Why does Venezuela matter to the US? What's behind Maduro's capture?

Note: The views expressed in this text are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of this website.

Photo published on Truth Social by President Donald Trump shows Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, captured by the US, aboard the USS Iwo Jima.

The United States carried out a series of attacks in Venezuela, striking civilian and military targets in Caracas, the country’s capital. Witnesses reported explosions, columns of smoke, and power outages in some areas. Washington described these actions as part of a broader operation that culminated in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on charges of drug trafficking and narco-terrorism. Both were taken to New York to face proceedings in the United States judicial system, and the Trump administration stated that it intends to play a direct role in Venezuela’s “stability” until a political transition is defined.

The operation began to be compared to landmark episodes in recent history, such as the 1989 invasion of Panama, and immediately sparked broad international debate over legality, sovereignty, and the limits of the use of force. For some analysts, the United States crossed a sensitive line by capturing a sitting head of state; for others, it was a necessary measure against what they consider an illegitimate regime.

• In Brazil, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva strongly condemned the attacks, describing them as an unacceptable affront to Venezuelan sovereignty and a dangerous precedent for the international order. Although he did not directly mention the United States, the president expressed clear discomfort with the operation and the risks of regional destabilization.

• In France, the position was also critical. The French government stated that only the Venezuelan people should decide their political future, defending a peaceful and institutionally respectful transition, and emphasizing the need to observe international law and the United Nations Charter.

• The European Union, in general, adopted a stance of concern. The bloc called for moderation, respect for international norms, and special attention to the safety of European citizens residing in Venezuela. Even without recognizing Maduro as the legitimate president, the EU expressed discomfort regarding the military intervention.

• In Colombia, President Gustavo Petro condemned the operation and argued that the issue should be immediately taken to multilateral bodies such as the UN and the OAS. He warned of the risk of expanding instability throughout South America.

• China also reacted firmly, declaring itself “shocked” by the use of force by the United States against a sovereign country and arguing that the operation violates international law and threatens peace in the Latin American region.

• Russia adopted a similar position, stating that it represents a violation of the principle of self-determination of peoples, calling for non-escalation, and expressing political support for the Venezuelan government.

• In contrast to much of the region, Argentine President Javier Milei expressed explicit support for the U.S. action. He praised the operation and said he views it as an advance of freedom, aligning his discourse with that of President Donald Trump.

For its part, the United States government justified the operation primarily on the basis of drug trafficking accusations. According to Trump, Maduro would command a broad criminal structure linked to drug trafficking and narco-terrorism, and his capture would represent a way to protect the security of the American population and bring him to justice. This is the official discourse. However, a broader analysis of the context raises additional questions: is this only about combating drugs, or are there broader interests involved? A central element in understanding the crisis is oil.

Venezuela holds one of the largest proven oil reserves in the world. This factor alone places the country at the center of global geopolitical disputes. Although the United States is now a major producer, especially after the expansion of shale oil, this does not eliminate interest in external sources. There is also a relevant technical aspect: a significant portion of U.S. oil is light, while Venezuelan oil is heavy, and several refineries in the United States were designed to process heavy crude. There is therefore a concrete economic fit, involving existing infrastructure, consolidated production chains, and long-standing financial interests.

Controlling, or at least influencing, the flow of Venezuelan oil also means exerting power over an essential variable of the global economy: the price of a barrel. In a scenario of tensions, wars, and sanctions, the ability to act in this field increases economic and diplomatic bargaining power. Oil thus becomes an instrument of foreign policy, and Venezuela, even economically weakened, remains a relevant actor precisely because it holds vast reserves.

Another relevant aspect is the gradual change in foreign business presence in the Venezuelan energy sector. The participation of U.S. and Western companies has declined in recent years, while China and Russia have expanded their space. There is therefore also a strategic dispute over who will be alongside Caracas in the coming decades, who will finance infrastructure, obtain contracts, and secure priority in exports. There is also a significant regional geopolitical component. Venezuela occupies a strategic position close to the Caribbean, the Panama Canal, and important maritime routes, in addition to being located within the direct area of influence of the United States. Instability in this region is seen as a risk factor by Washington, while political and economic influence there is considered of high strategic interest.

In light of all these elements, it becomes evident that the narrative of drug trafficking alone does not exhaust the understanding of the episode. Even if the accusations exist, the energy dimension substantially broadens the debate. This is not merely about the capture of a political leader accused of crimes, but about a dispute for influence over one of the largest oil reserves on the planet and, consequently, over prices, supply routes, and balances of power among major powers.

Discussing Venezuelan oil therefore means discussing industrial chains, logistics, inflation, cost of living, and the capacity to project power in various regions of the world. Its impact goes beyond national borders. The current scenario thus reveals a complex and multifaceted situation: it involves the discourse of combating drugs, the legal controversy surrounding the capture of a sitting head of state, divergent international reactions, and, at the center of everything, the energy issue. Oil, even if not always explicitly mentioned in official statements, helps explain the intensity, urgency, and high stakes of this crisis. Understanding what is happening today in Venezuela necessarily requires taking this factor into account.

This story is also available as a video (ENG subtitles available): https://youtu.be/SkKpVD14Wdc?si=i9MTCDsCR_BK8vyz

References

GONZALEZ, Juan S. The End of the Beginning in Venezuela. Foreign Affairs. Disponível em: <https://www.foreignaffairs.com/venezuela/end-beginning-venezuela-maduro-trump>.

ROY, Diana. Operation Southern Spear: The U.S. Military Campaign Targeting Venezuela. Council on Foreign Relations. Disponível em: <https://www.cfr.org/article/operation-southern-spear-us-military-campaign-targeting-venezuela>.