It's the old David vs. Goliath card, which Cuba's Fidel Castro has been successfully playing for the past four decades. And at a time when anti-Americanism in Latin America is at its highest levels in recent decades, Chávez thinks it's his best way to cling to power.
Third, by radicalizing his ''Bolivarian revolution,'' Chávez may be trying to provoke turmoil to have a pretext to impose martial law and rule by decree. He could do this through a ''self-coup,'' or simply by leading opposition leaders to conclude that they have no chance other than political violence.
''Venezuelans are fed up with violence, and whoever is seen as encouraging violence loses the game,'' says political analyst Graciela Roemer.
Will the Bush administration fall into Chávez's trap? So far, its coolest heads are prevailing. ''I've seen some of his comments, and I'm not just going to dignify them with a response from this podium,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday.
But even well-placed Washington insiders say it is not clear whether this position will prevail.
There is growing evidence of Chávez support for Colombian guerrilla groups, and violent groups in Bolivia, Argentina and other South American countries. But the CIA has so far prevailed in keeping that information classified because of fears of new embarrassments such as the weapons of mass destruction fiasco after the Iraq war, well-placed Washington sources say.
The Bush administration and the Venezuelan opposition should avoid falling into Chávez's trap. If Chávez continues along the path of breaking democratic rule, the OAS and Carter Center observers should withdraw from Venezuela with a big splash, and deprive Chávez of his last claims to legitimacy.
Then, the United States should work with its Latin American and European allies -- especially with France, America's latest ally in the Haiti crisis -- to put pressure on Chávez to bring back the OAS and Carter Center observers and give them a supervisory role in the verification of the petition signatures being questioned.
In a U.S. vs. Venezuela war of words, Chávez would win. He knows that, and that's why he's raising the stakes.***
Chavez, a former military coup leader, was elected by a wide margin in 1998 and then was re-elected after a plebiscite that reformed the constitution. But his government has since been accused of becoming corrupt, authoritarian and repressive.
His close relationship with Cuban leader Fidel Castro has led thousands to flee in fear that he might be leading the country toward a Cuban-style dictatorship. Chavez vows to stay in power until 2012, confident that he will win yet another re- election.
The U.S. government denies Chavez's accusations that it was behind a coup attempt against him in 2002, but President Bush has now publicly expressed his support for the opposition's effort to hold a recall election. Chavez's reaction has been to attack Bush, calling him an illegitimate president and challenging his tenure: "Let's see who will last longer Bush in the White House or me in Miraflores (the Venezuelan presidential palace).'
Aristide did not resort to rhetoric or verbal confrontation with world leaders, as Chavez has. But his pleas for help in controlling the incessant violence were ignored. His inability to work with opposing forces made him lose credibility and the support of the international community.
In Venezuela, the Organization for American States and the Carter Center for Democracy have been trying to mediate between the opposing factions, but the country remains polarized.
The Bush administration does not hide its disdain for Chavez, much the same way it criticized Aristide up until the day he headed out of Haiti on a flight to Africa.
But removing democratically elected Chavez from office will be a much more difficult task. Venezuela will probably not be the next Haiti, but if something is not done soon, it could end up being the next Cuba.***