NOURNEWS: While global public attention remains largely focused on developments in West Asia and the war in Ukraine, significant developments are also unfolding in Latin America. These developments carry implications far beyond the region, offering important clues about U.S. strategic objectives and the nature of Washington’s relationship with its allies. They suggest that countries that continue to seek security under Washington’s protection may ultimately find themselves facing a reality quite different from the promises they were given.

From Resource Plunder to Implementing “Israel First”

Venezuela severed diplomatic relations with Israel in 2009 as part of a policy driven by popular sentiment and support for the Palestinian cause. Now, however, the country’s new leaders, who came to power amid U.S. pressure and influence, have moved toward restoring consular relations with Tel Aviv. Meanwhile, Colombia, under the presidency of Abelardo de Laspieria, who came to power with U.S. support and intervention, has recognized Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights.

These developments cannot be explained simply as the result of changes in government. The experience of Argentina and several other Latin American countries has also shown that political shifts in the region can sometimes follow a combination of U.S. economic, political, and security pressures. During the Trump administration, as part of an effort to revive the Monroe Doctrine, Washington sought to limit the influence of China and Russia and once again turn Latin America into its backyard—from claims of combating drug trafficking and pressure on governments to political intervention, destabilization efforts, and military actions.

Yet behind this policy lies an objective that goes beyond geopolitical competition: strengthening the “Israel First” agenda and countering the growing support for Palestine and the freedom movements among the peoples of the region. From this perspective, efforts to bring Israel back into the political equation of Latin America are part of the same strategy aimed at limiting support for the Palestinian cause.

Champions of International Law, Partners in Crime

Washington’s role in pushing Colombia to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and pressuring Venezuela to restore ties with Israel takes on greater significance given that the Golan Heights remains occupied territory and Israel’s conduct in Gaza and across the region has faced widespread international criticism and legal proceedings.

The silence of Western governments that portray themselves as defenders of human rights and a rules-based international order exposes a deep contradiction between their rhetoric and their actions. The result is a weakening of international law, increased confidence on the part of Israel, and the creation of conditions that allow occupation and alleged crimes to continue.

Within this context, the rhetorical criticism of Tel Aviv by some American figures also takes on a different meaning. In practice, Washington has not distanced itself from Israel; rather, it has continued to invest in expanding Israel’s influence and legitimacy even in distant regions. This reality not only highlights Israel’s structural dependence on U.S. support but also calls into question claims that it could continue to exist independently without Washington’s backing.

Latin America’s Lesson for Damascus and U.S. Hosts

Developments in Colombia and Venezuela also carry a clear message for Syria. At a time when the leadership in Damascus, headed by Ahmed al-Sharaa, describes the United States as a supporter and emphasizes that it poses no threat to Israel, the Latin American experience shows that U.S. support does not necessarily translate into support for a country’s independence or national interests.

Concessions such as removing Ahmed al-Sharaa from terrorism-related lists cannot, by themselves, be regarded as evidence of long-term U.S. support for Syria’s reconstruction. When Washington remains silent over Israeli occupation while simultaneously seeking Damascus’s cooperation with this situation, the real direction of its policy becomes clearer.

Statements by Amichai Chikli, Israel’s minister for diaspora affairs, who has described Ahmed al-Sharaa as “Israel’s next enemy” and called another war between Israel and Syria inevitable, also suggest that the issue goes beyond the current relationship between Damascus and Washington. A broader equation is taking shape in which Israeli interests increasingly overshadow many other considerations.

From this perspective, Latin America offers a serious warning to Arab and Muslim countries that continue to rely on the U.S. security umbrella: military bases, security agreements, and even political accommodation do not guarantee independence or lasting security. The United States, above all, pursues its own interests and those of Israel.

The way forward lies not in greater dependence, but in building indigenous security arrangements and strengthening regional cooperation—the same path that Iran has demonstrated in part by relying on its national capabilities and strategically managing the Strait of Hormuz. Developments in Latin America once again show that genuine independence is the first prerequisite for lasting security, and that a region can shape its own future only when it takes control of its security architecture away from Washington and Tel Aviv.