* Iran has emphasized that the fuel deal is a purely civilian transaction, and that they have no hostile intent. Iranian diplomats have stressed that "this relationship between Iran and Venezuela doesn't threaten anybody. It's not a danger to anyone."
* And yet, U.S. pronouncements that the Monroe Doctrine remains "alive and well," as then-National Security Advisor John Bolton said in June 2019 (echoing Secretary Rex Tillerson's statements 15 months earlier) puts down a hoary marker strongly opposed by many nations around the world, including Russia and China. We do not think that poking at the Doctrine is Iran's primary objective, but it may play a role. And there are many influential hardliners in Iran who would welcome a chance to "retaliate" in waters closer to home for any actions against Iranian ships in the Caribbean.
U.S. rhetoric about preventing the fuel shipments from reaching Venezuela has upped the ante significantly. Coming at a time when the Southern Command has a "counter-narcotics" operation with U.S. Navy destroyers, littoral combat ships, Poseidon maritime planes and Air Force surveillance aircraft -- a task force twice the size of what's normally deployed -- near Venezuela and in waters that the Iranian tankers will traverse suggests your advisers and four-stars are playing with matches in a literally explosive situation. As you are no doubt aware, many of them would welcome a chance to give Iran a bloody nose.
Most important, perhaps, if the overall objective is to instigate the Venezuelan military to rise up and remove Maduro from office, the record of the past several years has shown that such an attempt is likely to fail. While perhaps not always comfortable with Maduro's leadership, the officer corps has tended to rally behind him -- be it out of sense of obligation, fear of him, or fear of what the radical opposition will do to them if change occurs. This has enabled him to remain in power.
* Your statement to Hispanic leaders on Wednesday that "we've got it [Venezuela] surrounded, it's surrounded at a level that nobody even knows but they know; we are watching to see what happens" gave the impression that the United States was poised for imminent action.
* A member of your National Security Council staff has told the press, "We are going to be closing all the doors. This [the fuel shipment] is another door that will be closed." A Pentagon spokesman said he was not aware of military plans to stop the tankers, but other "senior Administration officials" refusing to be identified have said that you have "made clear the United States will not tolerate continued meddling by supporters of an illegitimate regime."
* SouthCom Commander Craig Faller has emphasized that his "preferred" way of effecting regime change in Venezuela is not military, but he has accused Iran of trying to "gain positional advantage in our neighborhood in a way that would counter U.S. interests" -- without explaining how the sale of gasoline will achieve that. Last week he also claimed that he'd seen in Venezuela "an uptick in Iranian state-sponsored activity and liaison " that has included Quds Force" an elite unit of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. These seem more intended to lay the groundwork for military policies under consideration than statements of fact.
* U.S. officials also are resorting to tough talk regarding the two Americans captured by the Venezuelans during the failed 3 May military incursion. Secretary Pompeo said the United States will "use every tool" needed to bring them home. And, of course, you and the Secretary have on a number of occasions explicitly stated that military options are among those on the table vis-a-vis Venezuela.
National Assembly President Juan Guaidà ³ seems to be trying to egg on the United States into getting involved militarily. He has called for military intervention a number of times in the past, and last week urged the "international community" to stop the Iranian tankers from reaching Venezuela.
* To stir up U.S. concerns about Iran, Guaidà ³ and his advisors have claimed -- without evidence -- that Tehran is providing materials for a range of covert operations, including a listening post in northern Venezuela to intercept aerial and maritime communications. Guaidà ³'s senior security aide, Iva'n Simonovis, said, "For Iran, an enemy of the United States, this means they are almost touching America's tail."
We are unable to assess with high confidence exactly how Iran would react to a U.S. effort to stop the tankers before they reach Venezuela. But -- if Tehran's reaction to the U.S. rhetoric so far is any indicator -- it seems likely to resist strongly. Iran is laying the groundwork for international condemnation of any such U.S. action. And there probably are many military and civilian officials in Iran now orchestrating plans for tit-for-tat kind of retaliation in the Persian Gulf.
* Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, in a letter to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, warned the United States against interfering, stating that U.S. action would be an "illegal, dangerous and provocative move as a kind of marine piracy and a major peril to international peace and security." Iranian officials have said the country "reserves the right to take all appropriate and necessary measures, including decisive action." They delivered the same message to the United States through our Swiss representation in Tehran.
About 13 months ago, during a moment in which your Administration appeared to be edging toward confrontation with Russia over a Venezuelan matter, we urged you to avoid the slippery slope toward armed conflict. We were gratified that the hardliners in Washington pushing for confrontation were eventually reined in. We are now at a similar juncture.
* As intelligence officers and national security experts, we have given many years to protecting our nation from a host of threats, including terrorism, narcotics trafficking, Communism, Iran, Russia, and adventurism in Latin America. We also believe, however, that picking fights, interdicting civilian commercial trade, and threatening other countries' sovereign decision to pursue activities that do not threaten our national security -- is rarely the wise way to go.
* As we did last year, we repeat that we are not defending Maduro and his record, while at the same time pointing out that many of his troubles continue to be exacerbated by U.S. sanctions and other actions. And, as we also said last year, we believe that due process and practical, realistic policies better protect our national interests than confrontational rhetoric.
Venezuelans do not want war. They want better lives, and they want the political and economic change that will help them achieve that. The vast majority of Venezuelans would prefer to trade with the United States, not Iran or others from far-off regions. But they don't want change with a gun pointed to their heads. They don't want to be your administration's battleground for the Monroe Doctrine. They know that their political system has long been broken -- since before Hugo Cha'vez's first election in 1998 -- but they know that rebuilding it has to be an evolutionary process with non-coercive international support.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
