Journalists stunned after report reveals who helped shape Trump's major military operation

Transcript:The Trump administration’s unprecedented military operation in Venezuela earlier this year that resulted in the capturing of President Nicolás Maduro was shaped, at least in part, by former Chevron executive Ali Moshiri, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday, a revelation that left several journalists stunned.“Every once in a while you read a story that pulls back the curtain on how the world really works and it takes your breath away,” wrote The New York Times columnist Lydia Polgreen Sunday in a social media post on X. Revealed for the first time by the Journal, Moshiri reportedly advised the CIA months ahead of the Trump administration’s attack and takeover of Venezuela on who should replace Maduro in his absence. Despite conservatives championing Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Machado as Maduro’s clear successor, Moshiri advised against it, and instead backed Venezuela's then-Vice President Delcy Rodríguez. Just hours after the Trump administration had successfully captured Maduro, President Donald Trump dismissed the idea of Machado leading the country, arguing that she lacked the “support or respect within the country,” a remark consistent with the advice Moshiri had given his administration months prior. While Moshiri left Chevron in 2017 and ended his consulting relationship with the company in 2024, his advice may still go on to generate significant revenue for the oil giant, investigative journalist Antonia Juhasz argued Sunday in a social media post on X.“Chevron's man in [Venezuela] (a CIA informant) told Trump to ditch democracy and go for Rodriguez 'cause she'd secure the oil,” Juhasz wrote. The New York Times investigative reporter Kenneth Vogel echoed that same sentiment, arguing on Sunday that Moshiri’s advice would likely end up enriching Chevron greatly.“The secret CIA assessment that called for Trump to side with Maduro’s longtime deputy, rather than the democratic opposition, was based on the advice of a former Chevron executive,” Vogel wrote in a social media post on X. “The oil company stands to profit from Trump’s decision to heed that advice.”Our Analysis:The Real Story Behind the ScandalIn an explosive revelation, the involvement of former Chevron executive Ali Moshiri in the Trump administration's military operation in Venezuela has thrown a spotlight onto the interplay between corporate interests and U. S. foreign policy decisions. This analysis seeks to unpack the layers of influence, decision-making, and responsibility, offering a grounded perspective on the unfolding narrative.Institutional Power and Decision-MakingAt the heart of this controversy lies the decision to intervene militarily in Venezuela and the subsequent choice of leadership to replace President Nicolás Maduro. The institutional power, in this case, is clearly held by the U. S. government, specifically the executive branch under President Donald Trump. It was under Trump's administration that the decision to capture Maduro and influence Venezuela's future leadership was enacted. This points to a direct line of responsibility for the military operation and its geopolitical and humanitarian implications.Advisory Influence versus Executive DecisionThe involvement of Ali Moshiri, a former Chevron executive, as an advisor to the CIA and, indirectly, to the Trump administration, introduces a complex layer of corporate influence. While Moshiri may have offered strategic advice on Venezuela's post-Maduro leadership, it is critical to distinguish between advisory input and decision-making authority. Moshiri, despite his background and potential interests with Chevron, did not hold the institutional power to execute foreign policy decisions. That power resided solely with Trump and his administration.Misdirection of Responsibility?The framing of Moshiri's involvement by various journalists suggests a narrative where corporate interests directly shape U. S. foreign policy to the extent of determining military actions. While there is merit in scrutinizing the influence of oil giants like Chevron on geopolitical strategies, it is misleading to ascribe the ultimate decision-making power to an advisor outside the government. This misdirection risks obscuring the accountability of those in actual positions of power. namely, the President and his administration.Corporate Interests and U. S. Foreign PolicyThe potential benefits for Chevron, stemming from the Trump administration's decisions, underscore a longstanding concern about the intertwining of corporate interests with U. S. foreign policy. The allegations that Chevron could significantly profit from the choice of Venezuela's new leadership, as advised by Moshiri, highlight the need for a deeper examination of how corporate lobbyists and advisors might influence policy to favor business interests.However, it's imperative to base this scrutiny on a clear understanding of influence versus control. Chevron and Moshiri could lobby or advise, but the final decisions were made by Trump and his team, who must bear the primary responsibility for those choices and their consequences.ConclusionThis analysis reaffirms the necessity of distinguishing between the sources of advice and the centers of decision-making power in political narratives. While Chevron's and Moshiri's roles in the events leading up to and following the military operation in Venezuela deserve critical examination, the ultimate responsibility lies with the Trump administration, which held the institutional power to act on that advice. Misdirecting blame toward actors with limited control not only muddies the waters of accountability but also detracts from the essential task of holding powerful decision-makers to account.s