Poilievre brilliantly explains the role of government in interview:

[CdnFox]

This is one minute 54 seconds, pierre explains what he thinks the role of government is and he's dead right. This is exactly why we need this guy running the country instead of the carpetbagger that we have right now

 

 

[Goddess]

Saw this post on X:

One of the most common lines thrown at Pierre Poilievre is that he’s a “20-year career politician with no real education.” It sounds sharp until you stop and look at who Canadians are actually being asked to choose between.

 

Pierre entered politics young, yes. Not because he was appointed, elevated, or parachuted in, but because voters kept choosing him. For two decades, Canadians renewed his mandate at the ballot box.

That isn’t stagnation. That’s accountability. It means he’s spent his adult life answering directly to voters, defending ideas publicly, losing debates, winning others, and adjusting based on real feedback from people living with the consequences.

 

And the idea that he’s “uneducated” doesn’t hold up either. Pierre has a university degree, but more importantly, he has practical fluency.

 

He understands budgets because he’s spent years dissecting them line by line. He understands inflation because he’s questioned central bankers directly. He understands housing because he’s studied permits, taxes, bottlenecks, and delays. Education isn’t just credentials on a wall. It’s mastery of material, and Pierre demonstrates that every time he speaks without notes.

 

What often gets overlooked is the contrast. Mark Carney came into office with no political experience at all. No time as an MP. No elections fought. No campaigns run. No years of public accountability to voters.

His experience is impressive, but it comes from central banking, boardrooms, and advisory roles, not from earning trust repeatedly in open elections. That difference matters. Politics isn’t just about understanding systems, it’s about listening, persuading, and being corrected by the public when you get it wrong.

 

That difference shows up clearly in how each man views people. In Values, Carney consistently frames progress as something that flows from well-designed systems rather than from individual judgment. His instinct is to build guardrails first, rules first, incentives first, and let personal choice operate only within those boundaries. It reflects a command-and-control mindset, where behaviour is shaped by rules and costs rather than trust and consent.

 

Pierre’s worldview is the opposite. He believes Canadians are capable, adaptable, and responsible when government gets out of their way. He doesn’t see hardship as a teaching tool or sacrifice as a virtue. He sees them as signals that something isn’t working. His focus on affordability, productivity, and choice comes from the belief that people don’t need to be guided into doing the right thing, they need room to do it themselves.

 

Another lazy criticism is that Pierre is “always whining.” That only works if you ignore what the job of the opposition actually is. Questioning the government isn’t negativity, it’s accountability. Pointing out rising costs, broken promises, stalled housing, and falling productivity isn’t complaining, it’s doing the work Canadians elected him to do. Opposition leaders are supposed to keep pressing until problems are fixed, not stop asking because it makes those in power uncomfortable.

 

What some call whining is really persistence. Pierre keeps asking the same questions because the problems haven’t gone away. If groceries are still expensive and housing is still out of reach, the questions shouldn’t stop. Silence would be easier. Agreement would be safer. But that wouldn’t serve Canadians.

 

Liberals also like to claim Pierre “voted against” things like $10-a-day childcare or dental care. That’s a convenient half-truth. In Parliament, MPs don’t vote on individual promises inside a bill, they vote on the entire package. Pierre didn’t vote against affordable childcare or dental care as ideas. He voted against large, poorly designed bills that bundled popular programs with massive spending, weak oversight, rising deficits, and unclear long-term costs.

 

His position has been consistent: if a policy affects millions of Canadians and billions of dollars, the whole bill needs to be properly costed, targeted, and accountable. Voting no isn’t opposing help, it’s opposing sloppy legislation that creates future problems Canadians end up paying for.

 

Some people also point to the fact that Pierre lost his riding in the last election, as if that disqualifies him. It shouldn’t. He lost in a moment defined by intense national polarization and very specific local dynamics, not scandal or incompetence. He accepted the result immediately, respected the voters, and kept doing the job he was elected to do, holding the government to account. Losing a seat doesn’t make someone weak. How they respond to it tells you who they are. Pierre didn’t lash out, make excuses, or disappear. He showed respect for democracy and kept working.

 

When scrutiny gets dismissed as whining, what’s really being said is that accountability is inconvenient. And that should worry anyone who believes democracy works best when leaders are challenged, not protected.

That’s why Pierre sounds different. He doesn’t speak in abstractions. He doesn’t ask people to accept hardship as a virtue. He talks about paycheques, rent, groceries, fuel, and whether effort still leads somewhere. That doesn’t come from theory. It comes from paying attention.

 

So when Liberals say “20 years in politics” as an insult, what they’re really saying is that Pierre understands the system well enough to challenge it.

 

And when they praise Carney’s credentials, they’re quietly admitting he hasn’t yet been tested by the one thing that matters most in a democracy, repeated consent from voters.

 

For a lot of Canadians, that contrast isn’t a flaw. It’s the point.

 

Pierre Poilievre represents something simple and deeply Canadian: the belief that leadership should start with trust in people, not control through systems. And for more Canadians every day, that belief feels less like ideology and more like common sense.

 

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

Saw this post on X:

One of the most common lines thrown at Pierre Poilievre is that he’s a “20-year career politician with no real education.” It sounds sharp until you stop and look at who Canadians are actually being asked to choose between.

 

Pierre entered politics young, yes. Not because he was appointed, elevated, or parachuted in, but because voters kept choosing him. For two decades, Canadians renewed his mandate at the ballot box.

That isn’t stagnation. That’s accountability. It means he’s spent his adult life answering directly to voters, defending ideas publicly, losing debates, winning others, and adjusting based on real feedback from people living with the consequences.

 

And the idea that he’s “uneducated” doesn’t hold up either. Pierre has a university degree, but more importantly, he has practical fluency.

 

He understands budgets because he’s spent years dissecting them line by line. He understands inflation because he’s questioned central bankers directly. He understands housing because he’s studied permits, taxes, bottlenecks, and delays. Education isn’t just credentials on a wall. It’s mastery of material, and Pierre demonstrates that every time he speaks without notes.

 

What often gets overlooked is the contrast. Mark Carney came into office with no political experience at all. No time as an MP. No elections fought. No campaigns run. No years of public accountability to voters.

His experience is impressive, but it comes from central banking, boardrooms, and advisory roles, not from earning trust repeatedly in open elections. That difference matters. Politics isn’t just about understanding systems, it’s about listening, persuading, and being corrected by the public when you get it wrong.

 

That difference shows up clearly in how each man views people. In Values, Carney consistently frames progress as something that flows from well-designed systems rather than from individual judgment. His instinct is to build guardrails first, rules first, incentives first, and let personal choice operate only within those boundaries. It reflects a command-and-control mindset, where behaviour is shaped by rules and costs rather than trust and consent.

 

Pierre’s worldview is the opposite. He believes Canadians are capable, adaptable, and responsible when government gets out of their way. He doesn’t see hardship as a teaching tool or sacrifice as a virtue. He sees them as signals that something isn’t working. His focus on affordability, productivity, and choice comes from the belief that people don’t need to be guided into doing the right thing, they need room to do it themselves.

 

Another lazy criticism is that Pierre is “always whining.” That only works if you ignore what the job of the opposition actually is. Questioning the government isn’t negativity, it’s accountability. Pointing out rising costs, broken promises, stalled housing, and falling productivity isn’t complaining, it’s doing the work Canadians elected him to do. Opposition leaders are supposed to keep pressing until problems are fixed, not stop asking because it makes those in power uncomfortable.

 

What some call whining is really persistence. Pierre keeps asking the same questions because the problems haven’t gone away. If groceries are still expensive and housing is still out of reach, the questions shouldn’t stop. Silence would be easier. Agreement would be safer. But that wouldn’t serve Canadians.

 

Liberals also like to claim Pierre “voted against” things like $10-a-day childcare or dental care. That’s a convenient half-truth. In Parliament, MPs don’t vote on individual promises inside a bill, they vote on the entire package. Pierre didn’t vote against affordable childcare or dental care as ideas. He voted against large, poorly designed bills that bundled popular programs with massive spending, weak oversight, rising deficits, and unclear long-term costs.

 

His position has been consistent: if a policy affects millions of Canadians and billions of dollars, the whole bill needs to be properly costed, targeted, and accountable. Voting no isn’t opposing help, it’s opposing sloppy legislation that creates future problems Canadians end up paying for.

 

Some people also point to the fact that Pierre lost his riding in the last election, as if that disqualifies him. It shouldn’t. He lost in a moment defined by intense national polarization and very specific local dynamics, not scandal or incompetence. He accepted the result immediately, respected the voters, and kept doing the job he was elected to do, holding the government to account. Losing a seat doesn’t make someone weak. How they respond to it tells you who they are. Pierre didn’t lash out, make excuses, or disappear. He showed respect for democracy and kept working.

 

When scrutiny gets dismissed as whining, what’s really being said is that accountability is inconvenient. And that should worry anyone who believes democracy works best when leaders are challenged, not protected.

That’s why Pierre sounds different. He doesn’t speak in abstractions. He doesn’t ask people to accept hardship as a virtue. He talks about paycheques, rent, groceries, fuel, and whether effort still leads somewhere. That doesn’t come from theory. It comes from paying attention.

 

So when Liberals say “20 years in politics” as an insult, what they’re really saying is that Pierre understands the system well enough to challenge it.

 

And when they praise Carney’s credentials, they’re quietly admitting he hasn’t yet been tested by the one thing that matters most in a democracy, repeated consent from voters.

 

For a lot of Canadians, that contrast isn’t a flaw. It’s the point.

 

Pierre Poilievre represents something simple and deeply Canadian: the belief that leadership should start with trust in people, not control through systems. And for more Canadians every day, that belief feels less like ideology and more like common sense.

 

 

All that is true.  However, there are two kinds of people reading that right now. 

The first is those of us who already figured all of that out and are cpc supporters, and the second is a group who managed to convince themselves that 'part time high school drama teacher" was perfectly good qualifications to run a country and are obviously prepared to lie to themselves in whatever amount necessary to believe their great leader of the day is the most qualified 

I' mean, how stupid do you have to be to claim that 25 years experience doing a job means you're LESS qualified than a guy who's never done it before in his life, like Carney?

I think one of PP's mistakes tho was focusing on himself as the only brand.  He should have been showcasing the talent around him more and pointing out it's more of a team effort. He has several business people, military and other people in his team available for his caucus, he made it all about him and that was probably a bit of a mistake 

Chretien would switch back and forth with his 'team' message.  Don't like me? Well look at my team, you gotta like them! Don't like the team? no worries i'm going to be in charge'.  It was very effective 

[Gaétan]

The reason you prefer Poilievre is because he is harsher toward the Palestinians. He says he wants to build houses, but so does the devil when trying to get elected. This kind of individual desires nothing but the end of the world in his subconscious.

[Queenmandy85]

Mr. Poilievre's sycophantic post praising the American administration's imperial invasion of a sovereign country last night sends a signal that, having given up his ambition to be Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre has set his sights on being appointed the first governor of the American state of Canada. 

The word that comes to mind is "Quisling." 

Venezuela is just the first step. If anyone in Canada is thinking Trump doesn't mean it when he repeatedly says he will take over Canada is deluding themselves. Trump will try to take over Canada within the next 150 weeks.

 

[CdnFox]

51 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Mr. Poilievre's sycophantic post praising the American administration's imperial invasion of a sovereign country last night sends a signal that, having given up his ambition to be Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre has set his sights on being appointed the first governor of the American state of Canada. 

The word that comes to mind is "Quisling." 

Venezuela is just the first step. If anyone in Canada is thinking Trump doesn't mean it when he repeatedly says he will take over Canada is deluding themselves. Trump will try to take over Canada within the next 150 weeks.

 

LOLOL  holy shit kid    Did you really like Maduro or something?   

Pierre said:

"Congratulations to President Trump on successfully arresting narco-terrorist and socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro, who should live out his days in prison," Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said in a social media post on Saturday morning.

The liberals said:

Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand said Canada has "refused to recognize any legitimacy of the Maduro regime and opposed its repression of the Venezuelan people, including the persecution of dissenters and particularly political leaders opposed to the regime."

It's pretty clear that both the liberals and the conservatives are okay with this arrest.

Sorry kid if you were a big socialist fan you were on the wrong side of this one

[eyeball]

PP says governments should do the things that people are unable to do themselves.

Does that include the government telling people what the government's job and duties are? I'm pretty sure that's our Constitutions job but our politicians and their party's act as if it's their's. The Constitution doesn't even contain the word politics never mind politicians or political parties.

It's surreal.

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Did you really like Maduro or something?   

 

No. I did not say that. He is a scum bag like Putin. But Trump does not care about Maduro or the welfare of the Venezuelan people. He just wants what they have.

I was saying this is a warning that Trump will try to take over Canada as he has repeatedly said. The question is, why is Mr. Poilievre posting congratulations to the man who intends to destroy us. Why would he say that? 

Trump has 150 weeks to do to us what he has done to Venezuela. He has given us every indication that he intends to do just that. Rather than kissing his ring, we need to prepare.

[Nefarious Banana]

8 hours ago, Gaétan said:

The reason you prefer Poilievre is because he is harsher toward the Palestinians. He says he wants to build houses, but so does the devil when trying to get elected. This kind of individual desires nothing but the end of the world in his subconscious.

herbie!  Is that you?   Miss your meds again?

[Queenmandy85]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The Constitution doesn't even contain the word politics never mind politicians or political parties.

It doesn't mention the office of Prime Minister either, except in a couple of minor instances. 😎

[Legato]

19 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

No. I did not say that. He is a scum bag like Putin. But Trump does not care about Maduro or the welfare of the Venezuelan people. He just wants what they have.

I was saying this is a warning that Trump will try to take over Canada as he has repeatedly said. The question is, why is Mr. Poilievre posting congratulations to the man who intends to destroy us. Why would he say that? 

Trump has 150 weeks to do to us what he has done to Venezuela. He has given us every indication that he intends to do just that. Rather than kissing his ring, we need to prepare.

Why are you frightened of Poilievre?

[Gaétan]

Poilievre gave his support to cowardly attacks against a defenseless people and the Palestinian genocide out of love for money; he is one of the cruelest individuals in Canada.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

No. I did not say that. He is a scum bag like Putin.

Agreed but that's all Poilievre said

Quote

But Trump does not care about Maduro or the welfare of the Venezuelan people. He just wants what they have.

Possibly true but that does not change the fact that getting rid of maduro is a good idea. Two things can be true at the same time. And you can still be happy about the fact that this guy is going to jail.

Quote

I was saying this is a warning that Trump will try to take over Canada as he has repeatedly said. The question is, why is Mr. Poilievre posting congratulations to the man who intends to destroy us. Why would he say that? 

You've lost your teeny tiny little mind.

He may try and bully us economically but he's not going to invade Canada.

Our carney has been brown nosing a million times harder, calling trump a transformative president and stating that the G7 can't function without him and he being praise after praise on him, and you're freaking out and wondering why Poilievre congratulated him for taking out a tyrant??

Your hypocrisy is showing badly here kiddo

 

Quote

Trump has 150 weeks to do to us what he has done to Venezuela. He has given us every indication that he intends to do just that. Rather than kissing his ring, we need to prepare.

Hey if he wants to come arrest Carney and throw him in jail I'm all over it  I don't think we'd get that lucky though

And again where was this concern when Carnie was sucking up to him? 

Trump is going to come after Canada financially. And yes we do have to prepare for that, the whole plan for that was to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers, get housing starts going again, and attract massive investment back to Canada and start some major nation building projects.

Sadly none of that has happened. And it doesn't look like it's going to happen this year either

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

You've lost your teeny tiny little mind.

He may try and bully us economically but he's not going to invade Canada.

My friend, you need to pay closer attention to my predictions. I predicted Hillary Clinton would win in 2016, Trump would win in 2020, Poilievre would crush Trudeau, and now I predict Poilievre will not become PM, and Trump will take over Canada within 150 weeks. (Do you see where I'm going with this?)

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

My friend, you need to pay closer attention to my predictions. I predicted Hillary Clinton would win in 2016, Trump would win in 2020, Poilievre would crush Trudeau, and now I predict Poilievre will not become PM, and Trump will take over Canada within 150 weeks. (Do you see where I'm going with this?)

I see......  you're saying that statistically you're due for a win  LOLOLOL

No, i get what you're saying.  Fair enough. I know you lean left but that did strike me as overboard for you. 

[Queenmandy85]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I know you lean left but that did strike me as overboard for you. 

I love to sail. I don't "lean left." I tack. Sometime I heal over to port, and other times I heal to Starboard. I avoid sailing with the wind. In all my years, I have never found my self overboard.

Edited January 4 by Queenmandy85

[Queenmandy85]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

you're saying that statistically you're due for a win

I got 10-1 odds when I bet on Cassius Clay to beat Sony Liston in 1962. I predicted Trump to win in 2024. That is a 62 year gap between wins. Statistics are not on my side.

[CdnFox]

52 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I love to sail. I don't "lean left." I tack. Sometime I heal over to port, and other times I heal to Starboard. I avoid sailing with the wind. In all my years, I have never found my self overboard.

well that's cleared that right up for us i think.   

Ya know, egg nog goes bad about 5 days after xmas. Just thought i'd point that out   

[Goddess]

On 1/3/2026 at 11:08 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

invasion of a sovereign country

It wasn't a sovereign country.  It had been taken over by a dictator, drug cartels and various foreign entities.

 

On 1/3/2026 at 1:38 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

Trump will try to take over Canada as he has repeatedly said.

He's just going to wait for us to implode on our own - economically, socially, the Chinese influence.  Canadians, like the Venezuelans, will be grateful for US takeover.

It's why he has zero interest in us right now.  He's just waiting.  Once our collapse starts influencing US interests, he'll do something.  And Canadians, who will be sick of eating out of dumpsters and watching all our money flee the country with corrupt politicians, will welcome a chance for a better life.

[Goddess]

On 1/3/2026 at 1:38 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

But Trump does not care about Maduro or the welfare of the Venezuelan people. He just wants what they have.

So you agree with Maduro, then?  That the ONLY reason the Americans did what they did was to take control of Venezuela's oil?

I agree that is part of it (oil reserves), even a large part.

But there are a lot of other reasons, too.  It's no coincidence that the Chinese were nearby when this happened.  Are you okay with the Chinese taking over Venezuela's oil?  I assume you are, because you also think China is Canada's best buddy.

It's very odd to me how much your ideas align with China's.  You support both Canada and Venezuela being run by China and don't seem to understand why the US would not want Communist China in our hemisphere.

I was thinking up til now that you are a radical left Liberal, but now I'm wondering if you're actually socialist/communist?  Your ideas certainly lean very far towards socialism/communism and you support those regimes and oppose democracies.

 

[Goddess]

This is about the security of the northern hemisphere, the oil is just a bonus.

 

Few seem aware of the interwoven strategic geopolitical relationships at play behind the headlines coming from both Iran and Venezuela. However, you can rest assured that neither Secretary of State Rubio, nor POTUS Donald Trump is so naive. The recent action against Nicolás Maduro was billed as taking aggressive steps against a chronic sponsor of narcoterrorism, but the issues are much deeper. At this very moment, a politically diverse range of social media influencers are busy criticizing this intervention. Still, none seem to be aware of or accounting for these deeper geopolitical issues.

This is not tiddlywinks, folks. This involves serious national security and geopolitical alliance issues. Yes, Virginia, there are clear ties between Iran and Venezuela, as there are between China and Venezuela. This is not some hyped up propaganda about chemical warfare or weapons of mass destruction, like what was used to justify the Iraq war. What we have here is clear, present, multidimensional danger.

It is helpful to dissect this strategically, because most mainstream reporting examines it only through the lens of sanctions or “rogue states cooperating,” while missing the deeper reality of the relationship. This isn’t just geopolitics; it’s the new face of modular, sanctions-resistant warfare.

Let’s focus on one example to illustrate the point. Over the past several years, there has been substantial evidence that Iran has indeed helped Venezuela establish local drone manufacturing capacity, particularly of Iranian-designed UAVs like the Mohajer and Shahed families.

The Core of the Iran–Venezuela Drone Collaboration

Iran and Venezuela have been under heavy U.S. sanctions for years. Both nations share a strategy of technological autarky. Technological autarky is the policy goal of making a country self-sufficient in critical technologies, so it does not rely on foreign nations for the development, production, or maintenance of essential tech systems. Both countries are considered rogue and, over the years, have faced numerous economic embargoes.

Iran’s drone program is one of its most successful export-ready industries. Drones became Iran’s key asymmetric deterrent capability in the 2010s and 2020s, primarily through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Around 2022, reports emerged that Venezuela had opened facilities believed to be assembling Iranian Shahed drones, possibly under local rebranding such as the “ANSU-200” or “Mohajer-6 variant.” The collaboration seems focused in the Aragua state near the CAVIM (Compañía Anónima Venezolana de Industrias Militares) complex. Engineers from Iran reportedly supplied designs, parts, and training for Venezuelan technicians.

This fits into Tehran’s expansion of its “Axis of Resistance” strategy.

Tehran’s “Axis of Resistance” is best understood as an Iranian-led proxy network created to destabilize the Middle East and elsewhere while providing Iran with plausible deniability. Instead of directly confronting the United States or Israel, Iran funds, supplies, and trains militant groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and aligned militias in Iraq and Syria to carry out asymmetric warfare, threaten civilians, and disrupt global trade routes. This approach allows Tehran to expand its regional influence, encircle Israel, pressure U.S. allies, and weaken sovereign governments, all while avoiding the risks of open conflict. In reality, the “Axis” functions less as a defensive alliance and more as a state-sponsored terror network that sustains conflict and erodes regional stability.

This is why Iran has established drone manufacturing hubs in friendly states to export influence. And as for Caracas, drones have offered internal security leverage and a psychological counterweight to the United States and Colombia.

This is not pure outsourcing like a corporation would do; it’s a strategic joint technological transfer. Iran effectively externalized parts of its drone production: components, training, or even complete assembly lines to allied nations, including:

• Venezuela

• Sudan (previously)

• Syria

• Russia (especially via Shahed-136 production)

Venezuela functions as a Latin American manufacturing node that reduces Iran’s logistical and political exposure while creating a regional arms customer base aligned with anti-U.S. movements.

Independent and institutional open sources converge on the strategic truth of the following factual points:

• Venezuelan state manufacturer CAVIM publicly showcased drones (otherwise known as UAVs) that are clearly identical to the Iranian Mohajer-6 drones.

• Iranian engineers were confirmed to be present under “technical cooperation agreements.”

• The partnership coincides with other Iranian drone export hubs in Russia, Tajikistan, and Syria.

Interested observers can easily verify the entire structure of the claim through these open publications; it’s not a rumor, it’s fully documented in official and defense-sector reporting across 2022–2024 (references found at the end of this article)

In early 2026, the use of Iranian-made drones by Venezuela has intensified, with the Mohajer-6 drone now reportedly operational in the Venezuelan military, capable of both surveillance and armed strikes. This development follows years of cooperation between Iran and Venezuela, including the transfer of drone technology and munitions, with U.S. sanctions targeting entities involved in the production and assembly of these drones in Venezuela. The United States has consistently accused Iran of supplying drones and precision-guided munitions to Venezuela, a claim Iran denies.

• Iranian Drone Proliferation in Venezuela: Iranian-made Mohajer-6 drones have been confirmed in service with the Venezuelan military, with images showing them at El Libertador Air Base. These drones can carry small guided munitions and perform reconnaissance and strike missions, marking a shift from earlier surveillance-only roles. The drones are believed to be equipped with Iranian Qaem guided glide bombs, which have been displayed in Venezuela.

• U.S. Sanctions and Diplomatic Pressure: The U.S. has imposed multiple rounds of sanctions targeting Iranian and Venezuelan entities involved in the drone trade. In December 2025, the Treasury Department sanctioned Venezuela-based company, Empresa Aeronautica Nacional SA, and its chair, Jose Jesus Urdaneta Gonzalez, for coordinating drone production with Iranian and Venezuelan military officials. In January 2026, the U.S. imposed further sanctions on companies linked to a combat drone network tied to the Maduro regime.

• Recent Drone Activity and Escalation: A drone strike on a Venezuelan port facility on December 29, 2025, was publicly claimed by Donald Trump and later attributed by reports to a CIA operation, heightening tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela. While the attack’s details remain unconfirmed, it underscores the growing role of drones in regional conflict dynamics and U.S. strategic operations.

New photographic evidence confirms the deployment of Iranian-made Mohajer-6 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) at Venezuela’s El Libertador Air Base, marking the first visual confirmation of the drone’s operational presence in Latin America and highlighting the deepening military cooperation between Iran and Venezuela. This development underscores the expansion of Venezuela’s drone capabilities, now including armed reconnaissance platforms produced with Iranian assistance, which pose new operational risks to U.S. forces in the Caribbean region.

• The Mohajer-6, a combat UAV with intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, is manufactured by Iran’s Qods Aviation Industries (QAI) and assembled in Venezuela under the oversight of Empresa Aeronáutica Nacional S.A. (EANSA), a Venezuelan state-owned firm. EANSA maintains and oversees the assembly of QAI’s Mohajer-series UAVs in Venezuela and has directly negotiated with QAI, contributing to the sale of millions of dollars’ worth of Mohajer-6 drones to Venezuela.

• The drone program began in 2006 with a technical-military agreement between Iran and Venezuela, which included drone technology transfer, training, and parts supply. Iranian-made Mohajer-2 kits were used to assemble the first Venezuelan drone, the Arpía-001, in 2009, and the program has since evolved into a sophisticated arsenal modeled on Iranian designs.

• The ANSU-100, an updated, armed version of the Arpía-001, is a direct derivative of the Mohajer-2 and is capable of launching Iranian-designed Qaem air-to-ground guided bombs, making Venezuela the first Latin American country to operate armed drones. The ANSU-200 is a flying-wing prototype inspired by Iranian stealth designs, presented as “next-generation technology”.

• As of December 2025, the Mohajer-6 has been confirmed in service with the Venezuelan Air Force, with the first visual evidence appearing in images shared on social media on December 30, 2025. The drone is used for both reconnaissance and strike missions, capable of carrying Qaem missiles.

• The U.S. Treasury Department has designated EANSA and its chair, José Jesús Urdaneta González, for materially assisting QAI, citing their role in the production and maintenance of Iranian drones in Venezuela. The U.S. State Department has also described the collaboration as part of Iran’s broader strategic projection in Latin America, with Venezuela serving as the central axis.

• Iranian military personnel are reported to maintain a presence at El Libertador Air Base, where drone manufacturing and training facilities are located, and they retain control over the facilities, with Venezuelan personnel requiring Iranian approval to access them.

Implications

• Regional Security: A Venezuelan-UAV (drone) program has introduced advanced surveillance and strike capabilities into South America’s security environment for the first time.

• Sanctions Evasion: Drone tech can be shipped as “aerospace equipment,” concealing military use.

• Future Trend: Expect more “Axis of Resistance” nodes like this. That is, proxy drone factories as an alternative model of military-industrial collaboration among sanctioned states.

Iran has effectively outsourced or co-established drone production in Venezuela. But that wording downplays it: it’s part of a decentralized manufacturing strategy, turning Iranian drone technologies into a distributed, deniable export industry that uses their “Axis of Resistance” partner nations’ facilities and local labor.

This isn’t just geopolitics; it’s the new face of modular, sanctions-resistant warfare.

Conclusion

The rise of Iranian drones, which are “Made in Venezuela,” marks a pivotal transformation in how state power and warfare are projected under the shadow of sanctions. So, what some dismiss as peripheral cooperation is, in truth, a calculated step in a broader pattern of distributed deterrence. These rogue nation-states are learning to duplicate, conceal, and localize military technology outside the reach of Western pressure. The Iran–Venezuela drone partnership is not an isolated curiosity; it is a blueprint for how sanctioned states will survive and adapt in the coming decade.

If the United States and its allies fail to grasp this shift, they will continue to misread the architecture of global power; focusing on visible battlefields while ignoring a sprawling network of silent factories, hidden engineers, and modular weapons ecosystems operating far beyond conventional oversight.

The battlefield of the 2020s is not merely kinetic; it is manufactured in the margins. And drone capabilities and manufacturing capacity will play a key role in determining the outcome of kinetic warfare for the foreseeable future. Current Iranian military leadership is many things, but stupid is not one of them.

[eyeball]

34 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Few seem aware of the interwoven strategic geopolitical relationships at play behind the headlines coming from both Iran and Venezuela.

George Orwell saw it. He also warned if we didn't want this we just had to prevent it from happening.

George Ohwell would have been a more appropriate name.

I suspect guys like Einstein would be doing facepalms if they could see how the future is unfolding - trying the same old thing, imperialism, and expecting a different result.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

George Orwell saw it. He also warned if we didn't want this we just had to prevent it from happening.

George Ohwell would have been a more appropriate name.

I suspect guys like Einstein would be doing facepalms if they could see how the future is unfolding - trying the same old thing, imperialism, and expecting a different result.

I'm sure indeed that both of them would have considered the socialists that have led us to this point to be a severe let down

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I'm sure indeed that both of them would have considered the socialists that have led us to this point to be a severe let down

They'd certainly laugh their asses off at your suggestion lefties are to blame for Trump.

If it was it must have been the pronouns - nothing triggers or drives you people bonkers faster. .

 

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, eyeball said:

They'd certainly laugh their asses off at your suggestion lefties are to blame for Trump.

 

 

Well first off, they absolutely are and Einstein would be the first to get it.

The democrats left trump as the only viable option when they were caught having lied about who was in power for the last 3 years when it became painfully obvious that Biden was mentally incompetent. Then they put forward possibly one of the worst candidates in all of us history who thought she could giggle her way to a win as long as she called people Nazis hard enough.

This despicable Behavior to try desperately to hold on to power gave trump a free shot on an empty net. If the democrats have been honest and pulled Biden 2 years ago when they should have it would have had time to put a decent candidate forward and we probably wouldn't have Donald Trump right now.

Not to mention all of the fake lawfare and bullcrap charges that Americans tended to see as being dishonest politics and banana republic tactics

So without a doubt the democrats put trump in place in our responsible as a result

Quote

If it was it must have been the pronouns - nothing triggers or drives you people bonkers faster. .

Well, I think it had more to do with the lying for 3 years about the president being mentally incompetent, not to mention the constant attacks calling everybody who didn't immediately bend the knee to the democrats nazis or fascists or deplorables or whatever else popped into their teeny tiny little minds.

Turns out people don't like that  

 

However going back to the original comment I made I was referring specifically to our current overall situation and the democrats in the states and definitely the Liberals in Canada are what landed us here.