Potentially on the cusp of another regime change war, last night ZeroHedge collaborated with The Matt Gaetz show to host a pointed debate on how Trump should handle the evil and corrupt Maduro regime—a familiar Washington storyline now resurfacing amid renewed sanctions pressure, significant U.S. military maneuvers, and Beltway think tank consensus.
The debate featured Curt Mills, Executive Director of The American Conservative, and Venezuelan opposition figure Emmanuel Rincon, moderated by former Congressman Matt Gaetz.
We strongly recommend the full hour-long debate, but here the highlights for those short of time:
The Venezuelan Chalabi
Mills warned that Washington is once again falling for a familiar con, comparing the case for regime change in Venezuela to the pre-Iraq War fantasy sold by exiles promising instant democracy if only the U.S. removes the “bad man” at the top.
“I suppose I’m debating the Venezuelan Ahmed Chalabi,” Mills said, noting that diaspora groups routinely make sweeping claims about what “the people on the street” believe and what the country will supposedly look like “the day after,” all while assuming they and their allies would be handed power.
The truth, he argued, is simpler and more damning: “We don’t know. And this is not the U.S.’s business.”
Context: Ahmed Chalabi—a wealthy Iraqi exile—was a pivotal figure in selling the Iraq War to U.S. neoconservatives, largely by feeding them what they most wanted to believe: that toppling Saddam would quickly yield a secular, pro-Western Iraqi democracy that would also normalize ties with Israel. Chalabi’s circle also supplied “crucial intelligence” about Iraqi weaponry that “almost all… turned out to be false,” helping justify the invasion and underpin the “liberators” fantasy.
Mills also took aim at the security rationale behind intervention, arguing that regime change is a wildly inefficient response to crime or drugs.
“The U.S. does not need to stop all crime everywhere,” he said, adding that protecting Americans can be achieved far more effectively through border enforcement and cooperation with law enforcement than through a war.
The real danger, he cautioned, is strategic self-harm: Venezuela risks becoming “the American Ukraine,” a war of choice that bogs the U.S. down and consumes an entire presidency.
— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) December 20, 2025
Drug-Busting, Not Regime Change
The exchange turned on whether regime change could be sold as something short of war.
Emmanuel Rincon insisted that it could, arguing, “You’re not going to war against Venezuela. You are going to war against a drug cartel. It’s not the same.”
In Rincon’s telling, the scenario would not involve Venezuela’s military at all:
“You’re not going to have all the military of Venezuela going into a war with the United States. That is not going to happen.”
Mills dismissed that framing as semantic evasion.
“Like in World War II, they could argue that we weren’t going to war with Germany—we were going to war with the Nazi regime, with the SS,” he said. “But of course we’re going to war with Germany.”
Stripping away the euphemisms, Mills argued the same logic applies in Caracas:
“We would be going to war with Venezuela—the people that run Venezuela today.” adding:
“Maduro can get the fuck out…”
— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) December 20, 2025
Watch the full debate below because – while Tucker v Ben Shapiro drama may be stealing the show right now – how this Venezuela debate pans out within the Trump admin could put lives on the line… and very soon.
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 20, 2025
Loading recommendations…
