Saturday, 11 July 2026

Regime Change Operatives Arrive in Venezuela — to Help Save People!

 Regime Change Operatives Arrive in Venezuela — to Help Save People!

by Lee Camp

Dissident Voice

Remember the White Helmets? The Oscar-winning “rescue workers” who pulled “dying children” out of the rubble in Syria in their spare moments between regime change ops and false flag chemical weapons attacks? They were the best, weren’t they? Really showed the world that real-life superheroes do exist — in their spare time between regime change ops.

Well, they’re back! This time in Venezuela! And this time it clearly has nothing to do with regime change because the US and Britain have no interest in the country of Venezuela because it doesn’t have any oil at all and isn’t socialist and doesn’t partner with China.

Wait, my editor (who stands next to me at all times) just informed me that Venezuela does have some oil. …Okay, they have all the oil. They have more oil than any country on earth. …And they’re socialist. …And they do partner with China. …And now my carping editor has informed me that the US has demonstrated at least a modicum of interest in the Latin American country. Apparently the US has recently kidnapped and tortured Venezuela’s president and his wife and blown up 200 of their fishermen.

Anyway, just a few days ago, Syria’s state news agency SANA published a hard-on for the arrival of the White Helmets in Venezuela to help with the earthquake rescue mission. But what’s wrong with the White Helmets? They’re only there to help.

Well, as Kit Klarenberg noted:

“The group was established in 2014 by ARK, a shadowy British intelligence cutout founded by MI6 veteran Alistair Harris.”

You know a group is shadowy bullshit when their name looks like an acronym but isn’t one. ARK doesn’t stand for anything. I guess it’s just capitalized because they’re yelling their name at us. (Oh, and the co-founder of the White Helmets — former British military officer James Le Mesurier — was found dead in 2019 in Istanbul, having exited his high-rise apartment at 4:00 am via the window.)

So what did the Academy Award-winning White Helmets have to do with bringing down Syria’s government and dumping it into the hands of the CIA, MI6, and a former Al Qaeda leader? How does saving children, or pretending to save children, bring about regime change? From Kit Klarenberg:

… the group [White Helmets] and other ARK-created quasi-state structures shored up the dominance of Jabhat al-Nusra, which subsequently rebranded as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), before violently taking power in Damascus in December 2024. By providing state-like rescue services in HTS-occupied areas, the extremist faction’s credibility as a governance actor with local Syrians was significantly enhanced, to the extent HTS became “synonymous with opposition to Assad.” Leaked documents show British intelligence well-knew these activities assisted HTS’s “growing influence”, in the years leading up to Assad’s ouster.

Leaked documents have shown the White Helmets were first created in 2013 in a secret British program. Not only did the program pump out powerful anti-Assad propaganda, it also helped build parallel state structures that would be of great use in pushing the government closer to collapse. And, oh yeah, the White Helmets would also show how good they are at helping to create false-flag chemical weapons attacks. They really are jacks-of-all-trades.

So now they’re in Venezuela. Just to help. Nothing else. Not gonna try to surveil, infiltrate, infest, and delegitimize the Venezuelan government at all. They’ve seen the error of their old ways, and they totally won’t false flag anymore. …They pinky promise.

And if the roles were reversed, I’m sure the US government would have no issue whatsoever allowing a “rescue group” into the United States to “help us.” A rescue group founded by a foreign adversarial intelligence agency. A rescue group with a history of facilitating a dirty war that collapsed a government at the direction of said intelligence agency.

In conclusion, I would like to speak for the White Helmets: “Hello, good people of Venezuela. We are the White Helmets. We come in peace. …Is that a chemical weapon I see over there??”

US Might Take “Military Actions in Brazilian Territory,” Foreign Ministry Warns

 US Might Take “Military Actions in Brazilian Territory,” Foreign Ministry Warns

Global Research,

Brazil’s traditionally cautious diplomatic establishment has issued an unusually explicit warning regarding possible US military action.

Legal, financial, and geopolitical pressures are reshaping relations across the continent in the context of regional crises and expanding American counterterrorism policies.

In an official communication to Brazil’s Congress, the Ministry of Foreign Relations, known as Itamaraty, has acknowledged that “there exists a risk of US military force being used against Brazilian territory.” The warning references recent episodes in Venezuela, Colombia, and Cuba, and comes shortly after Washington designated the Brazilian criminal organizations Comando Vermelho (CV) and Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) as terrorist entities.

Brazil’s diplomatic establishment, dating all the way back to the Empire of Brazil (under Baron of Rio Branco), is historically cautious and conservative in its public statements. Even as the ministry notes that no fundamentally new intelligence points to imminent threats, and rather frames its assessment around regional precedents, the unusually explicit wording of this disclosure itself suggests deeper concerns. Itamaraty has long been regarded by scholars as “one of the world’s most professionalized diplomatic corps”.

The point is that for such a measured institution to issue this kind of alert in an official document, one can assume (or at least speculate) that undisclosed intelligence assessments are most likely being weighed at the highest levels behind closed doors.

Washington’s decision (to label Brazil’s crime gangs as terrorist organizations), as I wrote before, frames the PCC and CV within the same legal architecture the Trump administration has applied to other Latin American criminal networks. Officially aimed at combating transnational crime, the move expands US tools for sanctions, asset freezes, prosecutions, and financial pressure.

Brazilian authorities had long resisted this classification, viewing the groups as profit-driven criminal enterprises rather than ideologically-driven terrorists. Prosecutor Lincoln Gakiya even warned the American move could actually complicate domestic anti-crime efforts. Economist José Kobori in turn argued Washington now can pressure Brazilian banks, businesses, and potentially even the Pix instant payment system.

The designation in fact fits a broader pattern of leverage. Brazil’s growing BRICS role, strategic ties with China, and independent foreign policy have made it a focal point, from Washington’s perspective. The economic stakes here are significant, involving heightened compliance costs for banks and firms, potential pressure on sovereign systems like Pix, and challenges to dollar-alternative initiatives through the BRICS New Development Bank.

Thus far, major institutions report limited immediate disruption, but the long-term extraterritorial reach of US counterterrorism rules raises alarms about financial sovereignty.

This development unfolds against a backdrop of Trump and Rubio’s neo-Monroeism in the context of a South America already in considerable turmoil.

One may recall that, in January 2026, US forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in a swift operation, transferring him to face narcoterrorism charges in the United States. Bolivarian Venezuela now stands arguably under de facto US control to some extent. Cuba in turn faces renewed strangulation efforts through sanctions and isolation.

Meanwhile, Colombia has experienced its own threats of military action and high tensions, enhanced now with the recent election of Trump-endorsed Abelardo de la Espriella as President, a US citizen (literally a member of the Republican Party and a big donor). The incumbent President disputes the election result, calling it a fraud.

Moreover, Mexico has navigated its own US-backed operations against cartels, a bizarre (and disastrous) kind of “collaboration” involving intelligence sharing that takes place under pressure and threats of military action,

The American appetite for warfare seems to be on the rise lately. Could Washington plan to assassinate or kidnap Brazil’s President Lula da Silva – or send troops? Such an extreme scenario is of course very unlikely. For one thing, Silva remains a respected international leader, not the head of a long-sanctioned “rogue” state (from the West’s perspective). In addition, Brazil is Latin America’s largest economy and a foundational BRICS power.

In this particular sense, Brazil is no Iran and no Venezuela. A regime-change operation thus appears highly improbable – not to mention a full-scale invasion.

The Western superpower is indeed already stretched thin with the Iranian quagmire and an unresolved situation in Ukraine. Considering this, any direct military action against Brazilian targets would seem remote. Yet Itamaraty’s warning cannot be dismissed lightly. It signals a strategy of tension, using labels, sanctions, and precedents to create leverage and chaos.

Brazil finds itself increasingly “encircled”. Again, an American citizen now leads Colombia. Argentina under Milei has drawn closer to the UK and explored NATO ties. Venezuela’s situation adds to the pressure. In an extreme scenario, escalation could then become a real danger.

Today’s neo-Monroeist wave is troubled by the chance of blowback. PCC and CV are deeply rooted in Brazil’s social and prison fabric. External “decapitation” efforts, as seen in Mexico and elsewhere, have often produced more violence and instability than resolution.

Washington in any case deploys terrorist labels, sanctions, and military precedents as negotiating instruments in a revitalized hemispheric doctrine. Thus, the risks Itamaraty highlights reflect real concerns over extraterritorial overreach.

Suffice to say, all this can only bring disastrous consequences to a continent already in turmoil. The Atlantic superpower, overburdened abroad, risks inflaming regional instability through pressure tactics that undermine sovereignty without delivering lasting security gains.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author/InfoBrics

The Zionist Plan for a Concentration Camp in Gaza

 The Zionist Plan for a Concentration Camp in Gaza

Israel moves to intern 600,000 Palestinians in the “most moral concentration camp in the world.”

Global Research,

Auschwitz-Birkenau,

Treblinka,

Belzec,

Sobibor and Chełmno.

These should be destinations Israeli Jews remember and abhor, and yet we are told, by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz (PDF), that a concentration camp in the works on the ethnic cleansed ruin of Rafah is somehow not only moral, but the most moral concentration camp in the world.

The support given by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the criminal plan being promoted by Defense Minister Yisrael Katz, involving the construction of a “humanitarian city” on the ruins of Rafah, which would incarcerate all the enclave’s residents, is a moral and historic nadir for the State of Israel and the Jewish people. No matter how they try in Israel to wrap this move with laundered epithets, they are talking about a concentration camp.

The Zionist state, according to Katz, plans to herd 600,000 Palestinians currently forced to shelter in tents and makeshift homes within the coastal al-Mawasi area of southern Gaza to an area in the ruins of Rafah city. “Eventually, the entire civilian population of over two million in Gaza would be confined to this small ‘city,’” the Middle East Eye reports.

Katz said that once concentrated in the new city, Palestinians would be encouraged to “voluntarily” leave the Gaza Strip for other countries, as part of an “emigration plan” he said “will happen”.

In July, 2025 the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) proposed a “Humanitarian Transit Area” where Gaza residents would “temporarily reside, deradicalise, re-integrate and prepare to relocate if they wish to do so,” Al Jazeera reported. GHF operated food distribution sites outside the United Nations system.

Humanitarian aid organizations and UN-affiliated experts say GHF previously violated humanitarian principles by directing civilians to hazardous militarized aid sites instead of establishing a neutral network. The BBC reported that more than 500 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid since the GHF began operating in May, 2025. Oxfam and Save the Children report Israeli forces and armed groups “routinely” fired on Palestinians seeking aid. GHF ended its operation in late 2025.

In March, the RAND Corporation published Pursuing Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration in Gaza: A Critical Pathway to a Durable Peace. The white paper follows a Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) three-stage strategy used by UN Peacekeeping to transition war-torn societies to peace.

The RAND report does not take into account Israeli policies of settlement expansion, collective punishment, arbitrary imprisonment, and periodically “mowing the grass,” that to say conducting violent raids into Gaza. Decades of Zionist mistreatment of Palestinians naturally perpetuates radicalization and determined resistance.

The Strategic Hamlet Program

In 1962, the administration of Ngo Dinh Diem, in collaboration with the Kennedy administration, initiated the counterinsurgency Strategic Hamlet Program in South Vietnam. This rural pacification initiative involved relocating South Vietnamese villagers into barbed-wired “protected hamlets,” distancing them from their ancestral lands and inhibiting any support for the National Liberation Front (NLF), commonly referred to as the Viet Cong. US advisors forcefully put them to work building the internment “villages.” The concept of fortifying villages and hamlets originated from the British Army. They had effectively implemented it in Malaysia. Sir Robert Thompson, the head of the British advisory team to Ngo Dinh Diem, recommended it.

The French constructed “protective villages” in Tonkin, later known as agrovilles, under commander François de Linares in 1952. The effort was underwritten by the United States and eventually interned three million Vietnamese. Vietnam War correspondent Bernard Fall said, “the French strategic hamlets resembled British [Malayan] prototypes line for line.”

The Malaysian strategic villages were established in the 1950s under the Briggs Plan, a British counterinsurgency population-control and resettlement program devised by Lt‑Gen. Sir Harold Briggs during the Malayan Emergency of 1948–1960. The villages were designed to break the link between the Min Yuen, a civilian support network, Malayan Communist Party (MCP) guerrillas.

The Briggs Plan villages led to extensive forced resettlement, identity registration, curfews, supervised relocations, coordinated civil-military administration, and the recruitment of home guards among settlers. This initiative played a significant role in the ultimate defeat of the MCP insurgency.

The exploitation experienced in Malaysia during the colonial era was closely associated with the economic extraction methods employed by the British, particularly in the rubber and tin industries. This system was characterized by oppressive labor practices, land dispossession, and legal arrangements that benefited colonial corporations and administrators.

The Strategic Hamlet Program in Vietnam failed due to its rapid implementation, inadequate defense, corruption, poor execution, and alienation of the rural population it aimed to win over. The fundamental strategic mistake was that the program prioritized physically separating people from the Viet Cong without first making the government more appealing than the communists.

.

A strategic hamlet in South Vietnam, c. 1964 (Public Domain)

.

British Concentration Camps in South Africa

During the Second Boer War in South Africa (1900-1902), the British implemented concentration camps to eliminate support for Boer guerrillas and to suppress resistance during the conflict. “While civilian internment in South Africa was not intended to be genocidal, it resulted in a significant loss of life and enduring resentment among Boer descendants,” writes Garth Benneyworth from the Department of Historical Studies at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa.

A minimum of 40 concentration camps were established, interning approximately 150,000 Boer refugees, predominantly women and children. Estimates suggest that Boer fatalities ranged from about 18,000 to 28,000, with children constituting the majority of the casualties. Overcrowding and unsanitary conditions resulted in outbreaks of diseases, including typhoid, malaria, measles, and dysentery.

The camps were created following the British failure to subdue the Boer South African Republic and the Orange Free State, as well as to gain control over the profitable Witwatersrand gold mines. In reaction to the Boers’ resistance, the British implemented a scorched earth strategy that methodically destroyed crops, contaminated water sources, burned homesteads and farms, and interned Boer and African men, women, and children.

Violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz’s “New Rafah” plan is a high-tech version of previous concentration camps. In a similar fashion to the Strategic Hamlet Program and the Boer camps in South Africa, “New Rafah” is primarily intended to separate Palestinian civilians from Hamas and prepare for the forced migration of two million people (despite the fact few if any countries are willing to take ethnically cleansed Palestinians). The Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor reports the Israeli plan

constitutes a clear violation of international humanitarian law, particularly the absolute prohibition on the forced transfer and mass detention of protected populations under the Fourth Geneva Convention. It falls within the scope of forced displacement, persecution, and apartheid, which are patterns of policies and practices that individually amount to crimes against humanity under international law.

Zionist Israel, however, has repeatedly demonstrated its contempt for international law in regard to the protection of civilians. “Rather than abide by these rules, Israel has openly defied international law time and again, inflicting maximum suffering on civilians in the occupied Palestinian territory and beyond,” notes the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner.

The “humanitarian city” proposed by Katz follows previous violations, including illegal settlements, annexations, military watchtowers and barbed-wire fences on Palestinian land, refusal to allow the right of return for refugees, numerous deadly sieges in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and the breach of over 30 UN Security Council resolutions.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Kurt Nimmo is a journalist, author, and geopolitical analyst, New Mexico, United States. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Visit the author’s blog.

Featured image source