It is incredibly naive to talk of humanitarianism being the chief American interest. Surely! The days of falling for such notions are long dead.
I don't buy the immigrant angle: Just a big excuse, no different than "preventing Sadam from acquiring, using, or selling WMDs". Falling for such excuses in this day and age, is, with due respect, imprudent.
1) If stemming/preventing immigration is their big issue, shouldn't they already be toppling stuff in Central America, just close to their border where drug cartels send thousands running to the U.S. and Mexico every day/week/month?
2) How does disrupting Venezuela's internal political climate with sanctions and stoking or supporting civil unrest ensure no refugees? I mean, does it seem like if a war broke out there will be less refugees running to the U.S.? Does not compute.
3) If this was their concern, why skirt International norms? How do they just declare the Opposition leader president rather than call for/arrange some sort of international peace deal?
Nah! Looks like Ghadaffi, Saddam, Assad, all over again. We know this script: it aint that original. The regime change nonsense, not "humanitarianism/refugees", is the U.S. foreign policy in very many places.
I also don't understand the point about oil being a non-issue. Is the U.S. no longer the biggest oil consumer, ama what? Granted, I haven't done economics, but the idea that something the U.S. consumes greedily is a non-issue to them where it lies in massive amounts close to them just seems like a strange thought experiment to me. Wouldn't Americans rather keep their own oil safe and unexploited while they gobble up everyone else's? Again: does not compute.
But even if I granted that oil was a non-issue (I don't!), I still wouldn't grant the humanitarianism stuff. That's a fairy tale. At the very least, the current govt must not be a good enough, obedient puppet and is standing in the way of something the U.S. wants to get or do. That's the only reason they screw up countries.