Candace Owens Claims CIA's 'Hostile Takeover' in Venezuela Risks Another Iraq-Style Fallout

Candace Owens has ignited a fresh political firestorm after alleging that Venezuela has been 'liberated' through a covert CIA-led operation, warning the country now faces the same chaos that followed US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a series of posts on X, Owens accused US intelligence agencies of orchestrating regime change in Venezuela on behalf of powerful global interests.

Framing the situation as a familiar pattern of foreign interference disguised as liberation, she argued that such actions consistently leave nations fractured rather than free. She also suggested ideological groups routinely support regime change for strategic gain.

'The CIA has staged another hostile takeover... Zionists cheer every regime change. There has never been a single regime change that Zionists have not applauded because it means they get to steal land, oil and other resources. Hope this helps'.

Critics quickly responded to Owens and accused her of misinformation and antisemitic rhetoric, while supporters echoed her distrust of US foreign intervention.

Why Owens Compared Venezuela to Iraq and Syria

Owens referenced Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria to support her argument that US-backed interventions rarely end well.

In Iraq, the 2003 US-led invasion removed Saddam Hussein but dismantled state institutions, triggering sectarian violence, insurgency and years of instability. Afghanistan saw the Taliban toppled in 2001, only for the group to regain control after two decades of war.

Syria's civil conflict, fuelled by foreign involvement, left millions displaced.

By invoking these examples, Owens argued Venezuela could face similar long-term consequences, claiming that removing a leader without stable succession plans risks social and economic collapse rather than actual reform.

Social Policy Claims Fuel Further Backlash

Owens and other accounts sharing her posts said Venezuela had banned things like pornography, abortion, same-sex marriage, gender reassignment, and charging interest on loans, using this to explain why some Western commentators supported changing the government.

Several users explained that pornography remains legal, abortion is permitted in limited cases, and same-sex relationships have never been criminalised.

One detailed response explained that Venezuela's banks failed because the government took control of them, and money lost value due to hyperinflation, not because of laws banning interest. The reply said Owens was mixing up Latin American policies with laws in Muslim-majority countries.

Owens Blasted for Defending Maduro

Reaction to Owens' comments was swift and aggressive. Some users mocked her, accusing her of blaming Jewish people for geopolitical events. Others rejected her CIA narrative outright, arguing that Maduro was an authoritarian leader rejected by voters.

One commenter said Venezuela's people were 'crying on their knees thanking America' for freedom, while another accused Owens of defending narco-linked regimes.

Even critics of US intervention expressed discomfort, saying Venezuela's situation differed from classic 'colour revolutions' because of alleged links between the Maduro government and drug cartels.

Owens warned Venezuela could face the same chaos as Iraq, but many experts say the country's future depends more on its own government and economy than on outside forces.

A Pattern of Escalating Rhetoric

Owens' Venezuela comments follow earlier controversial claims, including assertions about high-level conspiracies surrounding the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

As debate over Venezuela continues, what remains clear is that Owens' remarks have reignited broader arguments about US intervention, misinformation, and the line between scepticism and conspiracy.