On January 3, early in the morning, the US launched a series of military strikes in Venezuela, centring around the capital city of Caracas. Just hours later, Trump announced that Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro had been captured by US forces and was being transported to New York to face criminal charges. These strikes followed months of US aggression towards Venezuela, which had involved a military buildup on the Venezuelan coast, dozens of air strikes on Venezuelan boats, and the seizure of multiple Venezuelan oil tanks, the oil of which is being held by the US for potential sale.
Venezuela and the US have had an adversarial relationship for decades, motivated largely by previous Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez’s expropriation of the country’s oil supplies, which, despite formal nationalisation, had previously been controlled in large part by US oil companies. During the following press conference, Trump announced plans to undo the “theft” of the US’s rightful oil, and following a series of publicised meetings with oil firms, the first US-supported sales of Venezuelan oil were confirmed on January 14. These oil sales were part of a $2 billion deal reached with Caracas earlier in January, and the revenue is under the control of the US government.
Usually, an imperialist regime change – particularly one conducted so brazenly – requires a dedicated campaign of propaganda, popular consent manufacturing, and nationalist antagonism. The Iraq war was preceded by false reports of WMDs and decades of Saddam Hussein being postured as a threat to Western civilisation itself, up to and including unfounded assertions that he was linked to the 9/11 attacks.
Strikes and regime change in Libya, conducted by NATO in 2011, followed years of highlighting alleged threats to the Libyan people; a House of Commons investigation later declared that the extent of these fears were “not supported by the available evidence”, and leaked emails have stated prime aims of NATO’s Libya intervention to be “a desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production” and maintaining regional influence.
Not to say that no efforts were made to demonise Maduro. He has faced unevidenced accusations managing narcotics rings in Venezuela, and the US justified its strikes on Venezuelan civilian boats by claiming they were smuggling drugs into America – claims unsubstantiated and hard to prove post-explosion. But comparatively, these efforts have been weak: the US regime can’t even decide whether Maduro was responsible for cocaine or fentanyl trafficking, forgetting to mention the latter in court documents but insisting on it in public messaging.
But to ascribe US intentions exclusively to oil money would be an overgeneralisation. Oil production in Venezuela will take years before levels reach US ambitions, and many companies, such as ExxonMobil, have raised concerns over the unprofitability of the region as it stands. Additionally, the US is already a net exporter of fossil fuels and has not struggled to maintain high domestic supplies.
More likely, US aims are more multifaceted. One could be continuing its aggression towards China: 75% of Venezuelan oil sales previously went to China, but since the US takeover and the establishment of a naval blockade in December, oil shipments to the country have plummeted. While China has many oil suppliers to lean on, the 642,000 barrels of Venezuelan oil shipped to China per day in 2025 made up around 6% of China’s 11 million daily barrel deficit – not an insignificant amount to lose overnight.
The administration has also signalled its intent to pursue greater regional influence. The re-emergence of the Monroe Doctrine – a 19th-century mantra that prescriptively positions the US as the dominant player in the Western hemisphere – signals the US’s growing desire to reassert itself in the region. The release of the 2025 US National Security Strategy further establishes present military aims as primarily focusing on hemispheric dominance.
No matter the US’s ultimate ambitions, one thing is for sure: this won’t end with Venezuela. The US is making threats against Mexico. The US is making threats against Cuba. The US is making threats against Colombia. And for all the liberals reading, the US is also making threats against Greenland, so we Westerners have something to worry about, too.
Intervention in Iraq led to destabilisation, disaster and death. Intervention in Libya led to destabilisation, disaster and death. The imperialism of powerful nations wreaks havoc on the global order and massacres the most vulnerable populations. International bodies like the UN and NATO have at best failed to prevent these atrocities, and at worst have participated in them. If we do not learn from our history and stand up against bloodshed and militarism, we will see it repeat before our eyes.
