The year 2026 is passing quickly. In fact, it won’t be long before it ends. Still, we remember very well how this year opened: on January 3, the U.S. carried out a military operation in Caracas, in which they abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Lícia Flores. During this operation, a large part of Maduro’s bodyguards lost their lives. Maduro was close to a bunker, but he couldn’t reach it and seal the door in time before being captured.
In his place, Delcy Rodríguez assumes power, supported by her brother Jorge Rodríguez, who presides over the National Assembly, by Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, and by Vladimir Padrino López, who controls the military. Far from betting on “free and democratic elections,” the U.S. endorsed the continuity of Bolivarian politics, keeping Delcy Rodríguez in power. Maria Corina Machado, Juan Guaidó’s successor in the Venezuelan “color revolution” project, has already fallen into oblivion.
What really happened during Maduro’s abduction? The circumstances were never sufficiently well explained, and we continue swimming amid rumors and hearsay. Occasionally, unverifiable information emerges that some elements of Maduro’s security team sold him out in exchange for financial compensation, never paid by the U.S. In fact, Venezuela’s interim government made several changes to the presidential guard after the abduction, even while denying that there was any betrayal.
But the big question is what happened to all the Russian and Chinese military equipment acquired by Venezuela. Why wasn’t it used on January 3? We are talking, for example, about Chinese JY-27A, JYL-1, and JY-11 radars, some of which have anti-stealth capability, as well as Russian Sukhoi Su-30 fighters and Russian anti-aircraft systems such as the S300 and Buk-M2. None of this appears to have been used during the U.S. attack. Lack of maintenance? Lack of readiness among Venezuelan soldiers? It is not known.
Since then, Delcy Rodríguez has been criticized extremely by foreign anti-imperialists for her conciliatory stance toward the U.S. Whenever news appears of a meeting between Venezuela’s interim president and some U.S. representative, such as Dan Caine of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marco Rubio, or, as recently, Donald Trump, criticism abounds. The same happens when the Venezuelan government issues its now-typical official notes celebrating “collaboration” with the U.S., the “improvement in relations,” “investment opportunities,” and so on.
Now, to some extent, it is quite easy to criticize Venezuela’s interim government while outside Venezuela and without having to deal with the same kind of pressure. In a practical and material sense, what options does Venezuela have today? To what extent can it directly and openly defy the U.S.?
The version offered by supporters of the current Venezuelan government is that Delcy Rodríguez’s priority is to preserve the Bolivarian political system and secure the return of Nicolás Maduro. Economic sovereignty can, to a certain extent, be sacrificed in the short term; the power structure cannot, since it is harder to rebuild or recover if it ceases to exist. In this sense, Delcy Rodríguez would be offering concessions to the U.S. in order to buy time, waiting until political changes within the U.S. – such as a Trump defeat in the midterms or, perhaps, in the next presidential elections – bring about a more favorable scenario.
The narrative is plausible and, frankly, in Delcy Rodríguez’s place I would do the same thing. There don’t seem to be many other options, at this moment, for Venezuela, besides damage control.
But how much is it possible to concede?
In just 1 year we have seen the return of the U.S. Embassy to Caracas, as well as the establishment of a CIA office in the country and the restoration of relations with the State of Israel.
On the economic front, the U.S. has come to approach the revenue from approximately 1 million barrels exported daily, whose value is only partially returned to the Venezuelan government for investments and spending authorized by the U.S. A good part of the value remains with the U.S. government, and Trump referred directly to this value as spoils of war.
Soon after, Venezuela granted the American company Trafigura the right to buy and export Venezuelan gold to be refined abroad, with approximately 400kg of gold per month being transferred to the U.S.
And more recently, Venezuela ceded to the U.S. majority control over unexplored Venezuelan reserves that would theoretically amount to 65 billion barrels of oil. These are areas in which the U.S. would make investments of 100 billion dollars to extract oil for 25 years, which would yield 200 billion dollars in revenue for Venezuela, but much more for the companies involved and for the U.S. government.
How much further is Delcy Rodríguez willing to go? That is the question.
Finally, it is reckless to believe that a change in the White House from a Republican government to a Democratic government would represent a turn of fortune for Venezuela. On strategic topics, there is a surprising continuity of foreign policy between different governments, which indicates to us that perhaps it is not the White House that dictates the real guidelines. Moreover, it costs nothing to remember that it was under Barack Obama that the siege against Venezuela really began, intensifying with each subsequent presidency, whether Republican or Democratic.
The year 2026 is passing quickly. In fact, it won’t be long before it ends. Still, we remember very well how this year opened: on January 3, the U.S. carried out a military operation in Caracas, in which they abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Lícia Flores. During this operation, a large part of Maduro’s bodyguards lost their lives. Maduro was close to a bunker, but he couldn’t reach it and seal the door in time before being captured.
In his place, Delcy Rodríguez assumes power, supported by her brother Jorge Rodríguez, who presides over the National Assembly, by Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, and by Vladimir Padrino López, who controls the military. Far from betting on “free and democratic elections,” the U.S. endorsed the continuity of Bolivarian politics, keeping Delcy Rodríguez in power. Maria Corina Machado, Juan Guaidó’s successor in the Venezuelan “color revolution” project, has already fallen into oblivion.
What really happened during Maduro’s abduction? The circumstances were never sufficiently well explained, and we continue swimming amid rumors and hearsay. Occasionally, unverifiable information emerges that some elements of Maduro’s security team sold him out in exchange for financial compensation, never paid by the U.S. In fact, Venezuela’s interim government made several changes to the presidential guard after the abduction, even while denying that there was any betrayal.
But the big question is what happened to all the Russian and Chinese military equipment acquired by Venezuela. Why wasn’t it used on January 3? We are talking, for example, about Chinese JY-27A, JYL-1, and JY-11 radars, some of which have anti-stealth capability, as well as Russian Sukhoi Su-30 fighters and Russian anti-aircraft systems such as the S300 and Buk-M2. None of this appears to have been used during the U.S. attack. Lack of maintenance? Lack of readiness among Venezuelan soldiers? It is not known.
Since then, Delcy Rodríguez has been extremely criticized, by foreign anti-imperialists, for her conciliatory stance toward the U.S. Whenever news appears of a meeting between Venezuela’s interim president and some U.S. representative, such as Dan Caine of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marco Rubio, or, as recently, Donald Trump, criticism abounds. The same happens when the Venezuelan government issues its now-typical official notes celebrating “collaboration” with the U.S., the “improvement in relations,” “investment opportunities,” and so on.
Now, to some extent, it is quite easy to criticize Venezuela’s interim government while outside Venezuela and without having to deal with the same kind of pressure. In a practical and material sense, what options does Venezuela have today? To what extent can it directly and openly defy the U.S.?
The version offered by supporters of the current Venezuelan government is that Delcy Rodríguez’s priority is to preserve the Bolivarian political system and secure the return of Nicolás Maduro. Economic sovereignty can, to a certain extent, be sacrificed in the short term; the power structure cannot, since it is harder to rebuild or recover if it ceases to exist. In this sense, Delcy Rodríguez would be offering concessions to the U.S. in order to buy time, waiting until political changes within the U.S. – such as a Trump defeat in the midterms or, perhaps, in the next presidential elections – bring about a more favorable scenario.
The narrative is plausible and, frankly, in Delcy Rodríguez’s place I would do the same thing. There don’t seem to be many other options, at this moment, for Venezuela, besides damage control.
But how much is it possible to concede?
In just 1 year we have seen the return of the U.S. Embassy to Caracas, as well as the establishment of a CIA office in the country and the restoration of relations with the State of Israel.
On the economic front, the U.S. has come to approach the revenue from approximately 1 million barrels exported daily, whose value is only partially returned to the Venezuelan government for investments and spending authorized by the U.S. A good part of the value remains with the U.S. government, and Trump referred directly to this value as spoils of war.
Soon after, Venezuela granted the American company Trafigura the right to buy and export Venezuelan gold to be refined abroad, with approximately 400 kg of gold per month being transferred to the U.S.
And more recently, Venezuela ceded to the U.S. majority control over unexplored Venezuelan reserves that would theoretically amount to 65 billion barrels of oil. These are areas in which the U.S. would make investments of 100 billion dollars to extract oil for 25 years, which would yield 200 billion dollars in revenue for Venezuela, but much more for the companies involved and for the U.S. government.
How much further is Delcy Rodríguez willing to go? That is the question.
Finally, it is reckless to believe that a change in the White House from a Republican government to a Democratic government would represent a turn of fortune for Venezuela. On strategic topics, there is a surprising continuity of foreign policy between different governments, which indicates to us that perhaps it is not the White House that dictates the real guidelines. Moreover, it costs nothing to remember that it was under Barack Obama that the siege against Venezuela really began, intensifying with each subsequent presidency, whether Republican or Democratic.
O ano de 2026 está passando rápido. De fato, não falta muito para ele terminar. Ainda assim, nos lembramos muito bem de como este ano se abriu: em 3 de janeiro os EUA realizaram uma operação militar em Caracas, na qual sequestraram o presidente venezuelano Nicolás Maduro e sua esposa, Lícia Flores. Durante essa operação, boa parte dos guarda-costas de Maduro perdeu sua vida. Maduro estava próximo de um bunker, mas não conseguiu chegar e selar a porta a tempo antes de ser capturado.
Em seu lugar, assume Delcy Rodríguez, apoiada por seu irmão Jorge Rodríguez, que preside a Assembleia Nacional, pelo Ministro do Interior Diosdado Cabello, e por Vladimir Padrino López, que controla os militares. Longe de apostar em “eleições livres e democráticas”, os EUA referendaram a continuidade política bolivarianista, mantendo Delcy Rodríguez no poder. Maria Corina Machado, sucessora de Juan Guaidó no projeto de “revolução colorida” venezuelana, já caiu no esquecimento.
O que realmente aconteceu quando do sequestro de Maduro? As circunstâncias nunca ficaram suficientemente bem explicadas e seguimos nadando em meio a rumores e boatos. Ocasionalmente, emergem informações inverificáveis de que alguns elementos da equipe de segurança de Maduro teriam vendido-o em troca de compensação financeira, nunca paga pelos EUA. De fato, o governo interino da Venezuela fez diversas alterações na guarda presidencial após o sequestro, mesmo enquanto nega que tenha havido qualquer traição.
Mas a grande dúvida é o que aconteceu com todo o equipamento militar russo e chinês adquirido pela Venezuela. Por que ele não foi usado em 3 de janeiro? Estamos falando, por exemplo, de radares chineses JY-27A, JYL-1 e JY-11, alguns dos quais têm capacidade anti-stealth, bem como de caças russos Sukhoi Su-30 e de sistemas antiaéreos russos como o S300 e o Buk-M2. Nada disso parece ter utilizado durante o ataque dos EUA. Falta de manutenção? Falta de prontidão dos soldado venezuelanos? Não se sabe.
Desde então, Delcy Rodríguez tem sido extremamente criticada, por anti-imperialistas estrangeiros, por sua postura conciliacionista com os EUA. Sempre que aparecem notícias de uma reunião da presidente interina da Venezuela com algum representante dos EUA, tal como Dan Caine do Estado-Maior Conjunto dos EUA, com Marco Rubio ou, tal como recentemente, com Donald Trump, abundam as críticas. O mesmo quando o governo venezuelano emite as suas já agora típicas notas oficiais comemorando a “colaboração” com os EUA, a “melhora nas relações”, as “oportunidades de investimentos”, e assim por diante.
Agora, em alguma medida, é bastante fácil criticar o governo interino da Venezuela estando fora da Venezuela e sem ter que lidar com o mesmo tipo de pressão. Num sentido prático e material, de que opções a Venezuela dispõe hoje? Em que medida ela pode desafiar diretamente e abertamente os EUA?
A versão oferecida pelos apoiadores do atual governo venezuelano é de que a prioridade de Delcy Rodríguez é preservar o sistema político bolivariano e conseguir a devolução de Nicolás Maduro. A soberania econômica pode, até certo ponto, ser sacrificada no curto-prazo, a estrutura de poder não, já que está é mais difícil de reconstruir ou recuperar caso deixe de existir. Nesse sentido, Delcy Rodríguez estaria oferecendo concessões aos EUA visando ganhar tempo, aguardando até que mudanças políticas dentro dos EUA – como uma derrota de Trump nas midterms ou, talvez, nas próximas eleições presidenciais – tragam algum cenário mais favorável.
A narrativa é plausível e, sinceramente, no lugar da Delcy Rodríguez eu faria a mesma coisa. Não parece haver muitas outras opções, nesse momento, para a Venezuela, além do controle de danos.
Mas o quanto é possível ceder?
Em apenas 1 ano vimos o retorno da Embaixada dos EUA a Caracas, bem como o estabelecimento de um escritório da CIA no país e a restauração das relações com o Estado de Israel.
No plano econômico, os EUA passaram a se aproximar da receita de aproximadamente 1 milhão de barris diários exportados, cujo valor é apenas parcialmente devolvido ao governo venezuelano para a realização de investimentos e gastos autorizados pelos EUA. Boa parte do valor permanece com o governo dos EUA, e Trump se referiu diretamente a este valor como espólio de guerra.
Logo em seguida, a Venezuela concedeu à empresa estadunidense Trafigura o direito de comprar e exportar ouro venezuelano para ser refinado no exterior, com aproximadamente 400kg de ouro por mês sendo transferidos para os EUA.
E mais recentemente, a Venezuela cedeu aos EUA controle majoritário sobre reservas venezuelanas ainda não exploradas e que equivaleriam, em tese, a 65 bilhões de barris de petróleo. Trata-se de áreas nas quais os EUA fariam investimentos de 100 bilhões de dólares para extrair petróleo por 25 anos, o que renderia 200 bilhões de dólares em receita para a Venezuela, mas muito mais para as empresas envolvidas e para o governo dos EUA.
O quão mais longe Delcy Rodríguez está disposta a ir? Eis a questão.
Finalmente, é temerário acreditar que uma mudança na Casa Branca de um governo republicano para um governo democrata representaria uma virada de sorte para a Venezuela. Em tópicos estratégicos, há uma surpreendente continuidade de política externa entre diferentes governos, o que nos indica que talvez não seja a Casa Branca a ditar as diretrizes realmente. Ademais, não custa nada recordar que foi sob Barack Obama que o cerco contra a Venezuela realmente se iniciou, intensificando-se com cada presidência subsequente, fosse ela republicana ou democrata.
Vente Venezuela, the party founded by María Corina Machado, is preparing again for the imminent return of its leader despite delays, skepticism, and uncertainty. Decisions within the organization are being made on the assumption of her return. Machado was unable to enter the country from Panama last week (the reasons are still unclear), but her definitive arrival in Venezuela, says Henry Alviarez, the party’s secretary of organization, “is a matter of days.”
El año 2026 está pasando rápido. De hecho, no falta mucho para que termine. Aun así, recordamos muy bien cómo se abrió este año: el 3 de enero los EE.UU. realizaron una operación militar en Caracas, en la cual secuestraron al presidente venezolano Nicolás Maduro y a su esposa, Lícia Flores. Durante esa operación, buena parte de los guardaespaldas de Maduro perdió la vida. Maduro estaba cerca de un búnker, pero no logró llegar y sellar la puerta a tiempo antes de ser capturado.
En su lugar, asume Delcy Rodríguez, apoyada por su hermano Jorge Rodríguez, que preside la Asamblea Nacional, por el Ministro del Interior Diosdado Cabello, y por Vladimir Padrino López, que controla a los militares. Lejos de apostar por “elecciones libres y democráticas”, los EE.UU. refrendaron la continuidad política bolivarianista, manteniendo a Delcy Rodríguez en el poder. Maria Corina Machado, sucesora de Juan Guaidó en el proyecto de “revolución de color” venezolana, ya cayó en el olvido.
¿Qué realmente aconteció cuando el secuestro de Maduro? Las circunstancias nunca quedaron suficientemente bien explicadas y seguimos nadando entre rumores y chismes. Ocasionalmente, emergen informaciones inverificables de que algunos elementos del equipo de seguridad de Maduro lo habrían vendido a cambio de compensación financiera, nunca pagada por los EE.UU. De hecho, el gobierno interino de Venezuela hizo diversas alteraciones en la guardia presidencial después del secuestro, incluso mientras niega que haya habido cualquier traición.
Pero la gran duda es qué pasó con todo el equipo militar ruso y chino adquirido por Venezuela. ¿Por qué no fue usado el 3 de enero? Estamos hablando, por ejemplo, de radares chinos JY-27A, JYL-1 y JY-11, algunos de los cuales tienen capacidad anti-stealth, así como de cazas rusos Sukhoi Su-30 y de sistemas antiaéreos rusos como el S300 y el Buk-M2. Nada de eso parece haber sido utilizado durante el ataque de los EE.UU. ¿Falta de mantenimiento? ¿Falta de preparación de los soldados venezolanos? No se sabe.
Desde entonces, Delcy Rodríguez ha sido extremadamente criticada, por antiimperialistas extranjeros, por su postura conciliacionista con los EE.UU. Siempre que aparecen noticias de una reunión de la presidente interina de Venezuela con algún representante de los EE.UU., tal como Dan Caine del Estado Mayor Conjunto de los EE.UU., con Marco Rubio o, tal como recientemente, con Donald Trump, abundan las críticas. Lo mismo cuando el gobierno venezolano emite sus ya ahora típicas notas oficiales celebrando la “colaboración” con los EE.UU., la “mejora en las relaciones”, las “oportunidades de inversiones”, y así sucesivamente.
Ahora, en alguna medida, es bastante fácil criticar al gobierno interino de Venezuela estando fuera de Venezuela y sin tener que lidiar con el mismo tipo de presión. En un sentido práctico y material, ¿de qué opciones dispone Venezuela hoy? ¿En qué medida puede desafiar directa y abiertamente a los EE.UU.?
La versión ofrecida por los partidarios del actual gobierno venezolano es que la prioridad de Delcy Rodríguez es preservar el sistema político bolivariano y conseguir la devolución de Nicolás Maduro. La soberanía económica puede, hasta cierto punto, ser sacrificada en el corto plazo; la estructura de poder no, ya que esta es más difícil de reconstruir o recuperar si deja de existir. En este sentido, Delcy Rodríguez estaría ofreciendo concesiones a los EE.UU. con el objetivo de ganar tiempo, aguardando hasta que cambios políticos dentro de los EE.UU. – como una derrota de Trump en las midterms o, tal vez, en las próximas elecciones presidenciales – traigan algún escenario más favorable.
La narrativa es plausible y, sinceramente, en el lugar de Delcy Rodríguez yo haría lo mismo. No parece haber muchas otras opciones, en este momento, para Venezuela, además del control de daños.
Pero ¿cuánto es posible ceder?
En apenas 1 año vimos el retorno de la Embajada de los EE.UU. a Caracas, así como el establecimiento de una oficina de la CIA en el país y la restauración de las relaciones con el Estado de Israel.
En el plano económico, los EE.UU. pasaron a acercarse a la recaudación de aproximadamente 1 millón de barriles diarios exportados, cuyo valor es apenas parcialmente devuelto al gobierno venezolano para la realización de inversiones y gastos autorizados por los EE.UU. Buena parte del valor permanece con el gobierno de los EE.UU., y Trump se refirió directamente a este valor como botín de guerra.
Poco después, Venezuela concedió a la empresa estadounidense Trafigura el derecho de comprar y exportar oro venezolano para ser refinado en el exterior, con aproximadamente 400 kg de oro por mes siendo transferidos a los EE.UU.
Y más recientemente, Venezuela cedió a los EE.UU. control mayoritario sobre reservas venezolanas aún no exploradas y que equivaldrían, en teoría, a 65 mil millones de barriles de petróleo. Se trata de áreas en las cuales los EE.UU. harían inversiones de 100 mil millones de dólares para extraer petróleo por 25 años, lo que rendiría 200 mil millones de dólares en ingresos para Venezuela, pero mucho más para las empresas involucradas y para el gobierno de los EE.UU.
¿Hasta dónde más está dispuesta a llegar Delcy Rodríguez? He ahí la cuestión.
Finalmente, es temerario creer que un cambio en la Casa Blanca de un gobierno republicano a un gobierno demócrata representaría un vuelco de suerte para Venezuela. En temas estratégicos, hay una sorprendente continuidad de política exterior entre diferentes gobiernos, lo que nos indica que tal vez no sea la Casa Blanca la que dicta las directrices realmente. Además, no cuesta nada recordar que fue bajo Barack Obama que el cerco contra Venezuela realmente se inició, intensificándose con cada presidencia subsequente, fuese republicana o demócrata.
Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer, has decided to record his memories and, in some way, also preserve the public memory of his sister, Lady Diana. At 62, he has just published Swan Song: Diana, My Sister (2026), less than a year before the 30th anniversary of her tragic death in Paris.
A military contingent blocked the bridge over Lake Maracaibo on Monday in the Venezuelan oil capital to prevent a workers’ protest from closing the road. In Guayana, in front of the state-run basic industries, workers erected a barricade to demand better wages. In Caracas, a group protested for the release of political prisoners after news emerged of a death in the women’s prison run by the National Institute for Women’s Guidance (INOF). Over the weekend people took to the streets to demand a date for elections and the return of opposition leader María Corina Machado. Almost every night during a sweltering September, in inland cities such as Maracay, Guanare, Barinas, Valencia, and Maracaibo, people have expressed on the streets their frustration over blackouts that are increasingly prolonged, lasting up to 10 or 12 hours a day.
The same week Delcy Rodríguez was received in New York as Venezuela’s interim ruler and met with Donald Trump in Manhattan, the U.S. Attorney’s Office opposed releasing Cilia Flores, wife of deposed Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, on bail from the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, where both have been held since the January U.S. military intervention in Caracas.
Claudia Macero, the communications chief for opposition leader María Corina Machado, returned to Venezuela on Sunday night after nearly a year and a half in exile. She landed at Simón Bolívar International Airport in Maiquetía, where journalists and dozens of Vente Venezuela supporters were waiting for her with party flags. Her return comes amid growing expectations over the opposition leader’s potential return, after she tried to re-enter the country three times last week without success.
O Município de Loulé irá participar no 22º Encontro de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental – 22.º Simpósio Luso-Brasileiro de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental (ENaSB SILUBESA), com a apresentação da comunicação oral “Plataforma Integrada para a Sustentabilidade Energética: Município de Loulé”, dando a conhecer uma ferramenta digital desenvolvida internamente para reforçar a gestão energética municipal.
O evento decorrerá entre 30 de setembro e 2 de outubro, na Universidade do Algarve – Campus de Gambelas, em Faro, reunindo especialistas, investigadores e profissionais das áreas da água, ambiente e energia, num espaço dedicado à partilha de conhecimento e boas práticas.
A comunicação técnica, desenvolvida por técnicos da Divisão de Sustentabilidade e Recursos Naturais, dará a conhecer o trabalho desenvolvido pelo Município de Loulé na área da gestão energética municipal, evidenciando o contributo da inovação tecnológica e das ferramentas digitais para uma gestão pública mais eficiente e sustentável.
A plataforma centraliza e integra informação relativa aos consumos energéticos das diferentes infraestruturas municipais, permitindo monitorizar de forma contínua os consumos de eletricidade, os custos associados e as emissões de dióxido de carbono (CO₂). A informação disponibilizada contribui para uma gestão mais eficiente dos recursos e apoia o planeamento energético municipal.
A automatização dos processos de recolha e tratamento de dados permite reduzir tarefas manuais, melhorar a qualidade da informação disponível e disponibilizar indicadores que facilitam a identificação de oportunidades de melhoria e a definição de prioridades de intervenção.
Os dados analisados permitem identificar os setores com maior expressão no consumo energético do concelho, destacando-se a iluminação pública e o sistema de abastecimento de água. Esta informação constitui um importante suporte à definição de medidas de eficiência energética e à orientação do investimento municipal.
A participação no ENaSB SILUBESA permitirá ainda ao Município de Loulé partilhar conhecimento e experiência com especialistas e entidades dos setores da água, ambiente e energia, reforçando o seu compromisso com a inovação, a eficiência energética e a sustentabilidade.
President Trump on Tuesday night held his first meeting with Acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez, just hours after delivering a speech to the UN General Assembly, where he boasted about taking over Venezuela’s oil industry by force, saying “to the victor belong the spoils.” In a post on X, Rodriguez shared a photo of her […]
On September 20, 2006, Hugo Chávez stepped up to the granite podium of the United Nations General Assembly. A day earlier, from that exact same spot, the President of the United States, George W. Bush, had spoken. Chávez crossed himself, said that the room still smelled of sulphur, and the hall burst into laughter and applause. It was not the speech Chávez had originally intended to give, but rather the direct result of the deep indignation caused by hearing Bush speak as if he owned the world. The major media of the North latched onto the sulphur phrase and have tried to caricature it. But it is the rest of his intervention that remains fully relevant, 20 years later.
Chávez arrived at the General Assembly with a book in hand, “Hegemony or Survival” by Noam Chomsky. His warning was simple yet devastating: the United States’s pretense of dominating the world put the very survival of the human species at risk. At that time, US troops were occupying Iraq. A few weeks earlier, Israel had bombed Lebanon under Washington’s diplomatic protection. In the capitals of the global north, the “end of history” was still being celebrated, the idea that liberal capitalism was humanity’s definitive horizon. Chávez said that this thesis had been proven false in barely a decade, and that now the future of the world had to be defined.
Twenty years later, plunged into an even greater systemic crisis, we can see that every phrase of Chávez’s speech remains relevant.
From hegemony to hyper-imperialism
In 2006, the United States seemed like an empire at the peak of its power. Today it is an empire in relative decline, and therefore more dangerous. The Tricontinental Institute for Social Research has called this new stage hyper-imperialism: imperialism exercised in an exaggerated and agitated manner by a power that compensates for the loss of its economic hegemony by relying on the two areas where it still dominates, war and the control of information.
An empire’s hegemony is usually lost in three stages: first in production, then in finance, and finally in the military. The United States has already lost productive primacy: China is today the world’s largest economy measured by purchasing power parity. The reign of the dollar is beginning to be questioned, and many countries are opting for transactions in their own currencies. But military supremacy remains intact. The bloc led by Washington groups around 50 countries and concentrates about three-quarters of global military spending. The United States maintains around 900 military bases abroad. More than one in four countries on the planet lives under its sanctions.
An empire that declines economically while retaining its weapons is tempted to resolve its decline by force. The dilemma that Chávez borrowed from Chomsky, hegemony or survival, has become literal. Permanent war and climate catastrophe today threaten the very conditions of life.
The veto and the UN that doesn’t work
The least-cited part of the speech was perhaps the most prophetic. Chávez stated that the United Nations system born after World War II had collapsed. The General Assembly had become a merely deliberative space, without the capacity to change the terrible reality of the world. Back then, Chávez made four concrete proposals:
First, expand the Security Council to include Third World countries as permanent members. Second, create transparent methods for conflict resolution. Third, eliminate the veto, and fourth, strengthen the General Secretariat.
His example was Lebanon: a US veto had allowed the country to be torn apart before the eyes of the world. Unfortunately, over two decades, the UN’s strength to prevent wars and genocides has progressively diminished. That same mechanism criticized by Chávez has allowed a new genocide in Gaza. That inaction of multilateralism permitted the kidnapping of the sitting Venezuelan president. However, the conclusion is not to abandon the UN, but to contest it.
The debate on a “multipolarity” that reproduces rivalry between great powers is insufficient. What the South needs is true multilateralism, defending the United Nations Charter as the common heritage of the world’s peoples. It is the same Charter upon which, in 1955, the ten principles of the Bandung Conference were built.
“We are men and women of the South”
Chávez did not arrive in New York alone. He came from Havana, where more than fifty heads of state had just relaunched the Non-Aligned Movement. “Havana was the capital of the South for a week,” he said. And then he added a phrase that sums up a political identity: “we are men and women of the South.”
The Global South is not a cardinal point. Australia is in the southern hemisphere and belongs to the North; Cuba, Vietnam, or Burkina Faso are in the northern hemisphere and belong to the South. It is a historical category: they are the peoples of former colonies and semi-colonies and socialist projects, whose struggle for sovereignty has not yet concluded. Their weight has changed. By 2007, the economies of the South surpassed those of the North in purchasing power parity, and in recent years they came to represent nearly 60 percent of world product. BRICS and the Belt and Road Initiative have begun to create something that did not exist in Bandung’s time: material conditions for cooperation among the peoples of the South.
But, although there is a new mood in the Global South today, the spirit of Bandung is not yet there. In 1955, the strength of those governments came from organized masses that prevented them from abandoning the liberation program. Chávez’s speech was precisely that: the voice of Latin American twenty-first-century socialism, of peoples pushing their governments. It was, for Latin America, a kind of Bandung from below. Today, that spirit faces an “angry tide” and needs to be rebuilt.
Peoples, not governments
There is a fundamental element in that 2006 speech that we cannot forget. Chávez distinguished between the US government and its people. He said that if one walked through the Bronx or San Francisco, one would find people who want peace. The working class of the North, impoverished and battered by deindustrialization, is not the enemy of the peoples of the South. It is a possible ally. Specially today when it is persecuted by a renewed McCarthyism that sees terrorism in those who raise their voices for social justice.
When Bush accused those who opposed his war of being extremists, Chávez replied that it was not about extremism: the world was awakening and peoples were rising everywhere. Today, aggression takes multiple forms. It takes the face of military actions, lawfare, unilateral coercive measures, or the confiscation of national resources. But its objective remains the same: to discipline anyone attempting a sovereign path.
The future doesn’t just arrive; we must organize it
The speech closed on a note of optimism. Chávez said that there was a dawn on the planet, visible in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Twenty years later, that optimism requires precision. The future is not a date on the calendar, but a rupture that must be built. Hope is not passive expectation, but a practice that requires organization, discipline, and internationalism.
The sulphur that Chávez smelled in 2006 has not dissipated; it has grown denser and spread beyond the diplomatic corridors of New York. That is why that speech does not belong to a record of the past, but to our current agenda. It reminds us that the South has a voice, that the UN can and must be contested, and that the North’s hegemony is not a natural law. What is missing, as in Bandung, is what has always made the difference: the peoples must organize.
Carlos Ron is Co-coordinator of the Nuestra America office ofTricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He was a Venezuelan diplomat and served as Vice Minister for North America (2018-2025).
Alejandro Betancourt’s tentacles in Spain are long. The Venezuelan businessman who amassed a fortune after his country’s power crisis at the end of the 2010s has seen his wealth rise again after the Trump administration touched him with the magic oil wand, entrusting him with crude exploitation in a deal with the government of Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodríguez. The billionaire’s assets in Madrid alone are substantial, according to police documents that are part of an ongoing investigation into alleged money laundering. Authorities seized five luxury cars, a United Arab Emirates residency card and 17 firearms at his private estate in Toledo.
The heirs of Oswaldo Cisneros, once one of Venezuela’s richest men, received unusual news last April: strangers were touring their oil fields in the Orinoco Belt. On paper, they remained the legitimate operators of the assets, but it soon became clear that, even as those visits took place in plain sight, a plan was being put in motion to take the fields away from them.
Uma colisão rodoviária entre um automóvel ligeiro de passageiros e um motociclo provocou, na tarde desta segunda-feira, a morte de um homem no concelho de Vila Real de Santo António. O óbito do condutor da moto foi declarado no próprio local do acidente.
DR
O alerta para a ocorrência foi dado às 14h43. O sinistro deu-se ao quilómetro 146,551 da EN125, na zona de Carvoeira, pertencente à freguesia de Vila Nova de Cacela, no distrito de Faro. Devido à gravidade do impacto e às operações de socorro, a circulação rodoviária na EN125 encontra-se totalmente cortada.
Para o local foram mobilizados 23 operacionais e 6 veículos de emergência e socorro, tendo sido também acionado um meio aéreo para apoiar os trabalhos das equipas de socorro.
Segundo Proteção Civil.
Por: Dino Frazão 07/09/2026 ————————————————– Data: 7 de setembro de 2026
by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio – Gospa News founder and director
UPDATE ON SEPTEMBER, 7, 2026
Iranian Judiciary Findings: The Bombing on a wedding ceremony by a Raytheon Weapon
«The Iranian judiciary has released the initial findings of an investigation showing that weapons used in a US bombing attack earlier this week on a wedding ceremony in the south of the country were American-made», Iranian Press TV Reported yesterday.
The head of the Iranian judiciary’s local branch in the southern province of Hormozgan said on Saturday that projectile fragments scattered around the site of a wedding ceremony on September 1, killing five people including a children, had been examined as part of the investigation, showing they were manufactured by US company Raytheon.
“The nature of the weapons used in the terrorist attack on civilian gatherings in Kohestak, Sirik, has been fully documented using advanced technical analysis tools and image data processing,” said Mojtaba Ghahremani.
Ghahremani said investigators had carried out a meticulous examination of the inscriptions, barcodes, and other details engraved on the projectile remains, leaving no doubt that the munitions belong to the US military.
He said the type of military thermal battery used in the ammunition revealed that it is from a series of high-voltage batteries used exclusively in the flight guidance systems of precision-guided bombs operated by US military forces.
The official said a military identification code, CAGE Code: 96214, registered on the projectile fragments directly links it to the weapons company Raytheon Missiles & Defense, a major US defense contractor and industrial corporation that manufactures weapons as well as military and commercial electronics.
The Massacre perpetrated by an AGM 154-C 500 lb Thermal Glide-Bombe
Much more important than official release is the image and the video from wreckage that at first had induced the experts to identify the weapon as am AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile (read below).
The wreckage of the weapon shows that it is an AGM 154 C glide-bomb produced by Raytheon
On the tiny identification plate there is in fact the writing AGM – I 154 C-I which corresponds to the glide-bomb AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) produced by Raytheon under the stamp NAVAIR which is the matrix of the American weapons used in the joint activity formed by the US Navy and US Air Force.
The AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) is a glide bomb that resulted from a joint venture between the United States Navy and Air Force to deploy a standardized medium-range precision-guided weapon, especially for engagement of defended targets from outside the range of standard anti-aircraft defenses, thereby increasing aircraft survivability and minimizing friendly losses.
It is intended to be used against soft targets such as parked aircraft, trucks, armored personnel carriers (APCs), and surface-to-air missile sites (SAMs). Prior to launch, it is given a destination through either a predesignated waypoint or a point marked through a targeting pod. It glides, using two wings that pop out for added lift, to the marked destination and dispenses submunitions in a short, roughly linear pattern.
The designation of the Joint Standoff Weapon as an “air-to-ground missile” is a misnomer, as it is an unpowered bomb with guidance avionics, similar to the older GBU-15.
The AGM-154C is Designed to Attack Hardened Targets
But in this specific case, a more sophisticated weapon was used for the attack on the wedding ceremony…
The AGM-154C uses an Imaging Infrared (IIR) terminal seeker with autonomous guidance. The AGM-154C carries the BROACH warhead. This two stage 225 kg (500 lb) warhead is made up from a WDU-44 shaped augmenting warhead and a WDU-45 follow through bomb. The weapon is designed to attack hardened targets. It entered service with the US Navy in February 2005.
The use of this projectile minimally mitigates the implications of the attack ordered by the US Navy by US President Donald Trump; in fact, autonomous guidance oriented by the target’s heat source implies the possibility of an error that the SALM-ER guided cruise missile does not allow.
Below is a live-fire video released by the Royal Australian Air Force demonstrating the actual use of an AGM 154-C glide bomb
But at the same time, it appears to be a completely disproportionate weapon to hit a transmission tower, which, according to leaks from US officials, was the target of the attack (read detaisl below).
Therefore, the hypothesis of a targeted bombing to destroy a civilian home, as on Qeshm Island, remains valid.
This is why Iran has filed an international complaint for war crimes…
Iranian Red Crescent calls for ICC to investigate deadly US wedding attack
Iran’s Red Crescent Society (IRCS) has called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate a US missile attack on a wedding reception in the country’s southern province of Hormozgan, which killed at least five people and wounded 68 others.
The deadly incident occurred when shrapnel from a US attack struck a residential building where a wedding reception was being held in the city of Kouhestak, in Hormozgan’s Sirik County on Tuesday.
In a letter to the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor, the IRCS said the attack raised serious concerns under international humanitarian law and warranted an independent, impartial, thorough and effective investigation.
“Given the reported civilian character of the location as the venue of a family wedding ceremony, as well as the presence of civilians at the site, the incident raises serious concerns under international humanitarian law and warrants an independent, impartial, thorough, and effective investigation,” the organization said.
The IRCS said preliminary information initially indicated that four people had been killed and 67 others wounded. Iranian health officials later raised the toll to at least five fatalities and 68 injuries, with a child among those killed.
The IRCS warned that the number of casualties could rise because some of those wounded were in critical condition.
FIRST POSTED ON GOSPA NEWS ON SEPTEMBER, 4, AT 7,28 AM GMT + 2 (Italy)
A US-made AGM-84H cruise missile among the wreckage after American strike on a wedding
A US-made AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile has been identified among the wreckage following the American strike on a wedding ceremony in Sirik, southern Iran, late Tuesday, adding further evidence of the US military’s role in the attack that killed and wounded civilians.
Weapons analyst Trevor Ball identified the remnants as belonging to the SLAM-ER, a precision-guided, air-launched cruise missile manufactured by Boeing, according OsintWarfare which posted on X the first video of wreckage and was quoted by Al Mayaeedn English Lebanese TV.
Boeing describes the SLAM-ER as being the most accurate air-launched munition in the US Navy’s arsenal;
Enlargement of the piece of a U.S. AGM-84H SLAM-ER among the wreckage in the wedding massacre in Sirik posted on X by @OsintWarfare
Trevor Ball, a former US Army explosive ordnance disposal technician who now works as a weapons technical analyst for Armament Research Services, was among the experts asked by Reuters to examine the photographs and video.
“The damage seen appears to be from a munition which detonated on contact with the roof, or just above the roof,”he said, adding it was apparently a direct hit.
The strike in the small town of Kuhestak on Tuesday killed five people and injured at least 70 others.
The Exclusive Video of the Wreckage
VIDEO LEGEND:
1st footage – The US-made AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile has among the wreckage following the American strike on the wedding cerimony
2nd footage – Children’s slippers lie scattered in the aftermath of the US aggression at a wedding in Sirik, where civilians, including children, were killed and dozens more were injured. Footage from the scene shows slippers belonging to women and children amid the destruction.
After this initial analysis, both Iranian and international sources tried to identify the weapon, with some ballistics experts even launching the bizarre hypothesis that it was a ricochet shot, a hypothesis considered unlikely by most, however.
The Reuter Experts confirmed our Investigation
But one thing seems certain…
«A US munition struck a home hosting a wedding celebration in southern Iran directly, rather than ricocheting from another target, weapons experts who reviewed images and video verified by Reuters revealed» Al Mayadeen reported.
The strike in the small town of Kuhestak on Tuesday killed five people and injured at least 70 others.
So on Thursday, US Vice President JD Vance he was induced to declare that Washington was investigating the incident, despite the initially Pentagon deny of any responsibility…
“We’re investigating it because obviously we care. We want to know,”Vance said during a White House press briefing.
«Four military weapons experts who checked visual material told Reuters that the damage was consistent with a direct strike rather than secondary damage caused by a munition ricocheting from another target. Three of the experts stressed that the weapon was likely American rather than a misfired Iranian air defense missile» Al Mayadeen added many hours after its and our first articles posted on September 4, at 7,28 AM GMT + 2 (Italy)
The main room of the weddin cerimony in Sirik
Two US officials, speaking anonymously, said the US military had conducted strikes near Kuhestak on Sept. 1, with the town’s telecommunications tower as a specific target.
Satellite imagery places the tower about 135 meters from the wedding site. Iranian media reported that the tower was struck at about 9:30 pm local time.
But the same expert Trevor Ball debunked US Official speculation…
“The visible blast damage could not result from fragments from the nearby strike on the communications tower striking the area,” he stressed.
A Likely Trump’s US Navy Deliberate Massacre on Iranian Wedding
AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile is a weapon designed for precise strikes and can be retargeted during flight by a human operator.
Therefore, if it were confirmed that this very powerful rocket, the wreckage of which was found on site, was used, the issue would take on an unprecedented gravity.
But in Tehran, there is a very serious religious theocracy, armed above all with hypersonic missiles, and perhaps even nuclear ones, donated by Russia, China, or North Korea…
Speaking about the attack, Head of Iran’s Expediency Discernment Council Sheikh Amoli Larijani said, “The crime in Sirik and the killing of unarmed women and children embody the savage nature and deceptive self of the United States, and expose the falsehood and audacity of those who trade in human rights.”
Sirik mourns victims killed in US attack, including a 4-year-old
A four-year-old child was among four people laid to rest in the southern Iranian city of Kuhestak on Thursday, as grieving families and residents gathered to bid farewell to loved ones killed in a US attack on the area, Al Matadeen Lebanese TV reported.
The funeral ceremonies in Kuhestak, in Sirik County of Hormozgan Province, began at 4 pm from a street at the city’s entrance, with mourners walking together toward the city’s Martyrs’ Cemetery, where the victims were laid to rest.
The authorities identified the four victims as four-year-old Amirali Karimi, 16-year-old Mohammad Mollahi, 43-year-old Kolthoum Mollahi Nezhadnia, and 50-year-old Zarkhatoun Taheri.
According to the announced figures, the US aggression left 68 people injured, several of whom remain under medical treatment. Al Mayadeen’s correspondent reported that the death toll from the US aggression targeting the wedding ceremony in Sirik had risen to five.
VIDEO – “Horrific, appalling”: Iran urges UN Security Council to condemn deadly US attack on wedding ceremony
Iran has called on the UN Security Council to condemn an unprovoked and deadly US attack on a residential home hosting a wedding ceremony in southern Islamic Republic that led to the martyrdom of five civilians, including a four-year-old child, and injured more than 70 others.
Gholamhossein Darzi, the Islamic Republic’s ambassador and chargé d’affaires to the United Nations, made the appeal in a letter addressed to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the president of the Security Council on Wednesday following a new wave of such American strikes targeting southern Iranian cities, which together claimed the lives of at least 18 people and wounded 108 others.
IRGC vows Revenge for US wedding attacks: “will never go unanswered”
The chief commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has said that the blood of those killed in a US attack on a wedding ceremony in Kouhestak, Hormozgan Province, “will never go unanswered” and that it will ultimately “catch up with those who ordered and carried out this heinous crime.”, Iranian Press TV wrote.
State media reports debris recovered from a home attacked in southern Iran during a wedding celebration was “most likely” from a US-made, AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon – a guided-glide munition, also Al Jazeera reported before the exatly identification as pieces of a US-made AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile
Broadcaster IRIB said images released by US Central Command of attacks in southern Iran showed a F/A-18 Super Hornet loaded with a similar munition.
Another Trump’s Heinous War Crimes in Iranian Genocide caused US Troops Deaths
The targeted house was 200 metres (650 feet) from a communications tower, and the strike could not have been an error given the munition’s accuracy, reports said.
The Sirik strike came amid a renewed wave of US aggression against Iran, with American forces targeting sites across the country’s southern provinces.
Iranian authorities reported attacks on Bandar Abbas, Jask, Minab, Chabahar, Konarak, Lengeh, Qeshm Island, and other areas, including communications and service infrastructure.
The escalation prompted Iran to launch retaliatory missile and drone strikes against US military positions across the region, including bases in Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, and Erbil, in which several US troops lost their lifes in the name of Trump’s Zionist.
The heinous Trump’s Military strikes on civilians in Iran caused a genocide of more than 7 thousand people.
El pacto energético firmado entre Venezuela y Estados Unidos, calificado como «el más importante del siglo XXI» entre ambos países, genera dudas sobre su aplicación real, duración, soberanía y beneficios…
Gestern Abend habe ich einen russischen Artikel übersetzt, der sehr verständlich erklärt hat, welche Folgen der Öldeal, den die USA Venezuela aufgezwungen haben, für den globalen Ölmarkt und die OPEC haben dürfte. Wer sich mit dem Thema beschäftigt hat und nun die deutschen Medienberichte darüber liest, der merkt mal wieder, wie die Medien die Menschen […]
In der TASS ist ein Artikel erschienen, der sehr verständlich erklärt, welche Folgen der Öldeal der USA mit Venezuela hat, daher habe ich den TASS-Artikel übersetzt. Beginn der Übersetzung: Die USA übernehmen die vollständige Kontrolle über Venezuelas Öl Igor Juschkow darüber, warum Caracas zum Austritt aus der OPEC gedrängt wird und was das mit China […]
Login
DR
