Venezuela attack and the geopolitics of oil control

The United States strike in Venezuela has triggered a crisis with potentially global consequences. Strategic sites across Caracas, including military complexes, were reportedly targeted in what the US described as a “large-scale operation.” The situation escalated when US President Donald Trump announced that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro had been captured during the strike. According to Washington, Maduro faces charges of narcotics trafficking, conspiracy to flood the US with cocaine, links to armed groups, and narco-terrorism. While the legality of this entire episode is highly questionable, there is little doubt that the detention of a sitting head of state through a military strike on a sovereign state constitutes an act of war.

At a press conference, Trump described the operation as a major success, saying the US would temporarily “run” Venezuela to manage what he called a “safe and responsible” transition. He stressed that the US would “be there to stay” until a leadership that truly serves the Venezuelan people is in place. Trump also said that major American oil companies would invest billions of dollars to rebuild Venezuela’s oil infrastructure.

International law, however, is clear about this forced intervention. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter forbids the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Heads of state enjoy sovereign immunity and cannot be treated as military prizes. Following news of the attack, France and Brazil have rightly condemned it as a violation of international law. China called it “hegemonic,” and the UN secretary general warned that the attack set a dangerous precedent, while Mexico, Chile, South Africa, and the European Union urged restraint. Russia also denounced the operation as armed aggression.

If the US succeeds in imposing decisive control over Venezuela, this will not be a conventional regime-change episode cloaked in humanitarian language. It would mark a hard geopolitical turn, as Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Gaining leverage over that resource could reshape global energy politics in ways few events have since the end of the Cold War.

Control over Venezuelan oil offers Washington something strategically priceless: insulation. US dominance in the Persian Gulf has long been vulnerable to disruptions. Confrontations with Iran—whether through war or sustained escalation—threaten shipping lanes, refineries, and production facilities that underpin the global economy. Venezuela alters that equation.

Another, quieter layer is equally consequential: control over oil also means control over pricing, contracts, and currency. Influence over Venezuelan production reinforces the dollar’s central role in global energy markets.

Seen this way, the Venezuela attack is no longer just a Latin American issue. It signals how economic pressure, political maneuvering, and military action can fundamentally alter the trajectory of a country and those associated with it. But history does not always cooperate with seemingly neat strategies. If the US becomes bogged down in Venezuela for long with hardening internal resistance, events may not unfold as planned. Allies would hedge, rivals would test limits, and the world would once again ask a familiar question: how far can US power realistically stretch?

The echoes of Iraq are unavoidable here. Large-scale strikes in Caracas evoke Baghdad in 2003. The justification then was the presence of “weapons of mass destruction”; now, it is “narco-terrorism and criminal networks.” The irony is also stark for Trump. Having risen to power condemning the Iraq invasion as a “big, fat mistake,” he now presides over an intervention that mirrors the same flawed logic: that force can deliver order without consequences.

Most countries in South Asia depend on stable oil supplies from the Middle East, where the threat of disruption from hostile US-Iran relations looms perpetually. A US-backed Venezuelan oil network could shift supply chains and prices, giving Washington indirect leverage over Asian economies. China, with significant investments in Venezuelan oil, also faces a major strategic risk.

The broader strategic message here is unmistakable. If a superpower can abduct a sitting president to secure energy leverage, Asia’s smaller states cannot assume immunity from coercive global politics.

In the final analysis, what happens in Venezuela will not remain confined within its borders. It will shape how energy is controlled, how sovereignty is respected—or disregarded—and how far American power can be pushed before it bends or breaks. The Daily Star/Asia News Network

—————-

Kollol Kibria is an advocate, human rights activist, and political analyst. He can be reached at kollolkibriaa@gmail.com.

—————-

The Philippine Daily Inquirer is a member of the Asia News Network, an alliance of 22 media titles in the region.