The abduction and rendition of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is supposed to be about the illicit drug trade, but it’s really about oil. Venezuela is not a major drug supplier to the United States, especially where the administration’s main worry, fentanyl, is concerned. President Donald Trump gave the game away during his January 3 press conference by saying the word “drugs” four times and the word “oil” more than 20 times. “You know, they stole our oil,” Trump said. “We, we built that whole industry there. And they just took it over like we were nothing. And we had a president that decided not to do anything about it.”

Trump didn’t name this do-nothing American president. Actually, Venezuela nationalized its oil industry not once but twice. Both expropriations occurred while Republicans occupied the White House. The first was 50 years ago, on President Gerald Ford’s watch. The second was 19 years ago, on President George W. Bush’s watch.

Neither Republican president did much to fight Venezuela’s nationalizations, in Ford’s case because the energy crisis made it an unpropitious moment, and in Bush’s case because he was already at war with an entirely different petrostate, Iraq. The lesson of that conflict was that, yes, military intervention can open foreign oil spigots, but at an unacceptable price in blood and treasure. At Saturday’s press conference, Trump said, “It won’t cost us anything because the money coming out of the ground is very substantial.” If Trump thinks that’s true, he’s even dumber than I thought.

Before we proceed, let me clarify that the realpolitik discussion to follow is not premised on any notion that America’s  invasion of Venezuela was legal and proper. It was no more in accordance with domestic or international law than President George H.W. Bush’s similar invasion of Panama in 1989 to arrest Manuel Noriega on drug charges. There’s a standing indictment against Maduro for providing diplomatic cover and other assistance to ship cocaine to the United States, much as there was a standing indictment (and subsequent conviction) against Noriega for racketeering and cocaine trafficking. But the only reason Noriega’s prosecution wasn’t thrown out was that the courts refused to consider the constitutionality of the Panama invasion that brought Noriega to the United States. They refused to consider it because if they had considered it they’d have had a very hard time ruling it constitutional. That’s likely to be the case again here, because courts don’t like mucking around in anything related to presidential war powers.

Another parallel with Noriega is what you might call the “good riddance” factor. Like Maduro, Noriega was not the elected president of Panama. Like Maduro, Noriega seized power in defiance of an election. Noriega barred the duly elected Guillermo Endara from........

© New Republic