The Geopolitical Likelihood of a US Intervention in México

 The Geopolitical Likelihood of a U.S. Intervention in Mexico

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

During Donald Trump’s second administration, Washington has designated various cartels as terrorist organizations and ordered the Pentagon to prepare options to combat them. Alternatives ranging from drone strikes to missile launches from U.S. naval vessels have even been considered. In this context, the analyses by Dr. Víctor Hernández Ojeda of the Universidad Panamericana merit attention, although some of his assertions need to be weighed against evidence and distinguished as facts, hypotheses, or projections.

Hernández Ojeda maintains that there is a growing political willingness in the U.S. to consider intervention against the cartels and that the fundamental shift from Trump’s first term lies in the transformation of the drug trafficking problem into a national security issue. His argument has some basis: the executive order of January 2025 indeed framed the cartels as a threat transcending conventional organized crime, linking them to terrorism, foreign governments, and insurgency. Furthermore, Trump had previously raised the possibility of sending troops to Mexico and—according to the former Secretary of Defense—had even inquired during his first term about the possibility of using missiles against drug laboratories.

However, turning that pressure into a successful invasion would be far more complex. The primary cost to the United States would not be merely military. Mexico is currently an essential component of the U.S. economy; bilateral trade in goods reached approximately $872.8 billion. A war would jeopardize integrated supply chains for automobiles, electronics, medical devices, food, and energy. The Federal Reserve has specifically highlighted Mexico's growing importance within U.S. supply chains.

There would also be legal and diplomatic costs. A unilateral military operation on Mexican soil would clash with the principle of sovereignty and the prohibition on the use of force—barring exceptions recognized under international law. Moreover, the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate that overwhelming military superiority does not guarantee a stable political solution. Likewise, Mexico is not Colombia; Despite striking similarities, the scenario involving Mexico represents a potential mass influx of millions of people into North America in immediate response to any attempted armed conflict. An attack on Mexico would, *de ​​facto*, trigger the likely immediate migration of thirty million people into North America.

Opportunities, therefore, seem to lie less in invasion than in much deeper security cooperation: shared intelligence, financial targeting of criminal organizations, control of arms trafficking from the United States, a reduction in U.S. drug demand, and Mexican operations supported by U.S. intelligence. The neutralization of Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes in February 2026 illustrates that intelligence cooperation can yield results without the need for foreign occupation.

George Friedman’s outlook is particularly interesting: he envisions a Mexico that has become a major economic power, alongside a confrontation arising from demographic, migratory, and cultural shifts along the border. According to Friedman, the conflict would emerge organically from North America’s transformation, rather than from a Mexican plan to attack the United States. In other words, a U.S. civil war appears more plausible—particularly in the American South, driven by long-established cartels that have "Mexicanized" key states like Texas and California.

The value of Friedman’s proposal—like those previously offered by Robert Pastor and Alain Rouquie—lies in the warning that the bilateral relationship could undergo a radical transformation as demographics, economics, and the distribution of power shift. The current paradox is that an intervention intended to preserve U.S. hegemony could accelerate the very outcome Friedman foresaw: a strategic rupture between two deeply integrated societies. For North America, the greatest success would not be the conquest of Mexico, but rather preventing the fight against drug trafficking from destroying the economic, social, and geopolitical interdependence that constitutes the primary advantage for both nations.

American March

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.

The Messiah, the Bishops, and the Caesar

 The Messiah, the Bishops, and the Caesar

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The current crisis of governance in Mexico has ceased to be a matter of domestic politics and has become the epicenter of a geopolitical reconfiguration.

The State has exhausted its traditional mechanisms of mediation and is heading toward forced integration under Washington's aegis.

The Messiah narrative, embodied in the figure of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, represents the last gasp of a sovereignty that, paradoxically, has deepened the structural ties between political power and organized crime.

Like its predecessors, the current leadership has been unable to sever the umbilical cord with the powers that be, allowing the metastasis of drug trafficking to reach high levels of territorial control.

The Catholic Church has not been a mere spectator, but a historical intermediary that has skillfully woven networks of social containment where the State has deserted.

However, this mediation has crossed the line from pastoral care to organic complicity.

The infiltration of drug trafficking into ecclesiastical structures has created a social fabric where the sacred and the profane are blurred to legitimize the criminal order.

This symbiosis has failed in its primary objective of maintaining social peace, leaving a void that can only be filled by a larger external force.

The US presidential power, after years of observing the decline of its neighbor, seems ready to act according to a national security logic.

Friedman and Huntington had warned about the disruptive potential of an out-of-control Mexico.

Brzezinski's vision suffered from an alarming lack of perspective by underestimating Mexico's demographic and cultural power, focusing his attention on Arab fundamentalism while the real challenge was brewing in its own backyard.

Today, the rampant corruption and violence in Mexico represents a more existential threat to the United States than any insurgency in the Middle East, due to the porous nature of a border that no longer separates two nations, but rather two interconnected realities.

The outlook for Mexico points to a radical transformation: ceasing to be the American Sicily, an enclave of tolerated but contained illegality, and becoming the New Puerto Rico.

This process would not necessarily come about through a military invasion, but rather through a systemic intervention justified by the collapse of Mexican institutions and the pressure from the 50 million Mexicans residing in North America.

This demographic segment, weary of the ineffectiveness of governments in their country of origin, is beginning to look favorably upon an intervention by the Caesar that imposes the order that the Messiah and the Bishops could not.

Mexico's demographic capacity, far from being a barrier for Washington, becomes the social base that would legitimize a de facto external administration under the premise of regional survival.

The American war economy requires a minimum level of stability to guarantee its supply chains and nearshoring, which clashes head-on with the entropy generated by drug trafficking.

The failure of the social mediation of the Mexican Church and State opens the door to a technocratic and militarized protectorate.

Mexico faces the definitive loss of its autonomy in exchange for a peace imposed from abroad, marking the end of an era of pretense and the beginning of a new political geography where sovereignty is a luxury that institutional failure can no longer afford.

The survival of transnational criminal organizations in the face of an imminent intervention by the American Caesar would depend on a radical transformation: from being a collection of violent fiefdoms to becoming a para-state actor with strategic utility.

If drug trafficking groups in Mexico were to seek independent survival in the face of forced integration, their only path would be to mutate into a counterintelligence and territorial control entity serving Washington's national security interests, emulating the pragmatism of the Sicilian Mafia during Operation Husky in 1943.

In the logic of power, narco-politicians are now toxic assets that justify foreign intervention.

By promoting the capture and extradition of these figures, criminal organizations would eliminate the pretext of a narco-state that the Capitol uses to invoke forceful measures.

This "offering" would allow these de facto groups to present themselves as the only interlocutors capable of pacifying the territory, replacing a civil bureaucracy that Washington already considers failed and deeply infiltrated.

Mexican drug trafficking should shift its business portfolio to align with the United States' existential priorities: fentanyl and Chinese influence.

Just as the Italian mafia guaranteed the security of ports in New York and facilitated landings in Sicily to counter the Axis powers, Mexican groups would have to unilaterally eradicate the production of fentanyl and chemical precursors from Asia.

By assuming the role of guardians of American public health and a barrier against Beijing's economic penetration in the Mexican Pacific, these organizations would transform from a "terrorist threat" into "irregular allies."

Controlling migration flows and monitoring the infiltration of agents from adversary countries at the border would become their new currency.

To avoid being devoured by the American military machine, these organizations would have to demonstrate that their total eradication would create a power vacuum that could only be filled by chaos or hostile foreign powers.

By presenting itself as a state-sponsored mafia that protects the interests of the USMCA and expels the influence of Arab and Chinese capital, Mexican drug trafficking could aspire to survive under a regime of conditional tolerance.

Gerald Ford in the Impossible Triangle

 Gerald Ford in the Impossible Triangle

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Throughout history, relations between the United States and Latin America have been marked by actions that some might call imperialist. Although there is talk of the largest US military deployment in the region, such movements are nothing new in Washington's history. Experts like James Cockcroft have dedicated in-depth analyses to this topic, exploring how the White House's geopolitical interests have shaped its interventionist policy toward Latin America.

Today, the focus seems to be shifting toward what some call the "tripod of evil" in the region: Cuba, Venezuela, and Mexico. These countries, according to certain political discourses, represent a threat under the concept of narcoterrorism, a label used to justify extreme measures and open new fronts in US national security. Turning to this axis, figures like Donald Trump have expressed their intention to combat the "populist narcoterrorism" associated with these countries, in addition to addressing the growing international influence that alliances between these nations and the BRICS could have.

American strategic thinking is not a new phenomenon, but it finds echo in traditional perspectives such as those of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who analyzed Latin America's role within American interests and pointed to the historical disdain for the region, often perceived as having secondary influence. However, times are changing, and global dynamics are forcing a strategic reconfiguration. Alvin Toffler, for example, addresses the concept of "rapid change," highlighting the importance of adapting to the accelerated transformations that shape both societies and political systems. In this scenario, the United States seems to be rethinking its approach to Latin America, under pressure from new global and regional challenges.

The Trump administration, and more broadly recent American policy, may be taking note of these trends. The need to view Latin America in a new light makes sense in a global context where strategic and economic alliances are gaining greater importance. This potential shift would also respond to the direct impact on the United States of the structural problems of its neighbors south of the Rio Grande. The Mexican crisis, with its profound effects on society and governance, not only affects Mexico itself; its repercussions extend to other Latin American nations and also impact the delicate internal balance of the United States.

It is clear that Mexico represents an increasingly significant challenge to U.S. national security. While the neighboring country does not need to become a kind of Japan south of the Rio Grande to be relevant, it is emerging as a key player in the geopolitical and strategic landscape. If the United States wishes to maintain its internal stability while navigating an increasingly interconnected and competitive world, it must confront the challenges stemming from the political and social deterioration along its borders. What is happening in Mexico and other Latin American countries can no longer be ignored without serious consequences for the shared future of a region united by social, economic, and cultural ties.

Invasion Through Cooperation

 Invasion Through Cooperation

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

It is becoming increasingly undeniable that U.S. interventionism in Mexico is affecting the interests of narco-politics and its various allies.

Although the Fourth Transformation seeks to make clear demonstrations of nationalism and sovereignty, the truth is that Donald Trump's pressure is growing stronger, and progressivism may be facing its last six-year term.

Analyses of the links between politics and drug trafficking will begin to uncover more evidence; however, the Mexican government is at the beck and call of U.S. imperialism, and therefore, the arrests and public displays of drug traffickers and their associates are becoming increasingly commonplace.

Ricardo Pascoe, Andres Oppenheimer, and Carlos Ramírez explain that there is a deep collaboration that makes military intervention unnecessary. The socialist posturing of the Sheinbaum government simply demonstrates its impotence in the face of neoliberal populism and the imposed U.S. security doctrine.

The relationship between Mexico and the United States is at a critical juncture, where U.S. intervention in Mexican politics is almost absolute.

Although the Fourth Transformation seeks to project nationalism and sovereignty, the pressure from the White House, especially during Donald Trump's administration, has been intense.

The concealment of former President AMLO, the displacement of López Obrador's movement, and the widespread evidence of corruption during the previous six-year term demonstrate that President Claudia Sheinbaum is subservient to the White House.

Nationalist progressivism in Mexico may be facing its greatest challenge, with the possibility that the government's work is in complete disarray.

Sheinbaum appears to be facing a delicate balance between maintaining the narrative of the Fourth Transformation and the external pressures seeking to influence her government. The dominance of the Caribbean and Mexico represents a crucial issue for U.S. security in the face of the BRICS.

The decline of the United States in relation to the Asian world and the imminent intervention of the Chinese Dragon in various areas of global life are undeniable; however, Latin America is not exempt from the Monroe Doctrine.

Drug trafficking is the focus of an intervention considered essential for North America. Not only has the supply of drugs from Mexico to the United States been overestimated, but there is also a convergence with China that seems to be creating a reverse Opium War.

The Chinese presence in Latin America implies not only economic interests but also political influence that seeks to consolidate itself in various spheres, from technology to diplomacy.

China's presence in strategic sectors, from infrastructure to trade, has generated competition that both the United States and Mexico must address with a joint and decisive vision.

The region, traditionally viewed as a contested sphere of influence, has become a chessboard on which global powers are deploying their interests with increasing intensity.

In this context, Mexico must navigate turbulent waters, where collaboration and the pursuit of common interests may be key to addressing regional and global challenges.

History has shown that confrontation and isolationism do not serve Mexican interests, while cooperation and a shared vision can create an effective counterweight to the expansion of other powers.

The current state of North American relations reveals that U.S. interventionism in Mexico has not only been decisive but, in many cases, has directly affected the country's internal interests, particularly in areas related to drug trafficking and its various allies.

However, amidst this influence, an opportunity arises: bilateral collaboration that allows for the reshaping of the Latin American landscape, limiting Chinese expansion and strengthening a regional presence that takes into account shared interests.

Cooperation can be based on a strategy of economic development, security, and institutional strengthening, where both countries join forces to offer viable alternatives to Chinese investment and presence.

The United States' role in the region, viewed from a collaborative perspective, can become a strategic ally for Mexico, allowing both countries to act as guardians of stability that benefits all of Latin America.

Cooperation and a shared vision can create an effective counterweight to China's expansion.

In this context, Mexico and the United States must understand themselves not only as neighbors, but as partners in a common challenge that transcends borders. The establishment of a geopolitical balance that preserves regional sovereignty and limits the influence of external powers.

This process requires a sovereign vision that transcends short-term interests and a political will to drive a common agenda, in which the fight against drug trafficking and corruption are fundamental pillars.

Collaboration should extend beyond the fight against drug trafficking and Chinese imperialism, encompassing infrastructure, trade, and education projects that strengthen regional independence and reduce dependence on external actors such as the BRICS.

Donald Trump: Finally?

Donald Trump: Finally?

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Before President Claudia Sheinbaum's report on her first year in office, the President of the United States announced a full-scale declaration of war against drug cartels in Latin America.

This decision raised serious questions in Mexico, since the organized crime groups involved in the production and trafficking of narcotics have been designated as terrorists by the White House.

This designation raises the possibility of a U.S. military intervention, as has already been seen recently with alleged actions against drug traffickers on the Venezuelan coast.

However, the impact of Trump's message was relegated on the Mexican public agenda.

The central themes of Sheinbaum's event, such as the assessment of her first year in office, the marked distancing from her political predecessor, and the introduction of new policies and projects for the short term, garnered more attention than the threats emanating from the north.

It is possible that the current political landscape is reaching a certain point of equilibrium.

On the one hand, internal divisions within the U.S. government have limited the actions of Trumpism, forcing the former president to seek new rhetorical strategies that go beyond attacking Mexico.

On the other hand, Sheinbaum is beginning to consolidate her autonomy and gain prominence in the face of agreements and political power structures in the country.

As for Trump's actions toward Mexico, he seems to have reached his limit. The possibility of a military invasion appears irrelevant given the level of control and economic influence that Washington already exerts over its southern neighbor.

Little can be altered in such a deeply entrenched economic integration scheme, where mutual interests ultimately prevail over bilateral conflicts and abuses.

The apparent lack of impact of the former U.S. president's recent speeches also highlights the apathy, indolence, and irresponsibility characteristic of much of the Mexican political class.

If Trump aspires to change anything in Mexico, he'll have to do it alone, because the country's power groups simply advance according to their own interests, without paying much attention.

Mister Taco's strategies haven't been able to overcome Mexico's apathy and dynamism; the country presents an exhausting challenge that forces Trumpism to take a look at its own affairs.

Mexican Narco-State

Mexican Narco-State

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Although it has been pointed out that imperialist semiotics establishes inescapable marks on its enemies and spaces of conquest, this argument is inaccurate when it comes to arguments such as those pertaining to the Sinaloa Cartel, which claims to have controlled the Mexican state for at least fifty years. The magnitude of this accusation has not been grasped by the Mexican government or the idea of ​​building justice in our country.

Amid the disturbing revelations stemming from drug trafficking captured in the United States about the corruption rooted in the Mexican state, the country faces a crucial moment that demands a firm and coherent response. These statements, which suggest drug trafficking has controlled the power structure for decades, cannot be ignored. However, the solution lies not in foreign intervention, but in strengthening its own institutions and reaffirming national sovereignty. Mexico must take the initiative, demonstrating its capacity to face these challenges autonomously and effectively.

Collaboration with the United States is essential, but it must be based on mutual respect and strategic cooperation, not subordination. Instead of an invasion of US justice, a common front must be established against organized crime, sharing intelligence, technology, and best practices. This proactive approach will allow the Mexican government to wage a head-on fight against drug trafficking and corruption without relinquishing control over its own destiny. The country's governability is at a crossroads, and the only dignified way out is through a profound reengineering of the state. Superficial reforms are insufficient; a break with past practices is required to build a new public administration. The fight against drug trafficking can be the convening of a National Agreement for stability, reconciliation, and economic growth in the country.

Claudia Sheinbaum's administration has the monumental task of leading this transformation. It must implement public policies that not only combat crime but also discourage the economic gravitation toward the United States that fuels immediate crime. By offering collective incentives and opportunities through solid social and economic programs, the Mexican state can create a more resilient social fabric that is less vulnerable to the lures of crime. The challenge is enormous, but the opportunity to consolidate a more just and sovereign Mexico is even greater. This is not about giving in, but about demonstrating the nation's strength and capacity to overcome its own crises.

The way the United States is building evidence to pursue justice based on accusations and testimonies is similar to the progressive phenomena that are affecting the structure of kyriarchy in Mexico.

After the cartels themselves declared they were corrupting the political power structure in Mexico, there isn't much left to say. The enormous task is to rebuild the country and public administration. The idea of ​​a narco-state requires a rethinking of

government reengineering. Reforms are meaningless; an institutional breakdown is essential to achieve the desired transformation.

Counterculture in Mexican Regional Music

Counterculture in Mexican Regional Music

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The debate surrounding the control of popular music in Mexico sometimes seems to misunderstand the country's situation. The US military intervention is presented right under the eyes of the republic as representing, for them, a narco-society, and on the nationalist side, the proliferation of musical messages is hailed as freedom of expression. The world is upside down.

It is strange that government intervention is rejected in areas that are necessary for social well-being. Beyond demanding that President Claudia Sheinbaum respect the symbolic devices of drug trafficking, one might wonder if these cultural controversies would convince Donald Trump to withdraw his battleships, destroyers, and aircraft carriers from the country's maritime borders.

If the Radio and Television Law in Mexico were enforced, like the rule of law, for example, the country's configuration would surely be different; However, the problem is institutional weakness, the government's limited capacity to enforce the law. It is unfair to compare cultural freedom in the Western world with what is happening in Mexico. Certainly, in the United States, unlimited freedom exists, but it is also true that state surveillance of the counterculture has managed to ward off the negative and terrorist impact that some national and foreign elements seek to generate with certain actions. In the experience of Germany and France, Islamic culture and fascism are regulated by historical memory and the national security circumstances they imply; establishing almost authoritarian but legitimate forms that force democracies to defend themselves and bring debate and knowledge of the issue into the public sphere.

The counterculture can represent the entry of anti-values ​​that disrupt a given social order. The weakness of the Mexican state vis-à-vis the powers that be makes the counterculture discourse the true hegemonic one, and that is how things are going for us. During the war waged by the Mexican state against drug trafficking, the symbolic production of drugs was negatively stigmatized, but this too has served little purpose. What would be the opinion of the searching mothers and victims of the narco-war regarding the unregulated production of the music that accompanies this context?

The legalization of drugs and narco-culture can set the tone for strengthening the state, because they allow for the establishment of a legal framework and even the generation of taxes and revenues; however, state intervention and public debate are important. As long as state weakness persists, the de facto and hegemonic powers will eventually crush us all until a monster like Yankee Imperialism crushes them, including all of Mexican society. Freedom is conditioned by the capacity that the social contract grants to the leader and the social awareness of the importance of public morality. President Claudia Sheinbaum is forced to resume the Calderónist war and rethink the strength of the state to avoid another material and symbolic defeat.

Narco Land

Narco Land

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

A large part of Mexican society seems to disagree with the centrality that emigration and drug trafficking enjoy in the economy and structure of the social order; However, it seems inevitable to begin to recognize this role that they also share with other crimes in the daily environment of our republic.

It is not the first time that the United States intends to expose officials and members of the political class through a drug scandal. The phrase “narco Mexico” is a tautology, and the link between professional politicians or high officials and drug trafficking seems so common that it no longer surprises anyone.

But, if Mexico is a neighbor of the United States, why does the most important democracy - and empire - in the world do little to inhibit the commission of these crimes, specifically drug trafficking? The point is that Mexico and the United States have a complicit and ambiguous relationship regarding both the consumption and transfer of drugs and that long-standing relationship is an open secret. However, by having more resources, the United States has greater responsibility in the task of correcting things. Mexico is not the only supplier of drugs to North America, but it does constitute the main space of territorial approach for different groups, including international ones, dedicated to the transfer of psychotropics, to take on board American consumers. Health, as it applies to addictions, is not important in public policies in the United States; That is to say, although the number of deaths from fentanyl in young North Americans is stated bizarrely, their own country does not have prevention programs, projects or models, drug consumption in North America is increasing disproportionately and only the American government could change it.

Given its military capacity, the United States could take down drug trafficking groups in a jiffy; not only legalize its use so that drug addiction becomes formal and responsible consumption takes place in a controlled and peaceful environment. That is to say, while drugs are legalized in North America, Mexico is experiencing a low-intensity war that every day weakens the formal government and empowers too many cartels and associations. If the White House put the same effort into preventing addictions in American youth, in the same way that it serves the pentagonism; Mexico and North America could reach an optimum on this issue.

Maintaining the route that has been followed until now implies that soon the scenario set by George Friedman for 2080 will be brought forward. In the perspective of this geopolitician, the south of the United States becomes a settlement of criminal groups who, later, will carry out a true invasion and destruction of the Yankee empire. Now, to try to avoid this catastrophic prediction, North America is increasingly increasing actions and evidence that fuel a total war against Mexico, while preventing it from maintaining alliances with other countries dangerous to North American hegemony.

Friedman points out that Mexamerica constitutes the most important fracture zone for North America, greater than the importance of the regions of Russia and China. The United States thinks that Eurasia represents the greatest risk to its future; but not. The real risk is

Mexican knot. Affecting Mexico can cause the destruction of the United States in any sense.

The cartels have indeed moved to the southern border of the United States and the White House government knows who they are. Why don't they capture them? What does it mean to make an agreement with them to showcase the Mexican political class? It is increasingly shown that the State in Mexico lacks the resources to confront drug trafficking and impose order in the various regions of the country. Under these conditions, what is the point of making a public complaint and further weakening the government of our country?

Promoting instability in Mexico only leads to the government being increasingly ineffective in the fight against drugs and narcotics consumption increasing in the United States. In a good neighborly relationship, Mexico would expect greater collaboration and responsibility from the North American government in a situation that significantly harms everyone.

The war on drugs in Mexico depends on help from North America. Media exposures do not fix anything and constitute the classic ping pong game to influence public opinion, meanwhile, American and Mexican youth die in their hundreds due to the drug phenomenon.

The fight against trafficking cartels must be more than strategic and must begin from the American south, where the main centers of drug trafficking operations and finances are developed. The invasion of Mexico by the United States continues to be a valid option and, even, quite necessary. But, as George Friedman points out in his analysis: what if the United States loses the war with Mexico?

2024 and Narcopolitics

 2024 and Narcopolitics

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Moises Naim and Carlos Fazio agree that global society is in the middle of a war between factual powers of various kinds. The Cornwall Consensus and the Davos 2030 Agenda constitute timid approaches to restructuring the political sphere in the face of the subjugation of the market that puts the human race on the brink of extinction. Multiple formats of formal and informal economy are dominating all aspects of life; But, nevertheless, the defense of politics and the institutionalization of the State are essential for humanity to survive.

Drug trafficking is one of the main global economic activities. In Mexico it is even considered one of the largest employers, in addition to preventing the marginalization of its members in all aspects. The empowerment of drug trafficking in our country seems to have no limits.

It is undeniable that Mexico is a Narco-Society, but it is at the service of the Narco-Empire called the United States. Mexico has been configured as the Sicily of the United States since World War II because the pentagonist military industrial complex is subsidized by Latin American drug trafficking. The main promoter of the drug economy is the United States.

Ronald Reagan and Oliver North are reproduced in each Mexican six-year term, at each of its levels of government. However, each nation's ability to better address the problem depends on internal strength.

The United States does little, almost nothing, to prevent the transfer of drugs and their consumption in its society. The Yankee empire is capable of bombing a country where some American soldiers were victims of terrorism, but it does nothing against those who poison its youth - by the millions - from within and even from its neighbors.

Mexican drug trafficking cells have migrated to the southern United States and coexist with North American authorities and taxpayers. The White House neither sees them, nor hears them, nor does anything to them; as well as the bizarre ones of Donald Trump, Abbot or Di Santis.

American political processes are marked by drugs more than any other country. What does the United States do when its government agencies handle the movement of drugs in various parts of the world? Nothing, who certifies the United States in its fight against addictions or drug control? Nobody. Thousands of books, reports and scientific reports confirm the evidence of the political links with organized crime of the North American government.

Mexico is experiencing a low-intensity war by the State against the Drug Cartels financed by North America and another one superimposed on the competition for the market by the same protagonists of drug trafficking. How long will the US government and its political class be serious about drugs?

Terrorism and Wild Liberalism

 Terrorism and Wild Liberalism

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Hamas's attack on Israel is deployed from a terrorist strategy that cannot be seen other than as unjust and unworthy. Terrorism uses fundamentalist ideology to appropriate the identity of a people, but its only path is violence and abuse. At the dawn of the 21st century, terrorism was associated with Muslim fundamentalism; Samuel Huntington and John Gray warned that it constituted a unique element of the clash of civilizations and the failure of modernity. As we approach the first quarter of this century, it is bitter that these academics were right, because the crisis of Western values is more serious than previously thought. The problem of assimilation is real, but the greatest threat lies in the impact and justification that modernity has not been able to achieve.

During the last century, the terrible scope of war was related to international law so that radical differences between nations or states did not affect third parties and, mainly, the civilian population was not harmed. The barbarity of the Second World War constitutes the main reference of human evil that must be averted and international organizations sought to affirm the right so that the conflagrations were kept in due proportion. Terrorism nullifies all of this.

Hamas terrorism generated perplexity in most of the world, but also approval by groups that identify with its actions and causes. Among these, those that promote narcoculture in Mexico can be highlighted. Indeed, terrorism and drug trafficking can coincide, narcoterrorism in our country has reached disproportionate levels and the comparison with Arab fundamentalism is not extravagant. Homologation implies an explanation, an assumption of values. Terrorism is abusive, whether committed by Hamas or Mexican drug crime groups.

Actions similar to those carried out by Hamas are common in several spaces where Mexican narcoterrorists operate. The strength of the armed groups, the momentary and insurmountable impunity, the abuse that only represses and attacks, the overwhelming irrational justification. Those who identify Hamas with the Culiacanazo event simply recognize each other.

These types of events are representative of a current of thought that has come to be called “Wild Liberalism.” In Mexico, some groups of anarchist libertarians propose and admire this type of acracy. The closest case may be the Argentine presidential candidate Javier Milei and his anarcho-capitalism – with many sympathizers in the right-wing Mexican middle class. A pro-Nazi extreme right feasts on Hamas, but they forget that the philosophy of Ariosophy took the statist perspective to totalitarianism.

The Israeli State has the justified responsibility to protect its population and use the necessary means to achieve this. Despite everything, Israel has been responsible towards the Arab world and no one can say that there has been a lack of will to seek peace. The problem becomes the justification of a senseless freedom, without any responsibility to confront public order, to destroy the lives of ordinary and simple people. The situation in Israel shows the importance and necessity of the construction of political society, of the role of the State, which regulates uncertainty and contributes to the well-being of people. Societies need to structure their States and international relations increasingly imply the need for international organizations and rights that are respected.

These last years have witnessed a series of conflicts against which the immediate action of the State has saved human groups in different countries. The State as guarantor of public order and primary actor in international relations, recovers its role and importance. It is the monster to scare other monsters.

Various anarchist groups and imperialist actors may have influenced, as they did in the past, to generate the conflict between Hamas and Israel within a geographical area that also constitutes the scene of imperialist disputes and civilizational wars. Unlike states held hostage by Muslim terrorism and invisible power, the force of the State of Israel will effectively try to demolish the conspiracy to which it was subjected.

In any case, it is essential to rethink the debates on political liberalism to stop dogmatizing it and using it to justify almost anything or type of action. No form of savage liberalism finds justification, there are terrorists and criminals who put others at risk and the State has to confront them. If the State does not fulfill its functions, or is distracted and the groups of the civil population remain at the disposal of the state of nature, humanity would truly face extinction.

It seems like a trite and anachronistic idea for current times, but how valid it is and how urgent it is to implement it to avert global cataclysm.

Strengthening the State, promoting law, civic and fiscal responsibility do not seem to be characteristics of liberal culture; However, true liberalism begins by focusing on these types of elements to develop a minimal, although sufficient, State.