January 4, 2026
War, but make it theatre
The Venezuelan Oil Narative Is Pure Theatre
Commenters say it’s minerals, not oil, and the Pentagon runs the show
TLDR: The post claims the Pentagon drove the Venezuela attack for critical minerals and to oust rivals, not oil. Comments split: some call it illegal theater, others say it’s long-planned consent-manufacturing, and skeptics doubt an occupation—this matters because it shows how wars get sold to the public.
On Renegade Resources, the post says the Pentagon, not the president, really green-lit January 3’s Venezuela strike, and that Trump’s oil talk is just PR. The “real” reasons, it argues: securing critical minerals used in phones and electric cars, and pushing out China, Iran, and Russia. The comments? Flaming.
Critics like FrankWilhoit torch the thesis as “whitewashing Ledeenism”, warning the logic implies a full-blown occupation of hard terrain—aka, not happening. Legal purists like zaktoo2 slam it as “still illegal” and dream of booting the U.S. from the UN. Meanwhile, chiefalchemist shrugs: nobody’s naive enough to think it’s just oil, and says Trump’s go-to play is keep rivals on their heels. Regional nerves spike with marcodiego, a Brazilian, noting his country’s huge rare earth reserves: “if it’s minerals, are we next?” Jacknews stitches receipts, claiming this was set up years ago by rebranding fentanyl as a “weapon of mass destruction” to shift drugs from police to military and “manufacture consent.”
Memes fly: oil barrels labeled “prop,” the Pentagon cast as “showrunner,” Trump as “host,” and “WMD = We Mean Minerals.” It’s a high-octane thread mixing strategy, ethics, and showbiz vibes—half geopolitics, half Netflix pilot, all drama.
Key Points
- •The article claims the Pentagon led planning and approval for the January 3, 2026 Venezuela operation, with the president authorizing and providing political messaging.
- •It argues the public oil and narcotics narrative is politically convenient but strategically incomplete.
- •Venezuela’s oil output is cited at about 700,000 barrels per day with degraded infrastructure and no chokepoint control.
- •Iraq 2003 is used as a contrast, with potential oil output over 3 million barrels per day, OPEC leverage, and petrodollar considerations.
- •The piece asserts the Pentagon acted due to converging risks from Chinese, Iranian, and Russian activities in Venezuela, tied to critical minerals and adversary expulsion.