Maduro’s Kidnapping Is Part of a Larger Zionist Operation: Argentina’s and Israel’s Isaac Accords

President Donald Trump’s January kidnapping and deposition of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and the subsequent “government-by-coercion” in the name of economic “development” is arguably America’s most dramatic imperial action in Latin America in history. But it is merely one in a series of moves of an operation that was set in motion five months before, and whose pieces were being arranged years before that. The hinge of this operation is Argentina’s Isaac Accords, which were announced in August, and which use financial-philanthropic investments in Latin American countries to turn Israel into a regional hegemon in America’s backyard.

Applying as seed money $1 million awarded to Argentina’s President Javier Milei via his acceptance of Israel’s Genesis Prize, the Isaac Accords establishes a nonprofit, the American Friends of the Isaac Accords, run by the Genesis Prize Foundation and headed by former U.S. ambassador to Costa Rica Stafford Fitzgerald “Fitz” Haney. The American Friends of the Isaac Accords aims to provide Latin American countries “Israeli expertise in water technology, agriculture, cyber defense, fintech, healthcare, and energy,” while also “aim[ing] to encourage partner countries to move their embassies to Jerusalem, formally recognize [Iran’s proxies] Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, and shift longstanding anti-Israel voting patterns at the United Nations.” It “will initially focus its efforts on three Latin American countries: Uruguay, Panama and Costa Rica” and “ultimately aims to expand its mission to Brazil, Colombia, Chile and potentially El Salvador by 2026.”

This Zionist-arbitrated “leveling up” or “raze-and-rebuild” effectively means diluting countries’ sovereignties and markets to serve Israel and its American military-corporate backers—and it is not an unfamiliar process. As I have reported for the Libertarian Institute, it already stretches from Gaza and Abu Dhabi in the Middle East to New York and Miami in America. Its most formal instantiations are the Abraham Accords, which since 2020 have used the promise of favors from American institutions to incentivize Arab countries to open themselves to development at the hands of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—and to marginalize Iran, a center of opposition to western “development.” The Isaac Accords, which are openly modeled on the Abraham Accords, are something else entirely. They establish Israel as an arbiter of development in a region entirely outside its orbit: a region of around 660 million people populated by around 300,000 Jews where America is the decisive arbiter and hardly needs an Israeli proxy. For opponents of Zionism, the Isaac Accords are the equivalent of a multi-jump win in checkers where, as the other player sits back shocked, the winner systematically removes that player’s pieces from the board.

But the Isaac Accords are also an opportunity—to measure the tactics of our Zionist adversary. The Isaac Accords did not, appearances aside, materialize out of nowhere. They are reliant, as are all Zionist plays, on something our Founding Fathers would recognize from their experience with the British. Namely, the subtle, sometimes hidden, and always profoundly anti-democratic and unconstitutional marshalling of support from an empire’s military-corporate complex by connected players running their own agenda on the inside.

Investigating the background of the Isaac Accords and their connections to plays against Iran and Venezuela reveals their source in two distinct yet connected Zionist plays run over four decades. These were not conspiracies in small rooms so much as operations of like- minded players with similar loyalties in positions of power pursuing self-interested ends. The first, beginning in the 1980s, was political and economic: the Zionist cooption of two policy values of the United States, anti-communism and the free market, to lay siege to Latin American countries with the aims of marginalizing Israel’s rival Iran and empowering Zionists. The second, beginning in the late 1990s, was philanthropic: the Zionist use of religious philanthropy to co-opt Latin Americans of influence, some of them true believers in genuinely worthy causes like genocide prevention and promoting free markets, whose causes Zionists helped and who gave Zionists loyalty to Israel.

The clearest genesis of the inking of the Isaac Accords is Zionists’ adoption and promotion of America’s 1980s anti-communist activities in Latin America. These activities flowed in many ways from the work of Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ronald Reagan’s first ambassador to the United Nations, whose influential 1979 essay, “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” arguably set the framework for the Reagan administration’s Latin American policy. In “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” Kirkpatrick argued that, so long as what she saw as a totalitarian regime, the Soviet Union, was spreading its Marxist ideology via client nations, America should be willing to ally with self-interested authoritarians to push it back. This was a familiar type of argument, and equally familiar was the disastrous collateral when it was put into practice—in the 1950s and 1960s in Guatemala, Iran, Cuba, the Congo, and Vietnam. In 1985, the Libertarian Institute’s Ted Galen Carpenter argued, with what turned out to be extraordinary prescience, that caution was in order when it came to Kirkpatrick’s agenda. But Kirkpatrick was allied with powerful people interested in advancing her view. These were Zionists working to advance the interests of the American military-corporate complex which upholds Israel; people who assiduously worked to pair American proxy wars against left-wing Latin American governments like Nicaragua’s with efforts to neuter Israel’s main regional adversary, Iran.

These Zionist player operated in the political-intellectual sphere. Kirkpatrick’s article, “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” was published in Commentary Magazine, edited by the late Norman Podhoretz, along with Irving Kristol the most famous Jewish neoconservative of the era. Kirkpatrick wrote “Dictatorships and Double Standards” when she was a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, an increasingly Zionist holdover from 1930s anti-New Deal politics which was just then beginning to seed the neoconservative Zionist players who created the Iraq War. The views expressed in “Dictatorships and Double Standards” were promoted by Kirkpatrick’s ally William Casey, a Wall Street operator with deep and longstanding connections to Zionists who in 1978 founded the think tank the Manhattan Institute to promote corporate interests in the name of the free market. But political-intellectual operations were not the limit of Zionist influence; Zionists also became the operators who ran Kirkpatrick’s plays.

As I recently reported for the Libertarian Institute, within several years of Podhoretz running Kirkpatrick’s article, Elliott Abrams, Podhoretz’s son-in-law, had turned up at the State Department running versions of Kirkpatrick’s recommendations in conjunction with William Casey, who was running the CIA. During these same years, Podhoretz’s and Abrams’ fitful Zionist allies, Martin Peretz and Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic, Washington’s most influential magazine, were promoting Abrams’s arguments for funding the Contras, rebels against the Nicaraguan government, and promoting a representative of the Contras in Washington who gained access to the White House. Within several more years, Abrams and Casey were running Iran-Contra: the play in which funds from weapons sales to Iran were used to support the Contras of Nicaragua despite a congressional law forbidding such support. And Israel was playing Iran-Contra middleman: sponsoring operators to run the arms to Iran and then funneling the payments from Iran back to America en route to the Contras, with anti-Castro Cuban exiles middlemen for the Latin American end of the play.

Iran-Contra failed to coopt Iran into American empire or reduce the Left in Latin America, and associated plays against the Left by Washington mainly succeeded in leaving Latin Americans with the scars of imperial brutality. But the internal dissolution of the Soviet Union a few years after Iran-Contra left the Soviets’ allies in the Middle East and Latin America in the lurch and gave America’s military-corporate complex an opening in both regions. As with Jeane Kirkpatrick’s “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” the main imperial movers were Zionists: people interested in expanding American imperial reach, which would further secure Israel. And, as with Kirkpatrick, there was a theoretical groundwork for Zionists’ moves. Namely, the work of Robert Bork, also a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who in the 1970s during his stint there wrote an influential treatise against antitrust regulation arguing that corporate conglomeration was a positive free market development so long as it lowered consumer costs.

Bork’s thesis, which arguably shaped many of the Reagan administration’s deregulatory policies, is widely debated. But, whatever one’s view, what is less arguable is that the Zionist academics and policy practitioners who operated off Bork’s impact in the late 1980s and 1990s had a different set of priorities. Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Kenneth Rogoff—these economists’ theories did not free the market or reduce government power. Instead they encouraged government to promote the growth of and in some cases subsidize companies in select sectors, especially technology and finance, which in their telling would power America’s consumer economy. Applied to former Soviet client countries in Eastern Europe and Latin America, this approach meant administering “shock therapy” capitalism. Namely, “ripping the band-aid” off socialist or communist political economies newly dependent on American loans by privatizing them across the board and all at once, while deliberately isolating American-backed politicians from popular feedback to “protect” the free market from what “shock therapists” saw as dangerous populistic energies. In Libertarian Institute Director Scott Horton’s description of the process, Summers, Rubin, and other “Harvard Boys’:

“…abolished all subsidies and price controls in the formerly completely Communist economy, induced hyper-inflation, destroying all available capital for real investment and used “voucher” and “loans for shares” schemes that handed over entire industries to connected gangsters and oligarchs. The consequences for the economy and civilian population were beyond severe. They were devastated. Life expectancy fell by double digits across the country.”

Not surprisingly, Zionist operators in media, finance, and international relations helped these economic approaches bear fruit. Leon Wieseltier brought to Washington Mario Vargas Llosa, giving the Peruvian writer and future Nobel Prize winner an American platform just as Vargas Llosa entered Peruvian politics on a pro-“shock therapy” line that was soundly rejected by Peruvian voters. The World Bank, which was run in these years by the Zionist financer James Wolfensohn and the Zionist foreign policy operator Paul Wolfowitz, pursued similar agendas with similar results. It lent to countries grappling with debt to help them develop their economies, but in ways and on terms that made these countries ever more dependent on American largesse. Zionist financiers also involved themselves in this process, and were less hooded about their intentions. Paul Singer, the Jewish Zionist hedge funder who would later help fund the Manhattan Institute, accelerated his finance career buying sovereign debt from economically struggling nations including Argentina and Peru, then avidly pursuing full payment using lawsuits. Zionist political operators involved themselves, too. In 2002, a political consulting firm, Greenberg, Carville, Shrum—founded by James Carville along with two Zionists (Stanley Greenberg, Robert Shrum) who had helped The New Republic’s chosen presidential candidates Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry—ventured down to Bolivia to help swing a presidential election in favor of a pro-shock therapy candidate advised by the World Bank.

Latin Americans with ties to Zionist-arbitrated institutions in America also brought the agenda back home. A case in point is Harvard, where, as I have reported for the Libertarian Institute, Zionist operators accrued power beginning in the 1970s and which, in the 2000s, graduated two Argentinians who later rose to influence pushing Zionist economists’ agenda. The first was Demian Axel Reidel, who served as Head Advisor to Argentina’s Office of the President until July and now serves as the president of Nucleoeléctrica S.A., the state-owned company that manages nuclear power plants. Reidel wrote his dissertation for a PhD in economics at Harvard in 2006 under the instruction of Kenneth Rogoff, and, unlike the populist libertarian Javier Milei, took the line of Rogoff’s school of economics that populism leads to instability and disorder. The second was Martin Peretz’s mentee Pierpaolo Barbieri, who helped Peretz’s ally Niall Ferguson start the advisory firm Greenmantle, then founded Uala, an Argentinian “fintech” (financial technology) company which calls itself as “mobile banking startup” and doubles as a digital debit card and a bank, with investments from Peretz and George Soros. Not coincidentally Reidel and Barbieri are also ardent Zionists.

Their views are not the views of most Latin Americans. As early as 2003, mass protests in Bolivia against the president installed with the help of Shrum, Carville, Greenberg in 2002 paralyzed the country and led to a series of events that put the Leftist candidate Evo Morales into power. And the Bolivia case was predictive for the region, where backlash to Zionist-arbitered empire came in the form of rising socialist or communist movements advocating for wealth redistribution to the working class. It was this backlash that powered the rise of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela; Nestor and Christina Kirchner in Argentina; Evo Morales in Bolivia; Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva and Dilma Rousseff in Brazil; and Andrés Manuel López Obrador and Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo in Mexico. Not surprisingly, many of these movements were anti-Zionist. Many were also, in a re-articulation of the 1980s alliances of the Latin American Soviet bloc, pro-Iran.

But as these movements gained power in the 2000s and 2010s, Zionists were developing another tool to handle Latin American dissent. They were using the power they’d gained over national security and economics in America to co-opt Latin Americans via religious philanthropy, inducing figures of influence from the region into the Zionist orbit.

Continue reading at The Libertarian Institute.