US aggression against Venezuela; the return of the “law of the jungle” under the guise of international law

1. The historical roots of the logic of aggression; From Classical Colonialism to Modern Imperialism
The history of international relations clearly testifies that aggression has been the twin of power. From the classical colonialism of the past centuries to the modern imperialism of the 21st century, only the tools and literature of domination have changed, not its nature. In the past, territorial occupation and flag-raising were symbols of domination; today, sanctions, coups, proxy wars, and “humanitarian” intervention play the same role.
The United States of America, which presents itself as the heir and guardian of the liberal order, is in practice the continuation of the same historical tradition that:
- In Latin America with military coups,
- In the Middle East with direct and proxy wars,
- And in Asia with security and intelligence interventions,

has revealed its true face.

2. “Punishment of Independence”; The Unwritten Rule of the Hegemonic Order
When it is said that “Venezuela, like Iran in 1953, Chile in 1973, Iraq in 2003, and Afghanistan in 2001, is a victim of this historical logic,” we are not talking about random similarities or superficial analogies; rather, we are talking about a structural and recurring pattern in the behavior of the global hegemonic system.
In this pattern, political and economic independence, if not accompanied by deterrent power, is not considered a virtue, but a “crime.” Accordingly, the world is divided into two categories:
- obedient states that have the right to exist;
- and independent states that must be “punished.”

3. Iran 1953; Economic Independence Without the Shield of Power
In the coup of 1953, the national government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh was neither a military threat to the West nor had it adopted an aggressive policy. His crime was nationalizing the oil industry and trying to break free from British economic domination. But Iran that day:
- lacked effective military deterrence;
- was committed to international institutions;
- and believed that law could replace power.
- The result was a joint coup by the United States and Britain, the overthrow of the legitimate government and the beginning of decades of dependence. The historical message of that event is clear:
- Economic independence without power is not tolerable.

4. Chile 1973; People's vote against the logic of imperialism
- Salvador Allende came to power by people's vote and within the framework of democracy. He was neither a coup leader nor a lawbreaker; but the nationalization of copper mines and resistance to American companies were considered the red line of the hegemonic system.
- Allende's Chile:
- had popular legitimacy;
- adhered to the law;
- but lacked deterrent power against foreign intervention.
- Pinochet's bloody coup with direct US support showed that even democracy, if independent, is not tolerable.

5. Iraq 2003; The collapse of deterrence and direct aggression
In the US attack on Iraq, the issue of “weapons of mass destruction” was merely a pretext for a premeditated decision. After the Persian Gulf War, Iraq:
- had been severely weakened;
- had lost its military deterrence;
- and was under complete political and economic siege.
- The military attack without the authorization of the Security Council and the fall of Baghdad were objective proof of the rule that a weakened state is considered a legitimate target for aggression.

6. Venezuela; History Repeats in the 21st Century
Venezuela followed the same historical path by adopting independent energy policies, distancing itself from US hegemony, and resisting the unipolar order; but independence without:
- a regional deterrence network,
- effective hard power,
- and the ability to impose costs on the enemy,
- exposes a country to sanctions, coups, and ultimately aggression. In the eyes of the United States, Venezuela’s crime is not a violation of human rights, but strategic disobedience.

7. The practical collapse of international law
The United Nations Charter has established the principles of non-use of force, non-intervention, and sovereign equality of states; but the experience of Venezuela has shown that these principles are binding only on weak states. When the United States acts without the authorization of the Security Council and distorts legal concepts, it effectively reduces international law to an instrument of power.

Conclusion
Iran 1953, Chile 1973, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2001, and Venezuela are links in a chain; a chain called “punishing independence.” History has repeatedly proven that:
- Independence without power does not last;
- Law without restraint is ineffective;
and the world order is based not on morality, but on the balance of power.
Today, Venezuela is not just a country; It is a mirror that clearly shows the future of all independent but weak states.