The attack on Iran alarmingly sent oil prices soaring—violating a key Republican campaign promise—forcing Trump to declare the end of the war. Today, we know that less than 30 percent of Americans support this military action.
Days later, with his popularity waning, Trump launched the “Shield of the Americas,” a new hemispheric alliance to combat drug cartels; another campaign promise.
However, the hemispheric aspect was narrowed down to allied or right-wing governments, excluding, among others, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil.
By excluding us and portraying us as the epicenter of violence and drug trafficking in the region, many have questioned whether the “Shield” will be the missing piece needed to legitimize a military intervention in Mexico.
Irresponsibly, this narrative is being embraced and disseminated by various sectors.
Objectively speaking, Trump has more than enough intentions to intervene militarily in our country, but not necessarily enough reasons.
It’s true that he himself has shown he doesn’t need them to carry out his strategies, but neither does he need external support or alliances. Just as—at least with Venezuela and Iran—he doesn’t anticipate and simply executes.
But let’s suppose there’s a shift in logic and now he needs allies. If the real objective of “Operation Shield of the Americas” were to build a genuine operational coalition against the cartels, it would be a grave design flaw to exclude Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia, since that’s where most of the hemisphere’s drug market is produced, transited, and combated.
Transnational criminal organizations aren’t dismantled through symbolic alliances, external military interventions, or isolated operations.
The effective fight against drug trafficking, and Trump knows this, depends on financial intelligence, judicial cooperation, and institutional strengthening.
None of that can be built by excluding the central actors in the problem. Therefore, I believe that exclusion is not a flaw in the project, but its very essence.
Thus, the Shield of the Americas is an instrument of pressure and a political banner of regional strength.
It is not an agreement between countries; it is a symbol of power over other countries, used as a domestic electoral tool.
The appointment of Kristi Noem confirms this. Noem was removed from the Secretariat of National Security, one of the most sensitive internal security positions, after mismanagement.
To then appoint her as the face of hemispheric security speaks to its true political nature.
No one can deny that Mexico faces sustained pressure from Washington regarding security, extraditions, and immigration control.
The Mexican government has responded to this with measurable results in seizures, arrests, and extraditions. What haven’t we done? Allow the United States to conduct military operations on our territory, and we shouldn’t allow it.
That is why Mexico is not part of the alliance, but neither is the alliance against us.
Furthermore, the economic integration of Mexico and the United States makes any bilateral conflict prohibitively expensive, so this theory of possible intervention collapses economically on its own.
Of course, it’s not a good idea for Mexico, but it’s also not electorally sustainable for the United States.
The real challenge for Mexico, then, translates into prosecutors with genuine investigative capacity; judges who can effectively prosecute complex criminal structures; and institutions that are not susceptible to corruption.
And that’s precisely where international cooperation can be genuinely useful, as demonstrated by the operation against “El Mencho.”
The Shield of the Americas is not a military intervention strategy; it’s a political maneuver disguised as a strategy.
Understanding that Mexico has many outstanding issues to resolve, but accepting that it’s unsustainable for someone else to address them, is our point of agreement.
Source: elfinanciero
