Deep Dive Into Venezuela’s Disputed Election and the Power Players Behind the Scenes: Joseph Humire

To understand Venezuela’s disputed election and the bigger picture of what’s really going on in the region—including how China, Russia, and Iran are involved—leading security expert Joseph Humire gives a comprehensive deep dive.

“This is probably the biggest electoral fraud in the history of Latin America, at least in modern times in the 21st century. The difference of what we’re talking about is not in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, it’s in the millions of votes,” Humire says.

Humire is executive director of the Center for a Secure Free Society and visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Watch the video:

He argues Nicolas Maduro has a hidden ace under his sleeve.

Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.  

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Jan Jekielek:

Joseph Humire, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Joseph Humire:

It’s an honor to be here.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let’s talk about Venezuela. They recently had a highly contested election, and we are still waiting for the outcome. Can you break it down for us?

Mr. Humire:

I'll provide a brief explanation. Venezuela has endured 25 years of autocratic socialist rule, which has gradually deteriorated the country. They have held numerous fraudulent elections in the past. Some date back to at least 2013, while others go back even further. These fraudulent elections have been confirmed by independent observers and multilateral organizations.

The most recent one was in 2018, the National Assembly election, which was deemed fraudulent by both the Organization of American States [OAS] and The Carter Center. The majority of Venezuelans are trapped under the grip of this tyrant Maduro through these elections. However, the hope is that they can find a way to liberate themselves and restore their freedom. Maria Corina Machado has been emphasizing the message of freedom to all Venezuelans.

The current situation is that the Maduro regime did exactly what everyone expected—they held another sham election, filled with fraud. But this time, the scale of the fraud was unprecedented. Having myself witnessed many electoral frauds in Latin America, this could be considered the biggest in modern times. We are not talking about tens or hundreds of thousands of votes, but millions of votes.

Depending on which set of results you believe, Maduro claims victory by a margin of around 7,000 votes, while Maria Corina has presented evidence on a website showing that they won by nearly 4 million votes. Now, we are at a standstill. Although everyone knows fraud has occurred, the international community has been slow to react, and Maduro is using this time to plan his next move.

Mr. Jekielek:

How does Maria Corina Machado have such confidence that she has more than 4 million that are not unaccounted for? Please explain that for us.

Mr. Humire:

She was prepared for this and is fully aware of the regime’s tactics. In fact, for many years she has consistently called the regime a criminal state. It didn’t just dawn on her that the regime was going to cheat in this election, especially since they’ve cheated in all previous recent elections. They devised a local system strategy to effectively validate the vote.

They used the popular will of the Venezuelan people and handpicked trustworthy observers to visit all the local precincts and obtain the actual ballots before the regime could interfere. I’m not sure of the exact number of precincts, but there are hundreds, maybe even thousands, throughout the country. She enlisted a civil society network to visit all the precincts in Venezuela and began the process of verifying the vote very early on. Some of her observers were expelled from these voting centers, because Maduro started to suspect what she was up to.

However, in other cases, although they were expelled, they managed to gather the evidence. They actually saw the scanned ballots, because they were processed through a machine and created a file. By law, these files are supposed to be given to both sets of observers, those representing the two candidates in the election. In this situation, a large portion of her network was able to obtain these files and save them on an external website.

Mr. Jekielek:

Every country has its own electoral rules. You’re saying that in Venezuela, all the ballots are theoretically accessible to the individuals associated with one of the two presidential candidates.

Mr. Humire:

Yes, according to the law, the verification of the ballots is supposed to be provided to the election observers sent by either political party.

Mr. Jekielek:

Do they now have the ballots from most of these precincts?

Mr. Humire:

They do. Maduro caught wind of what was happening and sent his supporters to destroy the evidence. They closed many voting centers early, and Maria Corina wasn’t able to retrieve the ballots from all the precincts. In some precincts, the evidence was destroyed, while in others, the transmission was cut off. They even took the ballots away from Maria Corina in some precincts.

However, she did manage to gather a significant number of them. According to the publicly available website called Restore Venezuela, she was able to obtain at least 80 percent of the vote tally. This is a considerable margin. The website allows anyone to verify the vote tallies. According to her information, the results were not even close. The majority, about 70 percent, went to Edmundo Gonzalez, while Nicolas Maduro received a little over 30 percent, amounting to a difference of approximately 4 million votes.

Mr. Jekielek:

There are international observers such as The Carter Center and the OAS. These organizations may also have their own interests. How do you determine what the reality is?

Mr. Humire:

Obviously, if this was just a statement, Maria Corina and Edmundo Gonzalez would say they won, and they have all the incentive in the world to say that. But it’s not really about saying that they won. The key of what they did and their strategy was transparency and to make it public.

They were trying to do this very quickly. They actually wanted to make this website public on Monday. It got shut down, so they moved the server to another location and they were able to get it back online. The whole strategy is adding transparency, because obviously the regime is going to have zero transparency.

As a matter of fact, to this day, the National Electoral Council of Venezuela, which is controlled by a regime crony in Venezuela, still hasn’t put out any evidence that backs up the claim that Maduro won by the number that they say, which is 51 percent for Maduro and 44 percent for Edmundo Gonzalez. The first thing is the transparency of the vote. People can go and verify it themselves just by going on the website.

The second part that is important is the conditions of the process. That’s one of the reasons why this was not a fair election. All the conditions, whether it’s the acceptance of the international observers or the date of the election were dependent on what the Maduro regime was willing to accept, and what Nicolas Maduro himself was willing to accept. He set the conditions.

He rigged the election 100 percent in his favor. But he didn’t expect the big voter turnout, because he was expecting the Venezuelans to be as apathetic as they have been in many recent years. They lost faith in the process. They lost faith in the opposition leaders. They underestimated the popularity and the energy which Maria Corina Machado was going to bring to the people.

The second thing is they overestimated their ability to drive a narrative. They thought that because they controlled the media in Venezuela, they have all these different connections abroad, they thought they were going to be able to drive a narrative that was going to actually legitimize the fraud. What we’re seeing today is that the narrative hasn’t completely won.

There are a lot of countries that have already said that this is a fraud. There are also a lot of countries that are playing an ambiguous third line. They’re saying, “We don’t know. We need to see the evidence.” Those countries, like Brazil, like Colombia, like Mexico, are providing support to the regime and allowing them to buy time so they can fabricate the evidence.

Mr. Jekielek:

We’re filming today on Thursday. By Friday, information is supposed to come out from Maduro’s side. Do I understand that correctly?

Mr. Humire:

The time frame in which the National Electoral Council is supposed to present the evidence has already passed, theoretically placing us in a gray zone where they have already missed the deadline to verify the results at the precinct level. However, the international community negotiations, taking place in Colombia and other locations, have stated that Maduro will be given until Friday to release the results. We'll see if that actually happens.

However, we must consider that it has been four, maybe five days since the election. With the extensive measures available to the Maduro regime, such as printing fake ballots, creating fake transmissions, and fabricating reports, we cannot disregard the possibility that they have had enough time to manipulate the results. Nonetheless, convincing people that he won this election will be a challenge for Maduro.

The Venezuelans know who they voted for, and these are not closely contested elections. It is difficult to fake a 70 percent to 30 percent margin. The Venezuelan people can feel and see the truth on the streets, which is why we are witnessing widespread protests. The Venezuelan people are sending a message right now. They are tired of the Chavismo project as a whole, demonstrated by the tearing down of statues of Hugo Chavez as a direct message to Nicolas Maduro.

They are not only weary of his ideology but also the entire Chavismo project. The burning of Cuban flags symbolizes their awareness that it is not just Venezuela and Maduro, but also external actors supporting them. It wouldn’t be surprising if they start burning flags of Russia, Iran, or China. I am not advocating for any of this; I am simply stating that the Venezuelan people know who they voted for, and they are aware of the theft they are experiencing, thereby prompting this reaction.

Mr. Jekielek:

People are feeling re-energized and believing they can bring about positive change. If we consider the results, they clearly lean in one direction, and people are aware of that. Now, we see people taking to the streets. How has the Maduro regime responded to this?

Mr. Humire:

They have been repressing the protests, and there have already been several deaths. The Maduro regime will, of course, claim that these individuals are terrorists attacking and that they have the right to defend and safeguard public property. In the country, I see two scenarios playing out and there is a precedent for these scenarios.

I call the first one the Nicaragua scenario, where the Maduro regime brutally represses the Venezuelan people. He has all the tools to do that, including armed non-state actors like militias and colectivos. He can even import repressive apparatus from abroad, like Cuba’s Black Wasp, Russia’s Wagner Group, and Iran’s Bashij, that have all helped him in the past. With these tools, he can completely squash the Venezuelan people. However, by doing so, he isolates himself from the international community, only relying on support from Russia, China, and Iran.

The second option is what I refer to as the Bolivia option. Let’s look at what happened in Bolivia in 2019. Evo Morales, a figure similar to Maduro, held a fraudulent election. Aware of the fraud, the people rose up and Morales resigned without using his full repressive apparatus. He had the same tools as Maduro, but he didn’t use them.

I believe he went into exile to rebrand the socialist communist regime in Bolivia, thereby empowering it. A year later, they returned to power with more legitimacy and weaker opposition. Maduro might take a similar approach, resigning to manipulate the international community and then coming back later with more legitimacy, once the opposition is dismantled and the sanctions are lifted.

Mr. Jekielek:

You’re claiming that this is what many people want to see happen.

Mr. Humire:

Yes and no. If Maduro is removed, it would benefit everyone. It is necessary. However, it is not sufficient. This is where confusion arises for many individuals. Maduro is just one part of a criminal network embedded within the Venezuelan government. There are many individuals who could replace Maduro, including members of the opposition.

The same system, advancing the Bolivarian Revolution, would continue with a different leader. I would agree that everyone wants Maduro gone, but this doesn’t guarantee that the conditions will change significantly enough for Venezuela to become a free country.

Mr. Jekielek:

Please tell us about your background and how you’ve gained such nuanced understanding about the region.

Mr. Humire:

Many people assume that I dedicate a lot of my time to studying Venezuela. While I do examine all of Latin America and various global issues, I do spend a significant amount of time researching Venezuela.

People often believe that I am personally connected to Venezuela. They first assume that I am Venezuelan myself, but I am not.

My parents are from Bolivia, so I have a connection to Latin America through my family. However, I have no personal tie to Venezuela. Some individuals speculate that my wife is from Venezuela, but that is not the case. I focus extensively on Venezuela simply because it poses a significant threat.

To give you some background on my career, I served as a U.S. Marine from 1998 to 2006. During that time, I spent several years in combat in Iraq, participating in the invasion in 2003 and subsequent deployments. In terms of Latin America, the only involvement I had was participating in a naval exercise called UNITAS, which involved circumnavigating Central and South America and training with various Navy counterparts from those countries. When I transitioned into the think tank world, one of the first countries I visited was Venezuela to attend a conference.

During my visit to Venezuela, I had a conversation with a retired admiral in Caracas around 2008. He spoke extensively about Iranians who held positions of power within the Venezuelan Ministry of Defense. He showed me pictures and expressed his concern about Iranians controlling various aspects of the Venezuelan government. This intrigued me, given my previous experience and knowledge of Iranian networks in the Middle East.

I began researching the connection between Iran and Venezuela, which eventually led me to explore other countries and their relationships with Venezuela. The largest supplier of weapons to Venezuela led me to look at China, the largest debtor to Venezuela. This led me to realize that an authoritarian axis was emerging, consisting of Venezuela, Russia, Iran, and China [VRIC].

It is not the same as BRIC [Brazil, Russia, India, China], which is a term coined by Goldman Sachs. My think tank, the Center for a Secure Free Society, sees VRIC as a real military, intelligence, and security alliance that is forming. This is how I became involved in the topic. Our think tank has been at the forefront of researching the Venezuela threat network and its expansion throughout the entire Western Hemisphere.

Mr. Jekielek:

You mentioned Venezuelans being in Syria. How does that work?

Mr. Humire:

I mentioned that to make you think. There are actually more Venezuelans in Syria than in Brazil. Approximately 270,000 Venezuelans have fled to Brazil, while over 350,000 are located in Al-Zawahirah, a region in southwest Syria. Why is this important?

After extensively studying Venezuela, I had to reassess in 2017. We had conducted detailed analysis of the network, being one of the first think tanks to expose passport fraud involving suspected terrorists. We also studied Russia’s provision of high-end weapons to Venezuela. However, I realized we needed to understand their broader objectives. What were they trying to achieve with all these weapons and fraudulent activities?

In 2017, an uprising occurred in Venezuela, in which Maduro closed the legislature, the National Assembly, and the people rebelled, resulting in a brutal repression. Even though I had been studying Venezuela for several years, I didn’t fully comprehend what was happening. I went back to the drawing board with my team and decided to examine the origins of the Bolivarian revolution, which dates back to the 1960s.

Now, when we say Bolivarian, we are referring to Simon Bolivar, who liberated Venezuela from Spanish conquest. However, it’s important to note that he wasn’t the one who fought the battle to establish Venezuela as a republic. That credit goes to a gentleman named Jose Antonio Paez, the first true president of Venezuela. General Paez, often regarded as the George Washington of Venezuela, was the one who actually fought for Venezuelan independence.

Bolivar, on the other hand, played a significant role in Venezuela, but he also traveled throughout Latin America. My parents come from Bolivia, which is named after Simon Bolivar. Simon Bolivar was a popular figure and Hugo Chavez used him as a symbol, stating, “Simon Bolivar was the liberator of Latin America, and now I am here to liberate us again.”

Mr. Jekielek:

You are taking us back not to 2017, but all the way back to the beginning.

Mr. Humire:

Yes, back to the 1960s. They refer to it as the Bolivarian Revolution, the name they believe in. The number one premise that most people, even experts and analysts, have about Venezuela is that it is a narco state controlled by Cuba. The Cuban regime has a heavy presence in Venezuela.

After the Cuban revolution, they immediately turned their focus on Venezuela. They knew where the oil was, so they aimed to capture Venezuela to finance not only the revolution in Cuba, but also the revolution throughout Latin America and the world. They sent many of their guerilla warfare experts into Venezuela and established various insurgency groups.

One of these groups was the Liberation Army of Venezuela. They even worked with FARC [Revolutionary Forces of Columbia] at that time. However, their efforts failed. By 1964, the leaders of the Communist Party of Venezuela were imprisoned. Venezuela, being a larger country with a more professional military, didn’t succumb to guerrilla warfare tactics like ambushing the military and using propaganda to undermine them.

But then, in 1967, the leaders of the Communist Party of Venezuela were released from prison. They were freed by a Syrian refugee named Nehemet Chagin Simon, also known as Simon the Arab. However, his identity remains somewhat mysterious. We conducted extensive research in libraries in Jordan and Syria to uncover information about him. It turns out, he was actually a Baathist intelligence operative trained in the Soviet Union and sent to Venezuela in the 1960s. His mission was not only to free the Communist Party members from prison, but also to indoctrinate them in new methods of warfare.

Thus, what Simon and others from the Baathist movement did was train Venezuela in insurgency, which is different from guerrilla warfare. They advised Venezuela to infiltrate the military instead of ambushing it. They encouraged Venezuela to adopt the tactics of Arab nationalist states. The Syrians inspired the entire movement by indoctrinating and training Venezuela in insurgency and asymmetric warfare, leading to the transformation of the country to what is called the Bolivarian Continental Movement, which began within the military and attempted a coup in 1992 but ultimately failed.

It was during this time that Hugo Chavez emerged as a leader. Chavez himself came from this movement. By understanding this history, I knew that the Middle East played a significant role in Venezuela. Going back to my experience in Venezuela in 2009, an admiral explained to me why Iran was present there. It was more than just a connection to an authoritarian socialist country.

There was a deep power network embedded in Venezuela with ties to Syria, Lebanon, and other Middle Eastern nations. Iran had extensive knowledge of these networks in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, which allowed them to build bridges and become more influential in Venezuela, compared to powers such as Russia and China. This, in turn, has led to the current situation.

Mr. Jekielek:

Most people do not understand the nexus that you are describing. What is the Venezuelan interest in Syria? Who are these people and what are they doing there?

Mr. Humire:

We must remember that the Baathists, a Pan-Arab nationalist movement, dominated conflicts in the Middle East for much of the 20th century. This was before the Iranian Revolution and before Hezbollah. We’re talking about the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. The Baathists aimed to become a global movement and wield global power. They were also socialist and sought connections with socialist networks around the world, particularly in Africa and Latin America.

Initially, they viewed Latin America as a refuge, a place to go if things turned sour for them. The Nazis did the same thing, with many seeking refuge in South America after their collapse. They established what is known as a rat line, a means of escape and resettlement. Refugee networks exist throughout the world, often utilizing clandestine routes known as rat lines.

A lesser-known, but robust example of this is the Middle Eastern migration to South America, which traces back to the late 19th century during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Many persecuted Maronite Christians sought refuge in South America, and some even ventured into Central America. Similarly, during the Armenian Genocide, many Armenians fled to South America and even Central America. The civil wars in Lebanon also led to a significant migration to South America.

Throughout these periods, a refugee route was established in South America, with clandestine actors setting up rat lines behind it. These actors recognized the existence of a bridge that could be exploited, as long as they could tap into the already established networks and diasporas. With this knowledge, they sought to empower socialist and communist groups in Latin America, realizing the potential for greater achievements. This was the desired intent of the Baathists. While the Baathist movement eventually collapsed, the Iranian revolution picked up the pieces and continued their efforts.

Moving ahead to 1992, it is essential to understand the rise of Hugo Chavez. Chavez initially joined the military, not out of a genuine sense of patriotism, but to infiltrate and establish a network. In 1992, this network attempted a military coup, which ultimately failed, leading to Chavez’s imprisonment. However, his time in prison turned him into a martyr and exposed the shortcomings and corruption within the Venezuelan government.

Upon his release, Chavez transitioned into politics and ran for office. He won the Venezuelan election in 1999, becoming the president. At the beginning of his political career, Chavez presented himself as more moderate, considering that Venezuela was not yet a socialist nation and had close ties with the United States in terms of energy and the military. However, once in power, Chavez revealed his true intentions.

In the early stages, he attempted to take control of all state institutions within the country. From 1999 to 2002, he systematically started to assert his control over these institutions. However, his power was almost toppled when an uprising and a short-lived coup took place in 2002. He was able to successfully quell these threats and reclaim his position as the leader. Once back in power, he decisively dismantled the Venezuelan opposition at that time.

In the years between 2002 and 2004, he established a regional network by utilizing Venezuela’s oil money to finance political candidates in Bolivia, Nicaragua, Argentina, and Brazil. This marked the rise of what became known as the “pink tide” or socialist wave in Latin America, spanning from 2004 to 2010. Notable leaders who emerged during this time were Evo Morales in Bolivia, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Cristina Kirchner in Argentina, and Lula da Silva in Brazil.

Hugo Chávez played a significant role in supporting these candidates financially through what came to be known as “petro-diplomacy.” He created the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas, which, at its peak, encompassed around 13 countries and currently stands at around 9 or 10 countries. This alliance primarily consists of some of the most authoritarian countries in the region, including Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador at one point.

Additionally, Chávez spearheaded a new geopolitical vision for Latin America, aimed at distancing the region from the United States and forging closer ties with China, Russia, and Iran. Venezuela became heavily indebted to China, which supported the Chávez and Maduro regimes by providing substantial credit and loans amounting to $60 billion. Russia also seized the opportunity to supply Venezuela with arms, making it the largest recipient of foreign military sales from Russia, with weapons worth over $12 billion.

Iran, on the other hand, offered networks and expertise rather than direct financial support or weapons. Their embassy in Venezuela became increasingly influential. Together, these three actors formed an alliance and used Venezuela as a base to challenge the United States throughout Latin America. This is a brief summary of the complex story.

Mr. Jekielek:

On one hand, Maduro holds the title of president and is recognized as such by most countries. On the other hand, the U.S. has placed a $15 million bounty on him. How does this dynamic work?

Mr. Humire:

While Maduro technically holds the presidency and has ministers and ministries, Venezuela does not operate like a democratic sovereign state. It functions differently than what we typically perceive as a nation-state. They do not function like Switzerland, France, or Germany. They are a criminalized state. While Maduro holds the title of president, he is not necessarily the most powerful person in the country.

In 2007 and 2008, Chavez restructured Venezuela, dividing it into eight regions instead of typical provinces, states, and municipalities. He placed the military in charge of each of these regions, known as regional defense integrated zones. Each region is sustained by an illicit economy. In the western part of Venezuela, illicit oil smuggling or contraband is likely the main illicit economy. In the east, it may be illegal mining, piracy, or contraband. In the north, drug trafficking dominates. In the south or southwest, it is drug trafficking as well. This geographic structure created a motor that merged transnational organized crime with the Venezuelan state.

Therefore, one could argue that Venezuela operates more like a network than a traditional state. This network disregards borders and boundaries, extending into Colombia, Brazil, Panama, and neighboring territories. This complexity is what characterizes Venezuela. It possesses an anti-fragility that allows it to expand even when faced with adversity, and this is by design.

For whatever reason, if Maduro resigns or is removed, it would be a positive development. It would be a necessary condition for progressing to the next chapter. However, it would not be sufficient, as the criminal network would still exist. This is merely the beginning of the journey to liberate Venezuela. External support is essential for such an undertaking because the Venezuelan people alone cannot overcome the influence of Russia, China, and Iran, which maintain this power structure through their kleptocratic economies.

Mr. Jekielek:

Currently, there is not much inclination to provide external support, given that past attempts have failed and caused even bigger problems. What are your thoughts on this?

Mr. Humire:

Let us revisit 2019, as it was another tense period for Venezuela. It was during this time that President Trump pursued a policy of maximum pressure. Recognizing that Venezuela is a criminalized state with an illegitimate regime that operates outside the boundaries of democracy and maintains alliances with America’s adversaries worldwide. President Trump aimed to weaken the regime and explore opportunities for the opposition to free the country.

It didn’t unfold as planned because there wasn’t sufficient understanding of Venezuela within the U.S. government. Even the topics I mentioned, like Syria, were not familiar to our military and intelligence community. Venezuela had not been prioritized within the U.S. government, so resources were not allocated to address the issue. I argue that Venezuela is not just a problem for Venezuela alone, but for the entire hemisphere.

To solve the crisis at the southern border, we must address Venezuela. To combat drug smuggling and trafficking, which originates from the Colombian-Venezuelan border, we must tackle the Venezuela problem. To address democracy and election fraud, we must address Venezuela. This is a problem that requires a hemispheric response, and the United States needs a regional strategy, perhaps a renewed Monroe Doctrine. Simply examining internal factors within Venezuela is not enough.

Mr. Jekielek:

Where do things stand currently? You provided some insight into the mid-range direction, but what is happening right now?

Mr. Humire:

Let me explain this in two ways. First, let’s discuss the international community, specifically the Latin American community, as this is where the battle is unfolding. We will have to wait and see if Nicolas Maduro or the Electoral Council presents any evidence to support the electoral results they claim.

Currently, the regional community is divided into three groups. Around 10 Latin American countries have already denounced the fraud. President Milei has been vocal about this and immediately declared the election as illegitimate, refusing to recognize the results or Maduro as a legitimate leader. Other countries, such as Paraguay, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and Panama, have also voiced their rejection of the election results.

However, a few countries still hold a different view. This fraud has been legitimized by their immediate recognition of Nicholas Maduro as the next president. As expected, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Xiomara Castro, the new president of Honduras, who shouldn’t have aligned themselves with these autocratic movements years ago, are going along with Maduro. They have openly declared him president.

But there is a third group of countries that have adopted an ambiguous stance. Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico are taking the position of saying, “We don’t know. There may be fraud, or there may not be. We need more evidence.” This stance has allowed the Maduro regime to buy time and fabricate evidence.

Today, Maduro has not presented any evidence to support his claim of winning with 51 percent of the votes. By the time this interview is published, we will see if he produces any evidence. However, the reality is that the evidence will be fabricated and likely contain errors and mistakes. Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil will have to change their positions for there to be a regional consensus on Venezuela.

Meanwhile, internally, Venezuelans are suffering and dying because of the scarcity of food, water, and electricity that they have experienced for years. At one point, they had the world’s highest inflation, reaching millions, not thousands. The country has faced shortages of consumer goods across the entire nation. The Venezuelan people have suffered immensely, similar to the Cuban people, perhaps more than any other in the history of Latin America. They are exhausted and are taking to the streets, protesting against the regime. We will witness the brutality of Venezuela’s repression as the situation unfolds.

This brings us to the scenarios I mentioned earlier. If Maduro turns into a full totalitarian dictator, he will repress the Venezuelan people and may even imprison or assassinate political opposition figures. The international community’s response to such actions remains to be seen. I have long argued that Venezuela’s conflict is not limited to the country itself. This is at least a regional conflict and could potentially become an international conflict, requiring the international community to take action and find a resolution.

Mr. Jekielek:

What role do international observers play at this point? Do they carry any weight, such as The Carter Center or the OAS?

Mr. Humire:

They don’t play much of a role. Maduro banned the OAS, the leading democratic multilateral organization in Latin America, from observing the elections. Typically, the OAS is involved in elections as observers, but Maduro didn’t trust them, so he didn’t invite them. The Carter Center was present, but it’s unclear how many people were there. They released a statement that said, “There are no irregularities, but we don’t know the results.” Their statement was rather ambiguous. There are rumors that they might return to verify some of the results presented by the regime through its electoral council.

However, the main concern here is legitimacy. Consider what Argentina’s foreign minister recently stated at the permanent council meeting of the OAS. She said, “We must be clear. We are at a critical moment in defining what democracy means in Latin America. Those who question and prolong this process, using technical arguments about vote verification and ballot certification, are only strengthening the regime. We need to put an end to this now if we want to avoid the bloodshed that Maduro has promised.”

When you listen to her statement, you can hear true leadership. That’s exactly what the region needs. They need individuals who are willing to stand up against this situation. On the other side, Maduro, Diaz-Canel, Ortega, and Morales are all united and unwilling to compromise. They will continue their actions until someone intervenes.

Mr. Jekielek:

This election happened in the first place because of negotiations with the U.S. government. How did that relationship play into this?

Mr. Humire:

You’re right. This is not a normal election. It wasn’t on Venezuela’s presidential calendar. It’s a special election that Nicolas Maduro himself chose, mainly because he was in negotiations with the United States to lift sanctions. The problem is that the United States gave up too many concessions too early in these negotiations. I’m not an expert on negotiations, but I think everyone understands that leverage is a key tool in effective negotiations. If you give up your leverage too soon, it becomes difficult to influence the outcome of the negotiation.

What the Biden administration did was to provide sanctions relief and release prisoners, including a major money launderer and facilitator for Maduro named Alex Saab, to the regime in exchange for the promise of holding free and fair elections. The U.S. said, “We’re giving you these prisoners and showing our goodwill.” Unfortunately, that didn’t work. In fact, it created a perverse incentive.

Now, the Maduro regime believes they can get away with whatever they want. because the more they do, the more concessions they receive. This perverse incentive rewards bad behavior, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise when more bad behavior occurs. That’s exactly what happened with this election. It’s the most fraudulent election that Venezuela has ever seen. Maduro has engaged in fraud in the past in 2013 and 2018, but this one is most egregious.

Mr. Jekielek:

But it happened. It’s probably a positive thing that this is playing out.

Mr. Humire:

Yes, if the goal was just to have an election, I would hope that there’s a second, third, and fourth step after that election takes place. That’s what we’re waiting to see. What is the next step? We had the election and we all knew there would be fraud. Great. What’s the next step and the step after that? Time is ticking, and if we don’t see progress, Venezuelans will continue to suffer, and they will be caught in a cycle of sham elections.

It’s a pattern that we’ve seen before. There’s a sham election, followed by protests against repression, leading to negotiations to stop the repression, and eventually another election. We don’t want to go through that cycle again. If all we did was have this election without any further action, it would have been a waste of time.

But if there’s another step we’re not seeing, another plan that can move us in a positive direction, then we would welcome it. That would be a positive step. In that sense, the election was worth it, even though it was a sham, because it started a process. But now we need to see it play out.

Mr. Jekielek:

What about other players like Syria and Iran? Currently, Israel seems to have killed a Hamas political leader in Tehran. Iran is also very much involved. How is Iran working with Venezuela?

Mr. Humire:

I’m going to take a different approach here. This is Nicolas Maduro’s secret weapon. At our center, this is what we have been focused on. The election is just one aspect. We have discussed it extensively, and we will see what unfolds.

However, what Maduro has been quietly building, especially over the past year or even longer, are military capabilities to potentially invade his neighbor, Guyana. These military capabilities are primarily supplied by Russia, China, and Iran. In fact, the military escalation begins after Nicolas Maduro returns from a week-long visit to China to meet with Xi Jinping. In fact, Xi Jinping skipped the G7 to spend time with his comrade, Nicolas Maduro. This occurred in September of last year.

Upon returning from China, Nicolas Maduro begins addressing the issue of the Esequibo. What is the Esequibo? It is a disputed territory between the borders of Venezuela and Guyana, which encompasses a significant portion of Guyana’s landmass. The Venezuelans believe that this territory was wrongfully taken from them.

I could delve into the 150-year history of this border dispute, but what truly matters here is that Maduro has started using this dispute to rally public sentiment and promote the idea of using force to reclaim the Esequibo. Alongside political rhetoric, he has also built up military presence along the Esequibo border, both on land and at sea along the maritime border.

In a recent article that I wrote, I argue that the maritime dimension is the most crucial aspect. This is because Guyana has made the largest offshore oil discovery of the 21st century. In 2015, they discovered 11 billion barrels of oil, which began entering the market in 2019. What does Maduro want?

He wants to expand the maritime border to gain control over that oil discovery. How does he plan to achieve this? The armament that has been arriving in Venezuela in recent years is of Iranian origin and design. It follows the Houthi tactic, which is similar to long-range piracy involving the use of drones, fast attack craft, radars, precision guided munitions, and missiles to target and disrupt vessels, thereby obstructing shipping routes and redirecting maritime traffic. This is what Maduro has been preparing for.

I can say with certainty that not only is he prepared to execute this plan, but he has likely conducted practice drills in recent months. This is his secret weapon. As the election situation unfolds and he faces increasing condemnation from the international community, he can simply launch an attack on Guyana and regain his leverage. By doing so, he diverts attention away from the condemnation he faces. The conversation becomes focused on the Guyana conflict rather than the election.

In my opinion, this is probably the most important conflict happening in Latin America. This conflict is connected to all the others, whether it’s Ukraine, Israel, or the potential incursion on Taiwan. It is relevant because it intersects with changes in maritime domain sharing, maritime security, and the creation of alternative shipping lanes and routes.

What did the Houthis actually accomplish? By clogging up the Red Sea and shutting down the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, they push maritime traffic around South Africa. However, this route connects with the South Atlantic and, in order to connect to the Caribbean, vessels must pass through Guyana and Venezuela. Thus, these conflicts are interconnected. This is why Russia, China, and Iran have been providing extensive support to Maduro. They do not care if Maduro is replaced, say by Emundo Gonzalez, because the same actions will be taken. That is the only way they will allow someone to hold on to power.

Mr. Jekielek:

Are you suggesting that VRIK is attempting to control global shipping lanes?

Mr. Humire:

Yes. China has recognized that the United States projects strength worldwide through trade, and maritime security is a crucial component of that. We are the only military force that truly protects the security and freedom of navigation of both oil and military vessels responding to humanitarian crises and other events worldwide. Therefore, in order to change this dynamic, they need to create conflicts that disrupt specific shipping lanes and establish alternative ones where they believe the United States cannot exert control.

In my view, the South Atlantic is one of the most uncontrolled bodies of water in terms of U.S. maritime security. We have limited influence and positioning there. If a crisis were to occur in the South Atlantic, it would require reaching out to three different combatant commands and multiple bureaus at the State Department. We lack an Atlantic division, which complicates matters. Additionally, this region is known for substantial transnational organized crime, drug trafficking, and international terrorist networks that operate there.

Historically, it was a route for the slave trade, transporting slaves from Africa to the New World. China has studied this region, which is why they support Iran’s aggressions in the Middle East to divert traffic there and why they backed Russia’s incursion into Ukraine as it created another supply line into India.They are actively seeking to develop new trade routes, and to me, this is a geopolitical move of significant magnitude.

Latin America is merely a proxy in this situation. They are not the ones in control of the outcome. Everything we observe in Latin America, whether it be the major port on the Pacific or the space stations in Argentina and other parts of South America, is all designed with the intention of controlling the functioning of international trade.

Mr. Jekielek:

When you mention VRIK, you are actually referring to China, since that is where the funding originates. If China were to withdraw from this relationship, the dynamics would change completely.

Mr. Humire:

China is the only global actor that possesses both the economic leverage and, to some extent, the political legitimacy to carry out such maneuvers. They operate through their Latin American partners. One partnership I would like to emphasize is the Sino-Iranian alliance. Iran holds significant power in Latin America, but not necessarily politically or economically. Their power lies within these networks.

For instance, in Bolivia, there are over a hundred so-called Iranian diplomats in the embassy in La Paz, Bolivia, who are destabilizing not only Peru, Chile, Argentina, and other neighboring countries, but also Venezuela and Nicaragua. China is also one of Bolivia’s largest debtors, so why does China establish this alliance with Iran?

Apart from the fact that the original Silk Road passed through the Persian Empire and China understands the historical trade routes, they also know that Iran lacks substantial political legitimacy and, therefore, has very little to lose. If Iran is caught creating a conflict with Guyana by providing missiles to Maduro or plotting a terrorist operation in Brazil or Argentina through their network in Bolivia, it is definitely a negative occurrence.

However, what do they lose? Nothing, since not much is expected from Iran. If China were ever to be associated with such activities, it could jeopardize trade relationships, business endeavors, and political influence. Thus, China is cautious not to get involved directly in any destabilizing operations.

Nevertheless, they are content with Iran carrying out those actions, as it allows China to position itself above the United States in Latin America. This alliance serves different purposes on various levels but ultimately serves Beijing’s interests.

Mr. Jekielek:

One way in which the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] undermines democratic countries is through the collaboration of Chinese state security, organized crime triads, and wealthy business tycoons. These three groups work in harmony to achieve specific goals. If you examine all three aspects together, you will suddenly grasp the overall plan. However, if you focus on each aspect individually, you won’t perceive the full scope of the activity. What you are describing appears to be a similar type of structure.

Mr. Humire:

Indeed. It also depends on one’s understanding of warfare. The Western perspective dictates that warfare must escalate and become kinetic before it is considered a true war. It is only when there is shooting and casualties that we recognize it as war.

Everything else is seen as politics or something else. China, on the other hand, has a different view of warfare. From Sun Tzu’s teachings to the PLA’s unrestricted warfare doctrine published at the turn of the century, the Chinese approach states that shooting only occurs at the end of a war. Everything leading up to that point is also considered part of the war. When we think of warfare in a traditional sense, it can be complex.

I have experienced wars, and they can be complex, but they can also be summed up in one word: compulsion. One side thinks, “If I can compel my adversary to submit to my will, I will win the war. If I can deceive them, coerce them, or even persuade them, it is still warfare.” This does not necessarily require military force.

According to Sun Tzu’s definition, warfare is still warfare even without military force. This goes beyond Clausewitz’s theories. I don’t want to delve into the entire theory of war, but China’s understanding of warfare is fundamentally different. They utilize non-state actors, state actors, multilateral institutions, and any leverage they can control, coerce, or influence to achieve their strategic objectives.

Their overall plan is to avoid engaging in a kinetic war with the United States. If forced, they might resort to such measures, but their preferred method is to make the United States submit, surrender to their desired world order without a direct conflict. This preference is evident in their strategy, particularly in Latin America.

Mr. Jekielek:

The close relationship between Maduro and Xi Jinping that you described, what are the implications for the situation in Venezuela?

Mr. Humire:

It took the Venezuelans a while to realize this, but the implications are significant. For a long time, they had a narrow understanding of what was happening in their country. They believed it was all about drugs and cartels, such as the Sons Cartel, the Cartel Solas, and the Sao Paulo Forum, which is a communist network. The involvement of Cuba and its brutal repression is also true. However, the problem with limiting their perspective to these regional actors is that it ignores the fact that Venezuela is anProofread and improved:

An island isolated from the rest of the world, Venezuela is strategically aligning itself with China, Russia, and Iran under the leadership of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro. Their vision for a new world involves China providing security for not only Venezuela, but all of Latin America. Russia would take on the role of leading the fight against narcotics and money laundering in the region, while Iran becomes the main partner for counterterrorism efforts. This ambitious plan is being executed through influence networks throughout Latin America.

In essence, this new world order would enable them to operate with impunity, free from the interference of the United States. Chavez’s goal was always to push the United States out of Latin America, as evident in his message of “Gringos, go home.” The United States’ presence and influence in Venezuela has significantly diminished over the years, and our embassy is no longer as effective as it once was. Rather than maintaining a strong strategic defense relationship, negotiations have become the norm.

This influence has also spread to countries like Nicaragua and Bolivia, where similar scenarios and conclusions have been observed. The Cuban dictatorship plays a significant role by providing intelligence support to all these countries following the same path. Their efforts are not limited to these countries but extend to Colombia, Honduras, Mexico, and Brazil. Their ultimate goal is to completely push the United States out of Latin America.

This not only poses risks for U.S. operations in the region but also for American travelers.

Chavez’s plan was to change the geography of Latin America, effectively forcing the United States out. Unfortunately, his ambitions were underestimated, with many dismissing him as a buffoon or a clown in the early 2000s. However, he strategically aligned himself with more powerful nations, leading us to the uncertain state of the world we find ourselves in today, teetering on the brink of a potential world war. Venezuela’s role in all of this cannot be ignored.

Mr. Jekielek:

The Israeli attack on Tehran and how Iran will respond remains unclear, just as the Russia-Ukraine war continues to rage on. The Houthi rebels persist in their actions, despite targeted efforts to contain them. The Israeli attack is sending a message to Iran. Now, we have this situation.

Mr. Humire:

Let me explain how all of this is interconnected for you. Whether it’s Ukraine, the events in Israel and the Middle East, or even the potential conflicts in the South China Sea involving the Philippines and Taiwan, the economic consequences beyond the direct military aspects are what we need to focus on.

The second and third order effects of the Ukraine war, for example, go beyond the loss of life between Ukrainians and Russians. Although that’s terrible and deserves attention, we must also consider the impact on food security.

The price of wheat and fertilizers is influenced by this conflict. Since 12 percent of the world’s consumed calories come from wheat and fertilizer produced in and exported from Russia or Ukraine, it has caused food insecurity in Africa and Latin America. Latin America currently faces the highest food insecurity rate in the world at 44 percent food inflation. Africa, on the other hand, has historically experienced low levels of famine and food insecurity.

This food insecurity has led to political instability and consecutive toppling of governments in affected regions. This is the true geopolitical consequence of the Ukraine war. As for the war against Israel, its geopolitical element lies in the collapse of Egypt through the consequences of the Ukraine war. If the traffic through the Suez Canal remains closed, Egypt’s economy could experience inflation rates of 40 to 60 percent, which could lead to its collapse.

It is crucial to remember that the Muslim Brotherhood is poised to regain power in Egypt. Diplomatically, this also undermines Israel as it hinders their ability to provide historical humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. Moreover, it creates instability in the maritime domain, extending from the Gulf to Africa, the Mediterranean, and redirecting it throughout the South.

This illustrates the economic effects of the conflict involving Israel. We can also discuss the potential developments in Taiwan, Latin America, and Guyana, which are all aimed at weakening the global order. When we think of power, we often consider conventional economic and military power. However, there are only two ways that power can truly be projected. Growth is one way; if the United States, Latin America, and Europe experience economic growth, they can exert power.The second way is through collapse, which is perhaps what China is aiming for. They may be seeking a collapse of the world order, understanding that they won’t grow much due to their own economic challenges.I know more about what’s happening in the mainland than most people, but if the rest of the world collapses, China appears to be stronger and can then exert power through economics. This is why when I look at the geopolitical landscape of the world, I see a lot of these conflicts being carried out in a very coordinated manner.

These conflicts are strategically planned and executed, not just on the battlefield, but also in terms of how they will reshape the world. However, what many people fail to consider is the part that I tend to focus on, which is Latin America.

Currently, Venezuela is not seen as a geopolitical conflict. It is viewed as an election involving a dictator and a courageous opposition leader. However, I believe that Venezuela is actually a geopolitical actor.

As an actor, Venezuela serves as a platform for Russia, China, and Iran to reshape the geopolitical dynamics of Latin America. If they succeed, this platform will enable them to connect their efforts in Latin America with what they are doing in other parts of the world.

Mr. Jekielek:

When a regime lacks legitimacy, it can get away with a lot because people expect it to do bad things.

Mr. Humire:

Yes, exactly. There is a sense that Russia, China, and Iran have done a lot to polarize the world. They believe that they don’t need international consensus as long as they have a small group of sanctioned autocratic states. They have created mechanisms to continue moving money through illicit economies and criminal networks, and they are able to act in a coordinated manner.

As a result, they don’t really care about the actions of the West. They believe that Europe and the United States can do whatever they want, and if they interfere with them, they will retaliate, or more likely, they will infiltrate their countries and divide them, rendering them ineffective.

Mr. Jekielek:

The Chinese regime has mastered the art of subversion through its United Front operations. It engages in gray zone warfare, as seen in the case of the Philippines. China is actually being aggressive towards the Philippines, but in a way that doesn’t necessitate a military response, only a diplomatic one. They are always pushing and testing boundaries, and this is happening constantly somewhere in the world.

Mr. Humire:

They are highly skilled at understanding the dynamics of controlling both sides of a conflict, utilizing plausible deniability, and strategically positioning themselves, as you know. In colloquial terms, it’s like being both an arsonist and a firefighter in many of these conflicts. Let’s take the Venezuelan-Guyana situation as an example. If that conflict escalates, Iran will be closely scrutinized as the external supporter, since their drones, missiles, radars, and fast-attack craft will be used by Maduro. Maduro will be viewed as a tyrant attacking another country.

However, China, despite catalyzing this conflict and supplying some of the missiles, will not face the same scrutiny. Even Maduro’s trip to Beijing, which kick-started the conflict, will be forgotten. Instead, China will promote its close relationship with Guyana through its allies in Latin America.

Many of Guyana’s infrastructure projects are financed by China, including a significant concession on the offshore oil discovered off Guyana’s coast. China holds economic leverage in this regard and will present itself as a peacemaker, offering to help resolve Guyana’s Maduro problem.

This is how China positions itself in various regions like Ukraine, the Middle East, and Latin America. They strive to establish a sense of legitimacy that compels people to submit to their will. It’s important to acknowledge that although the tactics may differ, the underlying objective of warfare remains the same. They may not have physically invaded Guyana or Latin America, but they may still achieve their goals through unconventional means.

While their military is growing, they are not yet capable of projecting naval power like the United States. However, they compensate for this with asymmetric tactics. We have reached an inflection point, and this alliance began taking shape around 1991.

Many people believe that the Cold War ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. However, the Gulf War in 1991 is often referred to as the Forgotten War. This was when the United States intervened in Kuwait and repelled Saddam’s army. It’s crucial to consider the geopolitical landscape at that time, as the collapse of the Soviet Union was also occurring.

They are no longer a major power. Their military is fragmented; it’s not what it used to be. Iran had just spent 10 years fighting the same army that we were able to repel in a matter of weeks. They’re looking at us and saying, “These guys didn’t take three or four weeks. It took us 10 years to come to a tie.”

China was not the power that it is today. It was just trying to convince the world that it wants to grow into this new economic model. Eventually, in 2001, it gained accession into the WTO. In 1991, I believe these countries looked at the United States repelling Saddam’s army in Iraq and Kuwait and said, “We’re never going to fight these guys conventionally. We’re never going to go bullet for bullet, bomb for bomb with these guys because we will lose. This is a very powerful military.”

They changed their doctrine. That was the birth of the Jerusalem Doctrine in Russia, the Soleimani Doctrine in Iran, and the unrestricted warfare and the three warfare doctrine in the Chinese military commission in China. They started to realize that they needed to create a new understanding of warfare and implement it within our doctrine, and then unite as an alliance.

The conflict in 1991 was unbeknownst to us. America was not trying to send that message to the world, or maybe it was. But fundamentally, I don’t think we wanted to push Russia, China, and Iran together. We were trying to defend a sovereign nation, Kuwait, from an invading army, which was Iraq.

But we fundamentally sent a signal throughout the world through our use of force, and that generated a reaction. That reaction is what led to this multipolar world we face today, what I call the VRIC. That is what we’re facing in the present time.

Mr. Jekielek:

You may very well be right. This has been a great discussion. Any final thoughts as we finish up?

Mr. Humire:

Let’s end with Venezuela, since we began with it. We’re in an election season in the United States. Regardless of whatever happens in November, one of the biggest foreign policy failures of the United States has been Latin America. The fact that we haven’t prioritized this region, the fact that we haven’t focused on it, the fact that we haven’t effectively competed against China in Latin America is a failure of our own vision or lack thereof in global affairs.

It doesn’t make any sense to me that you could have a grand strategy for every part of the world except the one in which you live. It’s almost like saying China has strategies for everywhere except the Indo-Pacific or Russia for everywhere except Central Eastern Europe, or Iran for everywhere except the Middle East. It just doesn’t make sense.

Our adversaries prioritize their nearby regions and then expand globally. The United States is active globally but ignores its own neighboring region. That’s never going to work, regardless of whatever happens.In the upcoming November election, it is crucial that we elevate Latin America on the list of priorities for foreign policy and national security. I would argue that it should be placed right after the Indo-Pacific region.

The Indo-Pacific will always be a priority due to our interests and our commitment to protecting the Pacific Ocean. However, I believe that Latin America, which is on the other side of the Pacific, should be given high priority as well. If we don’t, we will witness the dispersion of many Venezuelans throughout Latin America, which would impede America’s ability to grow and prosper.

Mr. Jekielek:

Joseph Humire, it is a pleasure to have you on the show.

Mr. Humire:

Absolutely. The pleasure is mine as well.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.