Implications of the US Attack on Venezuela
The next seventy-two hours could prove decisive for the global balance of power. Reports of a United States-led unilateral attack in Venezuela have reignited intense debate over Washington’s strategic ambitions and the far-reaching consequences such a move could trigger across the international system.
At the heart of the conflict lies not only Venezuela’s political instability but its unparalleled oil wealth. The South American country holds the world’s largest proven crude reserves – – a resource that has long attracted foreign attention. Should the United States succeed in exerting direct control over those reserves, it would represent a dramatic consolidation of its energy and geopolitical dominance.
Analysts suggest that Washington’s motives go well beyond the stated rhetoric of restoring democracy or defending human rights. Control of Venezuela’s oil would reshape the global energy landscape, shielding the United States from vulnerabilities associated with West Asian supply disruptions, which has been a major issue for the West whenever there have been conflicts. It would effectively give Washington an alternative strategic base from which to secure steady access to heavy crude, historically sourced from Gulf nations.
This repositioning could have immediate implications for US policy towards Iran. With Venezuelan oil under its sphere of influence, Washington would have greater flexibility in confronting Tehran without fearing severe economic blowback from potential disruptions in the Persian Gulf. In effect, the acquisition of Venezuelan energy assets would lower the cost – – both political and financial – – of any future escalation with Iran.
Energy economists warn that such control would also bolster the dominance of the US dollar in pricing global oil transactions. For decades, the so-called “petrodollar system” has served as a cornerstone of American financial power. By cementing influence over another key oil-exporting nation, Washington could reinforce the role of the dollar in global trade, thereby sustaining the structure that gives its economy unparalleled leverage in international markets.
Geopolitical observers view the Venezuelan crisis as more than a regional showdown. It could set a precedent for how the United States — and potentially other major powers — manage geopolitical realignments through a blend of economic coercion, diplomatic pressure, and military intervention. Should the US attack without Congress approval result in swift success, it would signal that sovereignty in the developing world remains vulnerable to restructuring by external forces when energy interests are at stake.
However, history offers cautionary parallels. If the conflict drags into a prolonged insurgency or humanitarian catastrophe, Washington risks becoming ensnared in yet another resource-driven quagmire. A drawn-out engagement would deplete US political capital and military bandwidth, while fuelling global criticism and domestic exhaustion. The longer American forces remain entangled in Venezuelan territory, the weaker Washington’s ability to project influence elsewhere becomes.
A strained US military posture could have ripple effects beyond Latin America. In the West Asia, where Israel’s strategic calculations often align closely with American deterrence, reduced US flexibility might compel new defence postures. Gulf producers, too, would reassess their pricing and partnership strategies in response to the perceived shift in American priorities.
Meanwhile, China and Russia – – both of which have substantial investments in Venezuelan energy infrastructure – – are expected to react sharply. Any US attempt to consolidate control would likely invite counter-measures in other theatres, from Africa’s mining sectors to Asia’s emerging energy corridors, deepening the global contest for resource access.
