American March
Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero
In the country's most influential political and media circles, a concern that can no longer be ignored is resonating with increasing intensity: Will Mexico be the next stage for a direct US intervention, similar to the one El Salvador experienced in the 1980s? The perception that Washington's strategy seeks to consolidate its dominance in our territory through covert actions, and not only through diplomatic or economic pressure, has begun to circulate strongly in certain sectors of the elite.
Víctor Hugo Arteaga has warned that this threat is not a conspiracy theorist invention, but a reality that has been developing in the recent history of the bilateral relationship, marked by structural subordination and clandestine operations by intelligence agencies.
This view is echoed by the opinions of prominent national security specialists who write for El Independiente.
According to their analyses, there is evidence that the United States has perfected a multifaceted, “silent” intervention strategy in recent decades, in which direct military occupation is not the only option.
The infiltration of criminal actors, the co-opting of political and economic elites, and the creation of crisis scenarios that can justify a larger intervention are all part of a logic that seeks to maintain control without triggering an open conflict.
Analysts agree that the increase in violence, the expansion of drug trafficking, and the fentanyl crisis in the United States have been used as pretexts to justify actions that, in reality, aim to dismantle any attempt by Mexico to regain its full sovereignty.
In contrast to the more alarmist perspectives, some security specialists at El Independiente believe that direct military intervention in Mexico would not be the preferred option in the short term.
They argue that the United States is increasingly inclined toward a strategy of economic pressure, cyberattacks, media manipulation, and alliances with domestic sectors that can facilitate its political, economic, and military control of our country.
However, they warn that the danger lies in the fact that, in practice, these covert actions could quickly escalate into a more visible occupation if Mexican elites, in their eagerness to maintain privileges, continue to make backroom deals and ignore the risks of ever-increasing dependence.
For their part, Víctor Hugo Arteaga and other analysts have emphasized that Latin American history reveals that the United States has repeatedly used the "divide and conquer" strategy to neutralize sovereignist or leftist movements.
The presence of drug traffickers, conservative sectors, religious institutions, and economic elites—who, in many cases, operate in collusion with foreign interests—facilitates the country becoming an arena of conflict where sovereignty is diluted in a web of pacts and complicity.
The narrative that Mexico is a country incapable of controlling its own destiny, that it can only be “protected” by Washington, is the perfect pretext to justify an intervention that could go far beyond police or economic operations.
Analysts at El Independiente also contrast these perspectives with the opinions of other experts who believe that the real threat to Mexico lies in its own history of populism, clientelism, and pacts with the United States.
The country's tendency to accept “easy solutions,” to maintain a sovereignist discourse for public consumption while, in practice, perpetuating agreements of convenience, reinforces our nation's vulnerability.
The potential intervention, they argue, would not only be a military action, but the culmination of a process in which Mexican elites, through their silence or complicity, have allowed dependency to become institutionalized and irreversible.
In short, the convergence of opinions among academics and analysts in media outlets like El Independiente, along with the comments of Víctor Hugo Arteaga, paints a complex and dangerous picture.
History teaches us that sovereignty is not declared, but rather built through resistance to external pressures and the strength of institutions.
The threat that Mexico could become the “El Salvador” of the 21st century, under an intervention strategy that combines economic warfare, media manipulation, and covert actions, is no longer a distant hypothesis, but a concrete possibility if the elites and the citizenry do not become aware of the risk and act accordingly.
The ongoing tension between Mexico and the United States has been a constant in the country's modern history, and in this context, the academic Soledad Loaeza has contributed a profound and nuanced perspective.
In his book published a few years ago, Loaeza analyzes how North America has exerted constant pressure on Mexico, driven by economic, political, and security interests, which has often tested the Mexican state's capacity to maintain its sovereignty and autonomy.
Loaeza argues that, despite this pressure and the emerging threats, the Mexican government has managed to weather these onslaughts with a strategy of negotiation and resistance that, while not eliminating the risks, prevents the relationship from becoming one of absolute subordination.
Loaeza points out that this tension is not only a foreign policy issue, but a structural element that defines the country's identity and domestic politics, and that, at key moments, has tested Mexico's ability to defend its interests against a power that ultimately seeks to consolidate its dominance in our region.
