Paul Adams

In 1980 the operation that Jimmy Carter launched to try and rescue American diplomats held in Tehran after the Iranian revolution. That operation ended in disaster as helicopters collided in the Iranian desert. That is a specter which still hangs over America when it comes to dealing with Iran. And it is something the president, this president, is aware of and will be just one of many reasons why he will be thinking hard.

Paul, in terms of international law, what is the consensus? Legal or illegal, this move? I think it's fair to say, Matthew, that there is no consensus. This is a case of international law versus domestic law. In terms of international law, well, clearly the UN charter says that it is illegal to use force against the territory of another country unless there has been the consent of the UN Security Council or some kind of direct threat.

Suomalaisen kansainvälisten järjestelmien mukaan kansainväliset järjestelmät ovat suomalaiset järjestelmät järjestelmät järjestelmät järjestelmät järjestelmät

Now there is a question about the use of force as the American troops, forces went in. Well, the argument there has been that in the conduct of such arrest operations, this is not an invasion, this is not regime change, this was an arrest operation, that the federal forces involved have the...

authority from Congress to defend themselves as appropriate. And since helicopters did come under fire, then force was used. Opponents of that will argue that those helicopters wouldn't have come under fire at all had they not been flying directly into the Venezuelan capital. Then as far as the court in New York is concerned, I think it's worth noting that clearly Mr. Maduro will try to argue that as the head of state,

He enjoy legal immunity. I think the consensus there is that the courts won't really care how he got there. They will simply examine the charges against him. Suomi, Donald Trump said on Saturday the US will run Venezuela. What do we think he means by that?

Okay, well let's look at the charges. I'm going to refer to my notes here, because I want to make sure we inform the viewers correctly. Essentially three main areas, narco-terrorism, cocaine trafficking and weapons offenses. Now, these were all part of an initial indictment that dates back a few years to the first Trump administration, but has been revised more recently, conspiring with U.S.-designated

foreign terrorist organizations like the Tren de Aragua, you've already heard referenced, and also the FARC, Colombian rebels, the use of the Venezuelan military and intelligence resources to move large quantities of cocaine to the U.S.,

and the possession of illegal weapons to facilitate that movement. Those are in broad terms the charges being brought against President Maduro and his wife. He could face life in prison if convicted on these charges, just as the former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega did when he was taken out of Panama again by the US military back in 1989.

Donald Trump's been talking about him just in his remarks at the Kennedy Center just a short time ago. He says that he's a violent guy, that he ran torture chambers in Caracas and has killed millions of people. Typically Trumpian exaggeration perhaps, but clearly there is a view here that President Maduro is a very bad guy. I think as to whether or not the charges will stick,

Most people recognize that this is a case that's going to go on for a very long time. It probably will be still going on after Donald Trump leaves office. It's a complicated case. There are a lot of moving parts to it, and it has only just begun.

Oh yes, there most certainly are. And you only have to look at the text of the statement released by several European countries just today to realize just how real those fears are. You know, there's no immediate prospect of a kind of military operation or a takeover of Greenland. And in fact, when Donald Trump was asked about this on Air Force One a night or two ago, he rather brushed away these concerns and said, let's talk about that in a couple of months' time. But the EU statement...

says that NATO has made it clear the Arctic is a priority and European allies are stepping up. Security must be achieved collectively through NATO. There are constant references to the North Atlantic Alliance.

Tarkoituksena on se, että Donald Trump ei ole kiinnostunut NATO-palveluun tarjoamiseen turvallisuuden ympäristöön. Maailman osa, jonka kaikki huomiovat arktisen kylmän lämpöä, on tullut enemmän ja enemmän militaarisesti ja ehkä yhteiskunnallisesti ja strategiallisesti tärkeämpää.

että hän on vain kiinnostunut katsomaan sitä itseänsä, joka on osa tätä uutta monro-doktrinia. Ja että Norjan-Atlanttinen yhdistys, katsotaanpa, että Greenland on osa Norjan-Atlanttista, se ei ole se, miten hän näkee tämän turvallisuuden varmistamisen. Se on todella huolta, ei vain Denmarkin tapauksessa, vaan Euroopan kautta.

In terms of the Monroe Doctrine, the revitalizing of 1823 doctrine originally announced by the then US president James Monroe, essentially what we're seeing now is an expanded version of that. In fact, people talk about it as encompassing everything from the Aleutian Islands in the west to Greenland in the east and everything from the Arctic in the north to the Antarctic in the south.

with Donald Trump saying anything that happens in that geographic space is a US vital national interest. Any attempt by an outside power, whether it be China or Iran or Russia, to exert influence or extract

benefit from anything in that space, and Venezuelan oil would be a good example of that, then that is to be resisted by the United States, that countries there should essentially direct their policies towards the American national interest.

That's why we see quite a significant amount of political influence being wielded, whether it's to see changes of government in Central and South America or access to key resources like Venezuelan oil. All of this, Donald Trump is saying, is vital American strategic and security concerns, and everyone else should keep their hands off it.

Ajattele vain Irakasta, Libyasta ja Afganistanista. Luulen, että Trumpin hallituksessa, kun hän ymmärsi, mitä Venäjällä pitäisi tehdä, ajattelin, ettei mennä tuohon eteenpäin. Tämä ei mene regime-muutokseen, koska jos mennään tuohon eteen,