After Venezuela, which country could Trump target next?

Key Concepts

• Potential US Interventions: Discussion centers on the likelihood of US military or coercive actions against various countries under a potential second Trump administration.
• Counternarcotics as Pretext: Utilizing the fight against drug cartels as a justification for intervention.
• Resource Control: The strategic importance of access to critical minerals and oil resources.
• National Security Concerns: Framing actions as necessary for US national security, particularly regarding geopolitical rivals like Russia and China.
• Sovereignty & International Law: Concerns about potential violations of international law and the sovereignty of other nations.
• US Influence Operations: Covert activities aimed at influencing political landscapes in foreign countries.
• Intelligence Gathering & Alliances: The shifting dynamics of intelligence sharing between allies, particularly the US, UK, France, and Germany.

Potential Targets for US Intervention: A Ranked Assessment

The discussion primarily focuses on identifying countries potentially facing interventionist policies from a future Trump administration, ranking them based on perceived likelihood.

1. Colombia: Presented as the most likely candidate. This assessment stems from President Gustavo Petro’s past clashes with Donald Trump and Colombia’s status as the world’s largest producer of cocaine. A potential intervention would focus on targeting the gangs involved in cocaine production, rather than a full-scale regime change like the approach considered in Venezuela. The speaker notes Trump reportedly expressed approval ("sounds good to me") regarding potential action in Colombia.

2. Mexico: Considered a strong possibility due to Trump’s repeated statements about targeting Mexican cartels. However, Mexico is perceived as being better at “handling” Trump diplomatically than Colombia, potentially offering a buffer against immediate action.

3. Venezuela: The approach towards Venezuela is described as a “slow strangulation” – cutting off oil revenue to destabilize the Maduro regime. This contrasts with a direct military intervention. Maduro’s provocative behavior, specifically posting videos on TikTok seemingly inviting Trump to intervene ("Come and get me, Donald Trump. You can't get me."), is cited as a key factor in the recent escalation.

4. Cuba: Deemed less likely than Colombia or Mexico because Cuba maintains a lower profile and avoids direct confrontation with Trump. The speaker emphasizes that Cuba “keeps their heads down” and doesn’t engage in the same kind of public taunting as Maduro.

5. Greenland: Presented as a more unconventional, yet concerning, possibility. Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, citing “national security” concerns related to Russian and Chinese presence in the region.

Greenland: A Unique Case & NATO Implications

The discussion highlights Greenland as a unique case driven by strategic considerations rather than ideological or counternarcotics concerns.

• Strategic Importance: Greenland is viewed as strategically vital due to its location and the increasing presence of Russian and Chinese vessels in its waters.
• Resource Control: The island possesses significant reserves of critical minerals, a factor aligning with Trump’s focus on resource availability.
• Existing US Bases: Greenland already hosts US military facilities, raising concerns that the US might unilaterally declare these facilities as sovereign US territory, similar to the situation in Panama in 1989. This action would likely be met with resistance from Denmark and potentially destabilize NATO.
• Danish Response: The Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, issued a statement rejecting any attempt to annex Greenland, indicating significant concern within Denmark.
• Intelligence Concerns: Danish intelligence services have uncovered a US influence operation attempting to establish covert networks in Greenland, further escalating tensions.

Shifting Intelligence Dynamics & Allied Concerns

The conversation reveals growing anxieties among European allies regarding potential US actions and the changing landscape of intelligence sharing.

• UK’s Unique Position: The UK intelligence services maintain a policy of not spying on the US, placing them at a disadvantage in understanding US intentions.
• Advantage for France & Germany: Countries like France and Germany, which have historically engaged in intelligence gathering on the US (e.g., spying on Obama’s phone), are now better positioned to monitor US activities and assess potential threats to Europe.
• European Security Focus: The discussion emphasizes that understanding US actions is crucial for European security, extending beyond monitoring Russia. The speaker notes the need to penetrate the US National Security Council (NSC) to understand potential threats.
• Covert Operations: The discovery of a US influence operation in Greenland underscores the use of covert tactics and the need for increased vigilance.

Notable Quotes

• “It’s completely extraordinary that we’re having this conversation this way.” – Reflects the unusual nature of discussing potential US interventions in this manner.
• “We need Greenland from a national security standpoint.” – Donald Trump, highlighting his rationale for seeking to acquire Greenland.
• “My concern is not so much a US assault on Greenland…My concern is the US wakes up one day and simply declares its facilities in Greenland to be a sovereign US base area.” – Expresses concern about a unilateral US action regarding Greenland’s US bases.

Synthesis & Main Takeaways

The discussion paints a concerning picture of a potential future where a second Trump administration might be more willing to employ coercive tactics, including military intervention or unilateral actions, against countries perceived as threats or opportunities. Colombia appears to be the most immediate concern, followed by Mexico. Greenland presents a unique strategic challenge with potential implications for NATO. The shifting dynamics of intelligence sharing among allies, particularly the US and Europe, further complicate the situation, raising concerns about transparency and the ability to anticipate US actions. The conversation underscores the importance of understanding Trump’s motivations – including resource control, national security concerns (as he defines them), and a willingness to respond to perceived provocations – to assess the likelihood of future interventions.