Current Context
For years, diplomatic relations between the United States and Venezuela have been marked by escalating tensions, economic sanctions, accusations of interference, and political maneuvers that make dialogue increasingly fragile.
Under President Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela has faced deep international isolation, promoted by Washington and other countries that contest the legitimacy of his government.
Over the past decade, the crisis has included:
-
Severe U.S. sanctions on Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA, which have limited the country’s ability to sell crude abroad.
-
Financial restrictions that froze Venezuelan assets and prevented the government from accessing international credit.
-
Partial diplomatic openings from Washington — temporary easing of sanctions or limited licenses for U.S. companies like Chevron — granted only in exchange for political concessions such as promises of transparent elections or renewed dialogue with the opposition.
These measures have profoundly impacted Venezuela’s oil-dependent economy while reshaping regional and global diplomatic alignments.
The Accusations: U.S. Pressure and the Alleged Plan to Control Venezuelan Oil
Venezuelan officials repeatedly accuse the United States of using diplomatic and economic pressure, and even the threat of military force, as tools to gain control over the country’s vast oil reserves — the largest proven reserves on Earth.
These claims, though contested, are rooted in several observable developments.
1. Oil Licenses and Corporate Leverage
During the Trump administration, Washington revoked Chevron’s license to operate in Venezuela, citing the lack of democratic reforms. Later, the license was partially reinstated, allowing limited oil production and export — a sign that Venezuela’s crude remains strategically important for U.S. refineries.
Critics in Caracas argue that this approach amounts to economic coercion: sanctions are applied to weaken Venezuela’s state capacity, and then relief is selectively granted in exchange for favorable terms.
2. Military and Naval Presence
The Venezuelan government has also denounced a growing U.S. military presence in the Caribbean. Officially, these operations are described as anti-narcotics missions, but Caracas views them as a cover for intelligence gathering and potential intervention planning.
Reports of U.S. surveillance flights and naval patrols near Venezuelan waters have been used by Maduro’s administration to rally nationalist sentiment and frame the conflict as a defense of sovereignty.
3. Propaganda and Public Discourse
President Maduro and senior officials frequently accuse the U.S. of pursuing “imperialist” goals — destabilizing Venezuela to seize control of its natural wealth, including oil, gas, and rare minerals.
Such rhetoric has long been part of Venezuela’s domestic narrative, portraying Washington as a neo-colonial power seeking to dominate Latin America.
4. Economic Sanctions and Frozen Assets
The U.S. has frozen billions of dollars in Venezuelan funds, restricted access to financial markets, and prohibited U.S. citizens and companies from doing business with PDVSA.
According to Maduro’s government, these actions are intended not only to force political change but also to paralyze the oil sector, eventually leaving foreign companies — particularly American ones — as the only viable operators once sanctions are lifted.
It is important to note, however, that there is no concrete evidence of an explicit U.S. plan to “take over” Venezuela’s oil reserves through military action. The reality is more nuanced: a mix of economic coercion, strategic containment, and conditional engagement.
The Ukraine Connection: Compensating for a Strategic Setback?
One of the more controversial interpretations circulating among analysts and media commentators is that Washington’s renewed interest in Venezuela’s oil is part of a broader strategy to offset a potential strategic loss in Ukraine.
Following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the United States and its allies imposed harsh sanctions on Moscow, cutting off much of its oil and gas exports from Western markets. This triggered a global search for alternative energy sources.
Within this context, Venezuela’s oil — once shunned by the West — suddenly regained importance. The country holds the world’s largest proven crude reserves, mostly heavy oil suitable for blending in U.S. refineries designed for similar grades.
Strategic Logic
The logic is clear: if the West reduces its dependence on Russian energy, re-engaging Venezuela could provide a backup supply and lower global oil prices. In early 2023 and again in 2024, U.S. delegations quietly visited Caracas to explore potential energy cooperation, despite the absence of full diplomatic relations.
However, several obstacles remain:
-
Venezuela’s oil infrastructure is collapsing. Years of mismanagement, corruption, and lack of investment have slashed production from over 3 million barrels per day in the 1990s to barely 700,000 in 2025.
-
Sanctions and reputational risks deter most foreign investors from returning.
-
Internal instability and a shortage of technical expertise further limit production capacity.
Therefore, while it is geopolitically plausible that Washington views Venezuela as a potential replacement for Russian energy, the notion of a direct “takeover” of its oil fields remains speculative.
Consequences of the Diplomatic Crisis
Political and Diplomatic Fallout
The bilateral relationship is at its lowest point in decades. Each side accuses the other of illegitimacy and interference.
-
Diplomatic isolation: Venezuela faces restricted access to Western financial institutions and limited participation in multilateral forums.
-
Alliance polarization: Caracas has deepened ties with Russia, China, Iran, and other anti-U.S. powers, presenting itself as part of a global “multipolar resistance.”
-
Domestic use of foreign conflict: Maduro uses the image of U.S. aggression to consolidate power at home, framing any dissent as collaboration with the “imperialist enemy.”
Economic Impact
Sanctions continue to cripple Venezuela’s economy, leading to hyperinflation, scarcity of basic goods, and a humanitarian crisis that has driven millions to emigrate.
For the United States, the situation creates market uncertainty. U.S. refineries that once relied on Venezuelan heavy crude must now import more expensive alternatives from Canada or the Middle East.
Every diplomatic escalation risks pushing oil prices higher, complicating Washington’s efforts to control inflation and stabilize energy markets.
Security and Military Dimensions
Tensions have also manifested in the Caribbean Sea, where U.S. naval patrols and regional security operations have increased. Officially directed at combating drug trafficking, these missions are viewed by Caracas as provocations or preparations for regime change.
The risk of accidental confrontations — between Venezuelan forces and U.S. or allied vessels — remains real, particularly given the high political stakes on both sides.
Geopolitical Implications
The dispute extends far beyond Venezuela itself.
-
Russia and China have stepped in to fill the void, offering investment, arms, and diplomatic cover. Moscow views Venezuela as a symbolic ally in the Western Hemisphere — a reminder that it can project influence near U.S. borders.
-
Regional polarization is increasing: Latin American nations are divided between those supporting Maduro’s sovereignty claims and those siding with Washington’s call for democratic reforms.
-
Energy market volatility persists. If relations deteriorate further, the potential for Venezuelan crude to re-enter global markets could vanish, leaving supply gaps that other producers — including OPEC members — may struggle to fill.
Limits, Uncertainties, and Future Scenarios
Despite the heated rhetoric, several constraints shape the reality of the crisis:
-
Operational collapse: Venezuela’s oil industry is far from capable of producing at strategic levels; pipelines, refineries, and drilling platforms are in disrepair.
-
Legal and diplomatic barriers: The U.S. cannot openly “seize” Venezuelan oil without violating international law, triggering global backlash, and damaging its credibility.
-
Internal U.S. divisions: Within Washington, policymakers are split between those advocating engagement and those demanding continued isolation of the Maduro regime.
-
Global reactions: Russia, China, and other actors would likely respond strongly to any overt U.S. attempt to dominate Venezuela’s oil sector, seeing it as an expansion of American hegemony.
A potential path to de-escalation could involve conditional sanctions relief, transparent elections in Venezuela, and a gradual reopening of oil trade under international supervision. Yet such a compromise remains politically fragile.
Conclusion
The diplomatic crisis between the United States and Venezuela is severe and multifaceted. It involves sanctions, contested legitimacy, oil politics, and shifting alliances.
While accusations that Washington seeks to take control of Venezuela’s oil fields remain largely unsubstantiated, it is undeniable that energy geopolitics — especially after the war in Ukraine — have renewed U.S. interest in the region.
Venezuela’s immense oil wealth makes it both a prize and a pressure point in global power struggles.
If the war in Ukraine were to end in a way that weakens Western influence, Washington might indeed seek to secure new strategic resources elsewhere — including Latin America — to maintain its global energy dominance.
Ultimately, the crisis reflects a deeper truth: in the 21st century, oil remains power, and nations rich in it will continue to find themselves at the center of geopolitical conflict — whether as partners, adversaries, or battlegrounds for influence.