های بشردوستانه و آزادی زندانیان.»

اعلمی فریمان ادامه داد: «این مذاکرات از سال 2019 شروع شد، اما از آنجایی که 45 کشور خوان گوایدو را به عنوان رئیس‌جمهور به رسمیت شناخته بودند و شخص مادورو نیز به دنبال شرکای بین‌المللی بود عملیاتی کردن نقشه راه به تعویق افتاد. در نهایت به تازگی، آمریکا‌ ظاهرا مذاکرات مخفیانه‌ای را با دولت مادورو آغاز کرد. گرچه خبر دیدارها فاش شد، اما محتوای آن مشخص نشد. بعد از این دیدارها، آمریکایی‌ها اعلام کردند که به برخی شرکت‌ها مانند «انی» و «شورون» اجازه می‌دهند تا فرآورده‌های نفتی را از ونزوئلا صادر کنند منتهی به شرطی که قرارداد مربوطه 6 ماهه باشد و ابتدا مطالبات را پوشش دهد. از این رو جمعه 11 آذر ماه توافقنامه‌ای بین شرکت نفتی شورون و ونزوئلا امضا شد و به نظر می‌رسد این توافقنامه راهی را به روی ونزوئلا برای کاهش تحریم‌ها باز کرده است.»

این کارشناس معتقد است که دولت ونزوئلا این راه را ادامه خواهد داد و احتمالا با مخالفان سیاسی نیز به تفاهم خواهد رسید. حتی ممکن است شاهد تفاهم‌های گسترده‌تری بین ونزوئلا و شرکت‌های بین‌المللی باشیم.

وی درباره دلایل 6 ماهه بودن این قرارداد گفت: «هدف آمریکایی‌ها این است که یک فرصت کوتاه در اختیار ونزوئلا قرار دهند تا آن‌ها را امتحان کنند که آیا مذاکرات سیاسی همراه با مذاکرات نفتی به خوبی پیش خواهد رفت یا خیر؟ اگر مذاکرات به درستی پیش برود، قرارداد به طور موقت برای 6 ماه دیگر نیز تمدید خواهد شد.»

کارشناس مسائل آمریکای لاتین می‌گوید به نظر می‌رسد که این همکاری‌ها برای ونزوئلا دورنمای روشنی خواهد داشت.https://www.scfr.ir/fa/300/30101/147671/%d9%be%d8%b4%d8%aa-%d9%be%d8%b1%d8%af%d9%87-%d9%85%d8%b0%d8%a7%da%a9%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%aa-%d8%af%d9%88%d9%84%d8%aa-%d9%88%d9%86%d8%b2%d9%88%d8%a6%d9%84%d8%a7-%d8%a8%d8%a7-%d9%85%d8%ae%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%81/

The ups and downs of Venezuela and Cuba's relations with the United States

The nature and type of enmity between Iran and the United States is different from the relationship between Latin America and the United States. The anti-imperialist nature defined in Iran after the Islamic Revolution was related to the adoption of the views of the Soviet Union and the extremist socialist left. This view created unprecedented conditions in the world, and based on this, it must be said that there is no country in the world like Iran. We can define this model as an isolationist defense model that has been more the result of defense against overthrow and in certain situations. With regard to the coup d'etat of 1332, we Iranians thought that the United States was always seeking intervention and overthrow in our country. This situation in Iran created the capacity for us to achieve an isolationist defense model against the United States, so at the beginning of the discussion we should know that the nature of the enmity between Iran and the United States is unprecedented in the world.
But the Latin American-American model of behavior is more based on the conflict between the rich and the poor than on the United States, and this view has given rise to the term North and South in these regions. This derogatory view is based on US military intervention at times in their history, as well as a top-down view of the United States. It may not be unreasonable to say that it is very likely that more than 50 percent of Latin American people have embraced American culture and that only a fraction of the elite is fomenting animosity between the two countries. It goes without saying that this animosity is more prevalent in Latin America in economic matters, theories of peripheral structure suggest that US companies are exploiting the Latin American people.
There are a number of leading countries in Latin America, such as Mexico, Chile, Colombia, and Peru, and these countries have developed deep and strong ties with the United States, and these good relations have existed throughout history. In contrast, countries such as Argentina should be mentioned. It has a pendulum relationship with the United States, which is nonviolent, and many disputes between the two countries are resolved through negotiations. Brazil also has a strong technical relationship with the United States, but in foreign policy discussions, we always see competition between the two countries. Of course, the two countries have a special position in dealing with the United States; Cuba and Venezuela are known as friendly countries of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but unlike other Latin American countries, they do not have a pleasant relationship with the United States. Cuba's model of hostility is somewhat similar to that of Iran, as subversive debates have always existed in the country and the United States pursues a hostile view in the country. In fact, the Cuban Communist Party, as well as the Americans, always analyze each other's behavior in a negative light. Venezuela, meanwhile, is in a different situation. Although it has experienced widespread tensions since Trump's presidency, it has always been keen to improve relations with the United States, but the United States has refused to do so peacefully because of human rights issues. In the meantime, it should not be forgotten that Iran's friendly relationship with Cuba is a stable one, but this is not the case with Venezuela, and given Venezuela's special structure, the country's leaders are able to gain concessions as soon as they feel they are negotiating. The possibility of negotiating with the United States may quickly turn their views around and change the relationship with the United States from hostile to friendly.
To examine the relationship between the two countries in more detail, we must go back to 1998. After 1998, when the Socialists came to power and Chavez came to power, these differences with the Americans became tense because the Americans were opposed to Ch چvez coming to power. The United States pursued a system in Venezuela that over time developed the view that Venezuela is the gas station of the United States; This relationship of the oil economy was a deep bilateral relationship that gave rise to a dual party structure in Venezuela. The structure supported US-Venezuelan oil exchanges, but that changed after Ch چvez came to power. Chاvez had socialist views, and at times the United States intervened in security and secrecy, these relations became strained. Gradually, Venezuela's relationship with the United States soured, with China, Russia, North Korea, and the United States opposed. Venezuela's distance from the United States caused changes in that political and security sphere; For example, when the Islamic Republic entered into nuclear negotiations with the United States, the relationship between the United States and Venezuela changed, and they lost their priority in dealing with Iran. Also, whenever a security issue arose such as the spread of drug trafficking, Venezuela refused to engage, and the United States and Venezuela became embroiled in strained relations.

Relaciones entre Estados Unidos y Venezuela en la era Biden

A pesar del cambio de gobierno en la Casa Blanca y la salida de los republicanos y el ascenso de los demócratas, la política exterior de Estados Unidos hacia Venezuela durante la presidencia de Joe Biden parece ser la misma que antes. En enero de 2021, el secretario de Estado de Estados Unidos, Anthony Blinken, reconoció a Juan Guido como presidente electo, una política que es la misma que en Trump.
Relaciones entre Estados Unidos y Venezuela en la era Biden
Juan Guido también viajó recientemente a Europa y Estados Unidos para buscar el apoyo de sus aliados. Nicolás Maduro, por otro lado, ha expresado repetidamente su interés en mejorar las relaciones y aliviar las tensiones entre Washington y Caracas desde que Joe Biden asumió el cargo. La última reacción de Estados Unidos a la propuesta ha sido que Maduro podría entablar conversaciones con Estados Unidos para resolver los problemas provocados por las sanciones si llegan a un acuerdo con Guido para realizar unas elecciones transparentes y creíbles con observadores en Venezuela.

Entonces, solo entonces podemos esperar que los estadounidenses reduzcan algunas de las sanciones humanitarias y humanitarias en Venezuela. Sin embargo, en general, mientras el Partido Socialista mantenga su inflexibilidad y permanezca en su lugar, es muy poco probable que haya un cambio en las relaciones bilaterales entre Estados Unidos y Venezuela; Porque en la práctica, Venezuela se ha convertido ahora en el campo de juego de grandes potencias como Rusia y China, y la entrada de potencias estratégicas en la arena ha tenido un impacto en las relaciones bilaterales entre los dos países.

La actual política estadounidense hacia Venezuela puede considerarse como una continuación de la política de sanciones, pero con menor intensidad. La política que comenzó con Barack Obama se intensificó con Donald Trump, pero ahora es casi neutral.

Los estadounidenses siguen esperando que las sanciones entren en vigor en Venezuela y lo lleven a la mesa de negociaciones con la oposición. Ahora, sin embargo, los estadounidenses han dado un paso atrás, diciendo que los problemas de Venezuela son internos y deben resolverse internamente, siempre que todos los políticos, especialmente los gobernantes y la oposición, puedan llegar a un entendimiento mutuo.

Rusia, China, Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea son actualmente los cuatro principales actores en Venezuela, entre los que recientemente Rusia reforzó su presencia militar en el país y firmó varios acuerdos luego de que las relaciones de Venezuela con Estados Unidos se deterioraran durante la era Trump. los dos países. Estos acuerdos suelen tener lugar en los sectores militar, energético y farmacéutico.

Por supuesto, estas relaciones han hecho que los estadounidenses sean sensibles, y Moscú, en respuesta a las críticas de Washington, dice que ha entrado en juego por invitación de Maduro. Por otro lado, cabe señalar que los problemas de Venezuela, especialmente los problemas económicos de alto nivel, persisten y el país ha buscado recientemente atraer petróleo e inversión extranjera, siendo Rusia el actor más importante en las negociaciones económicas y militares con Caracas. Moscú, sin embargo, no puede cubrir este tema por sí solo. Debido a que la estructura de las refinerías de Venezuela se ha convertido en una estructura desgastada y necesita ser renovada, reconstruida y recaudada grandes sumas de dinero, Rusia no solo se da cuenta de esto y, lamentablemente, los problemas seguirán existiendo. También parece que esta situación continuará hasta que Maduro y el Partido Socialista reconsideren la elección o lleguen a un compromiso con Guido. En cuanto a las relaciones entre Bruselas y Caracas, hay que tener en cuenta que en marzo de 1999 y abril de 1400 asistimos a una tensión generalizada entre Venezuela y Europa. Por un lado, algunos países europeos se retiraron de la presidencia debido al declive de la ineficiencia de Guido, y por otro lado, argumentando que las elecciones en Venezuela socavaron la democracia y el estado de derecho, impusieron sanciones a 19 funcionarios del gobierno venezolano y al embajador. a Caracas, despedido en la Unión Europea. Venezuela también expulsó recíprocamente al embajador de la UE. Así, las relaciones entre Bruselas y Caracas se han vuelto muy tensas y parece poco probable que esta situación cambie hasta que Maduro esté en el poder y su gobierno no sea legitimado por la Unión Europea.

Las relaciones chino-venezolanas también son importantes; Debido a que los chinos son muy cuidadosos con los temas económicos, tienen menos vínculos con Venezuela que con Rusia. Tienen una alianza petrolera con Venezuela, y Maduro ha preferido intensificar las discusiones sobre la entrada del yuan al país. Incluso la nueva política en América Latina es aumentar el debate sobre las criptomonedas allí, y El Salvador fue el primer país en reconocer bitcoin. La política de Maduro a lo largo de los años ha sido perseguir el debate sobre las criptomonedas y el uso del oro en las bolsas de productos básicos para reducir su dependencia del dólar; Entonces, la alianza petrolera China-Venezuela está en la segunda fase.

Finalmente, en cuanto al posible acuerdo entre Maduro y Juan Guido, se puede decir que Maduro y el Partido Socialista tienen que tomar decisiones difíciles en este ámbito. Si no se toman estas decisiones difíciles, es poco probable que exista la posibilidad de resolver el problema; Porque Maduro todavía está tratando de eludir las sanciones y resolver los problemas a través de formas distintas al compromiso con Estados Unidos y los grupos de oposición. Por lo tanto, es muy poco probable que Maduro llegue a un compromiso con la oposición en el corto o mediano plazo.

 

? DÉTENTE OF WEST TOWARDS VENEZUELA

Strategic Council Online – Note: Given Europe’s coordination with Biden’s administration, the West, including Europe and the United States in general, is likely to pursue a common policy toward Venezuela.
Dr. Hadi Aalami Fariman – Expert on Latin America affairs

Foreign Policy of Joe Biden’s administration should be reviewed within the context of the grand policies of the American Democratic Party; during the presidency of Barack Obama, we were witness to his policy that was to maintain the status quo and prevent crises and escalation of tensions between the United States and Venezuela. Obama tried not to close the door to diplomacy and talks with the then Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as much as possible; to be able to consult with that country, and to some extent exert the diplomacy of pressure on that country.

But during Donald Trump’s presidency, we saw him to do the opposite to Obama, and when he came to power, while showing opposition to socialist tendencies and skepticism to the left-wing governments, he essentially extended sanctions against Venezuela. Trump also recognized the government of Juan Guaidó.

Now, with the Biden administration in power, the situation will change and the foreign policy of the Democrats towards the issue of Venezuela is clear. In his latest statement, Jake Sullivan, the president’s National Security Adviser, reiterated the same remarks over the Democrats’ grand strategy; therefore, domestic investments to strengthen foreign foundations, revitalization of US alliances, re-engagement with key institutions and agreements, re-defend of American values, and reform of US global positions are among the US policies during the Democrat Biden’s presidency.

In fact, the Democrats’ agenda is “diplomacy” and diplomacy is based on the discussion of democracy, strengthening of democracy and human rights, national interest of the United States, and confrontation with authoritarian regimes which will stand on top of the State Department’s agenda.

Thus, it can be said that in the Biden era, we will be witness to the return to the support of the so-called human rights policies, but in Venezuela, as long as the current situation prevails and, according to the West, Maduro refuses to hold free elections and does not respect human rights debates, the United States according to the Democrats’ agenda, will pursue sanctions. Although it has been suggested that sanctions against Venezuela will be eased to some extent so as not to put pressure on the people of Venezuela, in general we can say that we will not see widespread tensions between the United States and Venezuela, and military debates, especially military provocations by the neighbors, including Colombia, will probably be off the agenda.

In such circumstances, one of the following two scenarios seems to be on the agenda of the Democrat government; either broader economic sanctions aimed at changing behavior of Caracas and holding elections again, or pursuing inclusive diplomacy until Maduro joins the opposition in political power or somehow submits to elections so that the United States can monitor it through organizations of American countries.

Meanwhile, Maduro and the Socialists will continue to pursue their previous policies aimed at easing the pressure of sanctions, and are likely to propose renegotiation.

As a result, there is no clear prospect of a fundamental reconsideration of Venezuela, and still, based on democratic standards which include discussion of democracy, human rights, national interests, etc., no fundamental relationship between Washington and Caracas will take shape.

Regarding the relations between the European Union and Venezuela, it should be noted that throughout history, the European Union has always tried to adopt a relatively independent foreign policy towards Latin America and Venezuela. Even now, due to Europe’s rejection of Venezuela’s last parliamentary elections, it seems unlikely that the relations will improve, at least in the medium term, as relations between Brussels and Caracas have recently soured and Europe continues to officially recognize Juan Guaidó in coordination with the United States.

Overall, given Europe’s coordination with Biden’s administration, the West, including Europe and the United States as a whole, is likely to pursue a common policy toward Venezuela.

COMPONENTS AFFECTING THE VENEZUELAN CRISIS

Strategic Council Online: Street demonstrations in Venezuela are still continuing, while the crisis is becoming more internationalized day by day.
Hadi Aalami Fariman – Venezuelan Affairs Specialist

The crisis in Venezuela is known as the Presidential Crisis, a crisis that began on January 10, 2019. On this date, the Venezuelan National Assembly declared invalid the result of the 2018 presidential election, which led to the victory of Nicolás Maduro. On this day, the Venezuelan National Assembly introduced Juan Guaido as the interim president. After that, despite some attempts to end the crisis, we are witnessing the continuation and even escalation of the tensions.

At present, inside Venezuela, the issue of stripping opposition leader Juan Guaido of parliamentary immunity is hot news and has caused further irritation in the country. Because the American red line was that Guaido would not be hurt anyway. For this reason, the Maduro government has tried to strip Guaido of immunity in order to prosecute him later on.

Another important issue in the Venezuelan crisis is the unfaithfulness of some commanders of the armed forces who have sought asylum in Colombia. Regarding the region, pressures, especially from Brazil, are factors influencing the Venezuelan crisis.

The next event also relates to growing sanctions by the US. Washington has even banned tankers that load Venezuela’s oil. Therefore, America seems to be moving in the direction of tightening the sanctions against Caracas. On the other hand, following the presence of Russian troops in Venezuela, Mike Pompeo, the US secretary of state, announced that Washington is ready to respond to the Russian move. Meanwhile, China also has sent troops to Venezuela, which was a very surprising move.

By placing these developments beside one another, it can be said that the nature of the current strategic rivalries has come out of the ideological phase of the Cold War and rivalries that covered mostly capitalist and socialist aspects. Now, the basis is more strategic economic competitions.

If we look at the macro strategies of the United States in recent years, they are more focused on financial wars and pursue several goals; first, it is a matter of protecting the US dollar system that the Americans are deeply sensitive about.

Another issue is the war of tariffs; global powers seem to be trying to avoid the military confrontation in this area, especially in the Venezuelan domain.

The oil component is also effective in the trend of the developments in Venezuela. The United States has been drawing long-term plans to sell its oil, and it is natural that countries like Iran, Venezuela and even OPEC states would not enter this cycle.

The issue of huge investments made by the Chinese and the Russians in Venezuela is also one of the other influential factors in recent developments simply because they do not want to lose this space easily.

So the three components, namely the question of the US dollar boost; the oil debate, and the arrival of military advisers from China and Russia in Venezuela, are among the factors that affect the crisis.

It seems, however, that the involvement of Chinese and Russian military forces is just a bluff, with the aim of influencing US decisions. In fact, Moscow and Beijing are keen to believe that their military forces will affect the Americans as much as possible, if they are to take a lead at the negotiating table.

As a result, perhaps the top priority of Russia and China is based on the commitment of the Americans to maintain their investments in Venezuela under all circumstances. In the meantime, the most likely scenario seems to be that Russia and China will try to manage this and resolve the problems with the United States.

Indeed, if Russia and China come to the conclusion that their investments are being maintained and will receive a share of Venezuelan cake, they would engage with the United States.

Of course, inside Venezuela, we are witnessing a chaotic situation, and it is thought that compromise is impossible there, especially because Venezuela has been turned into a field of the rivalry of the world powers.

AMERICA’S OBVIOUS & CONCEALED GOALS IN VENEZUELAN CRISIS

Strategic Council Online: The current US policy in response to internal developments in Venezuela depends on three factors: The Socialist nature of the Venezuelan system, the question of oil, and US homeland security.
Hadi Aalami Fariman – Latin American Affairs expert

The scope of protests and the trend of the developments in Venezuela are escalating rapidly. Last week, JuanGuaido, chairman of the National Assembly also known as Venezuelan Congress, who is also part of the opposition during a million strong rally against beleaguered President Nicolas Maduro, citing Article 233 of the Constitution and in view of the emergency state in his country,  declared himself the country’s “interim president,” until new elections are held.

Guaido, 35, believes that the May presidential election was fabricated and orchestrated merely aimed at keeping Maduro in power. Therefore, he says, Maduro’s presidency does not have legitimacy. Furthermore, none of the rivals in this election has recognized it.

On the other hand, US President Donald Trump has called Juan Guaido the interim president. Washington’s move was followed by a sharp reaction from Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Now, the question is: what are the reasons for and objectives of the United States in supporting the unrest in Venezuela and what scenario does Trump have for Latin America by pursuing this policy?

The current US policy in response to internal developments in Venezuela depends on three factors: The Socialist nature of the Venezuelan system, the question of oil, and homeland security of the United States. 

The United States, as the center of global capitalism, is hostile to fundamental Socialist systems around the world. Wherever a political system has the essence of Socialist systems it faces strong opposition from the US as the hegemonic center, especially if these countries are in the southern hemisphere. Because it is still possible to attach importance to the Monroe Doctrine at least in security debates and state that the effects of that policy remain relatively in the southern hemisphere.

The next issue relates to the competition and many of these reactions should be checked in the competition bloc. The US national security strategies always regard Russia and China as two main strategic rivals. So, wherever there are governments close to each other, the sensitivity of Americans is naturally increased especially if there is, in America’s opinion, a rebellious anti-American system in the satellites of the capitalist system.

In fact, Washington is panicked over the influence of Russia and China in Latin American countries for military reasons. The US is concerned that this presence would gradually threaten its homeland security. The Chinese are considered a smaller threat due to soft commerce principles. Because the Chinese are men of negotiation and interaction to the extent possible. But the presence of the Russians, especially in military dimensions, is a symptom of the Americans’ homeland security in their macro strategy, so this component is serious for the United States in the debate over the events in Venezuela.

Another issue that contributes to the confrontations is the oil component; the United States views OPEC as a rival and wants to either eliminate the organization or at least undermine the structure of OPEC.

Of course, the anti-imperialist and anti-American component of the Venezuelan government is more significant for the White House officials, because this approach of the Maduro administration has made the surrounding extremely unsafe for the United States.

In the meantime, it should be noted that the US may have difficulty with the Socialist systems at the first stage and pursue a shift-to-the-right approach in countries like Venezuela, however, if a safe system even Socialist comes to power in Venezuela, it would be more desirable for Washington. In other words, the US has no problem with a Socialist system that does not endanger the United States and comes to terms with Washington. Although the US has general problems with Socialist systems, its reaction would be mild if they are safe. The Americans even consider the Cuban system ultimately flexible and reformable. But they do not have the same attitude about Venezuela so that Washington is seeking subversion and regime change in the country.

Moreover, the recent meeting of the UN Security Council on Venezuela is also very important, because when a subject is raised at the Security Council from an international perspective, it means that the issue is really important and may later assume a legal aspect. So, from the three perspectives of security, importance and legality of an issue, its discussion at the Security Council is open to debate. These ongoing trends are a calculated American design whereby to gain legitimacy for Juan Guaido. The signs of this legitimacy are also on the rise. The Americans are boycotting Venezuelan state oil company and intend to block the revenues in favor of the opposition, which is now officially recognized by the United States as the legal government.

Meanwhile, America observes that the trend in Latin America is shifting to the right due to the failure of the left and Socialist systems in meeting the people’s demands and it is taking advantage of this opportunity. In fact, the high rate of violence, crime, and hyperinflation in some Latin American countries has led to the spread of some discontent, and the United States is taking advantage of this opportunity.

Under such conditions, it seems that the United States will fully support Juan Guaido. Because in some cases, Washington voices support for movements and revolutions through a proclaimed stand, and since these supports are often diplomatic bluff, these movements eventually end up in defeat. But as for Venezuela, these supports are not merely declarative, and Washington is taking some practical action in this respect, including the steps taken to legitimize Guaido. Washington’s economic and financial as well as political and intelligence support for the opposition is also very important. As a result, Washington is taking serious action for the transfer of power in Venezuela and would spare no efforts to strip Maduro of power. Signs such as declaring of solidarity by Venezuelan military attaché in the US, announcing general amnesty and amnesty for the military, or appointing a new president for state-owned oil company by Guaido are all clear signs of playing a transition role and actions taken by a full government.

In addition, the United States has given Guaido access to the country’s assets; the Venezuelan government was granted access to national assets on January 25 by the US Secretary of State.

In the current situation, two calls by Guaido for holding rallies on January 30 and February 2 and the announcement of “clandestine” talks with the military are all signs of political obstruction inside and movement towards an extensive internal crisis and conflict. Given the particular political situation of Maduro and reports on the deployment of troops on the border with Colombia, Venezuela’s possible involvement in a foreign war as the last resort for the Socialist government is also likely to be the worst possible option for a government