The United States (US) has attacked Venezuela and deposed Nicolas Maduro — in Washington’s most direct intervention in Latin America since the 1989 invasion of Panama.
The recent armed intervention in Venezuela has become the subject of discussion among countries all over the world. Venezuela’s crisis has taken on symbolic significance. It has underscored how deeply global economy remains intertwined with political stability in resource-rich countries. Venezuela has also served as a reminder that energy markets are not governed solely by geological abundance or technical capacity, but also by governance, institutional credibility, and long-term policy coherence. It has also been observed by analysts that Venezuela’s current predicament highlights the scale of how untapped potential can suffer because of lack of political stability, transparent governance, and a predictable policy environment.
At this point one needs to be aware about the evolving historical cycle of the Venezuelan oil industry. Venezuela nationalised its oil industry in 1976 under then-President Carlos Andres Perez during an oil boom. He established the state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) to control all oil resources. Venezuela continued to be a major oil exporter to the US for some years, supplying 1.5 million to 2 million barrels per day in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
After President Hugo Chavez took office in 1998, he nationalised all oil assets, seized foreign-owned assets, restructured the PDVSA and prioritised using oil revenue for social programmes in Venezuela. From 2003 to 2007, Venezuela under Chavez managed to reduce its poverty rate– from 57 per cent to 27.5 per cent. Extreme poverty fell even more sharply, by 70 per cent. Maduro took over as President in 2013 after Chavez’s death.
The US first imposed sanctions on Venezuela’s oil in retaliation for nationalising US oil assets in 2005. Under US sanctions, many senior Venezuelan government officials and companies were banned from accessing any property or financial assets held in the US. They also could not access US bank accounts, sell property or right to use their money if it passed through the US financial system. Critically, any US company or citizen doing business with any sanctioned individual or company would be penalised and risk becoming subject to enforcement actions.
In 2017, Trump, during his first term in office, imposed more sanctions and tightened them again in 2019. This limited sales to the US and access for Venezuelan companies to the global financial system. As a result, oil exports to the US nearly stopped, and Venezuela shifted its trade mainly to China with some sales to India and Cuba.
In December, 2025, the Trump Administration imposed more sanctions – this time on Maduro family members and Venezuelan tankers carrying sanctioned oil.
Currently, the PDVSA controls the petroleum industry in Venezuela, and US involvement in Venezuelan oil drilling is limited. Houston-based Chevron is the only US Company that still operates in Venezuela.
Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, after the attack on Maduro has condemned the U.S. military attack on neighbour Venezuela and the capture of his Venezuelan counterpart Nicolas Maduro, saying it crossed “an unacceptable line. “These acts represent a grave affront to Venezuela’s sovereignty and yet another extremely dangerous precedent for the entire international community,” Lula said in a post on X. Lula has also called for a “vigorous” response from the United Nations, adding that Brazil remains open to promoting dialogue and cooperation.
US companies began drilling for oil in Venezuela in the early 1900s. In 1922, vast petroleum reserves were initially discovered by Royal Dutch Shell in Lake Maracaibo in Zulia state in northwestern Venezuela. At this point, US companies ramped up their investments in the extraction and development of Venezuelan oil reserves. Companies such as Standard Oil led development under concession agreements, propelling Venezuela to a position as a key global supplier, especially for the US.
The principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, adopted by the UN General Assembly in a Resolution in 1962, is clear that sovereign States have the inherent right to control, use and dispose of their resources for their own development. In other words, Venezuela alone owns its oil.
Analyst Sarah Shamim has indicated that in a post on his Truth Social platform on January 6, Trump has observed that Venezuela will turn over 30 million to 50 million barrels of sanctioned oil to the US. Trump wrote: “This Oil will be sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States!” Trump added that he had directed his energy secretary, Chris Wright, to execute the plan “immediately”. “It will be taken by storage ships, and brought directly to unloading docks in the United States,” Trump wrote.
Oil is trading at roughly US Dollar 56 per barrel. Based on this price, 30 million barrels of oil would be worth US Dollar 1.68 billion and 50 million barrels of oil would be worth US Dollar 2.8 billion.
For Europe, Donald Trump’s return to the White House has not been a beacon of certainties. His administration’s threat to take possession of Greenland, an autonomous part of Denmark, has plunged NATO into an unprecedented situation: An Alliance based on collective defence – where an attack on one is an attack on all – now faces the prospect that one Member might attack another.
Although Secretary of State Marco Rubio has tried to downplay concerns about a military intervention, saying instead that the Trump administration is considering buying Greenland, Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has sounded the alarm: “If the US chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War.”
This tension was on display in Paris a few days ago, when Representatives from 35 countries, including the US, discussed how to guarantee Ukraine’s post-war security in the event of a peace deal with Russia.
Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer prevaricated, pointing to an earlier statement of solidarity with Denmark. French President Emmanuel Macron dodged a similar question. Standing next to US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, the leaders of Britain and France appear to have been unwilling to openly criticize the US for its threats against Denmark, lest they jeopardize Washington’s involvement in the Ukraine peace process.
While many are calling for Europe to take a tougher stance against the US, it lacks the leverage to do so.
Another dimension needs to be mentioned here. James Monroe, the fifth President of the United States, unveiled the original Doctrine in December 1823. It declared that the Western hemisphere was America’s sphere of interest – and warned European powers not to meddle or establish new colonies.
Analyst Jeremy Bowen has observed that Trump is now trying out a new name for the Monroe Doctrine, which has been a foundation of US policy in Latin America for two centuries. Trump appears to have renamed it, naturally, after himself – the Donroe doctrine. The Donroe Doctrine puts Monroe’s 200-year-old message on steroids.
Greenland is in America’s sights, not just because of its strategic importance in the Arctic, but because it has rich mineral resources that are becoming accessible as climate change melts the ice sheets. Rare earths from Greenland and heavy crude oil from Venezuela are both seen as strategic US assets. Its mineral wealth also aligns with Washington’s ambition to reduce reliance on China. Although Europe hopes that Trump’s interest in Greenland may subside, as happened last year, officials in London and Brussels fear this time may be different.
This evolving scenario with its different dimensions underlines that unlike other interventionist US Presidents, Trump is not cloaking his actions with legitimacy, however spurious, of international law or the pursuit of democracy. The only legitimacy he feels is correct appears to be the one that comes from his belief in the force of his own will, backed by raw US power.
From Monroe to Donroe, foreign policy doctrines appear to matter to US Presidents. They shape their actions and their legacies. It is not clear how receptive the Trump Administration will be to criticism at home or abroad at this point of time. Consequently, although Europe hopes that Trump’s interest in Greenland may subside, as happened last year, officials in London and Brussels fear that this time it may be different.
Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance.
muhammadzamir0@gmail.com
© 2026 - All Rights with The Financial Express
