On the ball.

Another Graham - Graham Greene, saw this sort of thing gaining traction decades ago.

This is a classic case of retrofitting Trump's erratic and directionless actions into a coherent strategy, in order to avoid facing what is, for some, a very uncomfortable and inconvenient reality:

Trump has no idea what he's doing, and is likely just stuck at a pre-reflective moral stage where power feels self-justifying and restraint feels arbitrary - a stage most of us had progressed passed by the time we were adults.

I now call it "the 4D-Chess myth".

The article repeatedly infers doctrine from rhetoric. Trump's rambling press conferences are treated as strategic signals, while contradictions and improvisation are reinterpreted as deliberate design. That's narrative smoothing, not evidence of planning.

The "broken windows" analogy is the clearest flaw. Policing metaphors don't scale to sovereign states. Venezuela is not a squatter camp; it is a complex political system with regional spillovers, alliances, and escalation risks. Treating regime change as tidy law-enforcement trivialises those dynamics.

The legal framing is similarly thin. Calling a military seizure of a foreign head of state "law enforcement" does not resolve the international law problem, it simply dismisses it. US law does not substitute for sovereignty by assertion alone.

Oil is also treated as a universal lever: stabiliser, bribe, deterrent, revenue stream, and electoral tool. This ignores infrastructure collapse, corruption, sanctions, long lead times, and the historical record of resource-driven instability.

Finally, the piece claims Trump rejects exporting democracy while repeatedly relying on democratic legitimacy when convenient. Democracy is dismissed rhetorically but smuggled back in narratively.

As MAGA storytelling, the article is internally consistent. As strategic analysis, it is speculative, metaphor-driven, and overconfident.

Poor old Chat Bot Johnny…he just ain’t got the understanding! (Maybe he’s the wrong colour, or gender).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-international-organizations-conventions-and-treaties-that-are-contrary-to-the-interests-of-the-united-states/

Trump is in fact, very focused, fail to see how, (unless your a free love and open borders Democrat), you dispute that!

Clearly my post irritated you, Muff Diver Dan.

Splendid.

That link doesn’t address my point at all, sorry. Withdrawing from international institutions shows hostility to multilateral constraints, not evidence of a coherent, pre-planned Venezuela strategy. I never claimed Trump was confused about his dislikes.

The issue is whether Graham is inferring doctrine from rhetoric after the fact, and smoothing over contradictions by treating improvisation as design. Posting an EO doesn’t answer that.

Also, reducing disagreement to “free love and open borders Democrats” is just a way of avoiding the argument. You can oppose international institutions and stil

Why not check out this reference
http://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the-narco-traficcking-elite-set-to

Two books
Black Pill by Elle Reeve
American Reich A New Age of Hate by Eric Lichtblau