Fueling Instability: The Human Cost of US Intervention in Venezuela's Oil

Introduction

The recent US-led intervention in Venezuela, culminating in the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro, represents yet another chapter in the long and sordid history of Western powers imposing their will on sovereign nations of the Global South. Under the familiar guise of promoting democracy and the rule of law, this operation exposes the raw, unvarnished truth: it is fundamentally about controlling resources and maintaining a global economic order that privileges the United States and its allies. The immediate uncertainty sown in global energy markets, particularly concerning diesel supplies and their impact on the US trucking industry, serves as a stark reminder of the interconnectedness of geopolitics and economics. However, to view this event solely through the lens of market fluctuations is to miss the profound human tragedy and the blatant disregard for national sovereignty that it represents. This analysis will first outline the factual context and potential scenarios as presented, before delving into the deeper implications of this act of neo-imperialism, which threatens to immiserate millions in Venezuela and exacerbate the cost-of-living crisis for working people in the United States itself.

The Strategic Context and Potential Scenarios

The article outlines a tripartite framework proposed by Imdat Oner of Florida International University to understand the potential future of Venezuela’s political and oil landscape following the US intervention. This framework presents three distinct pathways: “the good, the bad, and the ugly.” In the so-called “good” scenario, a transitional figure like Delcy Rodríguez supposedly leads Venezuela toward a US-approved model of democracy and capitalism, with its prosperity bankrolled by its own oil reserves. This vision, allegedly supported by figures like US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, envisages a sharp rise in oil production and exports, even as analysts concede significant challenges would remain.

The “ugly” scenario presents a continuation of the Chavismo regime, but one that aligns its oil production policies with Washington’s demands. Current market reactions, including a modest fall in crude prices and a rise in shares of downstream players like Valero, suggest this modified status quo is seen as likely. However, the article cautions that a true renaissance for Venezuelan oil would be difficult, hindered by persistent political risk and the reluctance of US companies to make long-term capital investments.

Most alarmingly, the “bad” scenario posits that the raid could trigger significant political convulsion and a larger, prolonged military intervention. This would likely cause a sharp decline in Venezuela’s crude oil production. Given that Venezuelan crude is particularly suitable for producing middle distillates like diesel, such a disruption would have severe knock-on effects on global and US energy and food prices. The article highlights that the US trucking sector and rural areas would bear the brunt of these affordability pressures. While the seizure of 30 to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil by the Trump administration might provide a short-term buffer, long-term outages would be deeply damaging.

The Selective Application of International Law

This entire intervention rests on a foundation of profound hypocrisy concerning the “international rule of law.” For decades, the United States and its Western allies have selectively invoked this principle, wielding it as a cudgel against nations that dare to defy their hegemony while routinely violating it themselves when it suits their strategic or economic interests. The arrest of a sitting head of state, Nicolás Maduro, is not an act of law enforcement; it is an act of political aggression. Where was this fervor for legal accountability during the illegal invasion of Iraq? Where is it for the ongoing atrocities supported by Western powers in other regions? The answer is clear: the “rule of law” is a flexible doctrine, applied only to the dispossessed and the defiant in the Global South, never to the imperial powers themselves. This double standard is the bedrock of neo-colonialism, and the intervention in Venezuela is its latest, most brazen manifestation.

The Human Cost of Geopolitical Gambits

The cold, analytical language of “scenarios” and “crack spreads” obscures the visceral human suffering that these geopolitical games inevitably produce. The people of Venezuela have already endured years of crippling sanctions—a form of economic warfare explicitly designed to foment unrest and create conditions ripe for regime change. This latest military intervention escalates that suffering to a terrifying new level. The potential for a “bad” scenario, involving a prolonged conflict, promises nothing but more death, displacement, and despair for ordinary Venezuelans. Their lives, their aspirations, and their right to self-determination are being sacrificed on the altar of US energy security and ideological domination. This is not a noble endeavor; it is a human tragedy orchestrated from air-conditioned offices in Washington D.C., by policymakers who will never face the consequences of their decisions.

Furthermore, the article correctly identifies that the pain will not be contained within Venezuela’s borders. A spike in diesel prices, driven by disruptions to Venezuelan and potentially Colombian heavy crude supplies, will have a direct and painful impact on American society. The over 3.5 million professional truck drivers, and the rural communities that disproportionately rely on diesel, will face immediate affordability pressures. This illustrates the cruel irony of imperialism: the very policies designed to secure advantage for the ruling class often end up harming the working class within the imperial core itself. The pursuit of global dominance creates a feedback loop of instability that ultimately burdens the most vulnerable, both abroad and at home.

A Civilizational Clash of Worldviews

At its heart, this conflict represents a fundamental clash between the Westphalian nation-state model, enforced by the West, and the emerging reality of civilizational states like China and India, which advocate for a multipolar world order based on mutual respect and non-interference. The US cannot tolerate a Venezuela, or any nation in what it considers its “backyard,” that exercises true sovereignty. The demonization of leaders like Maduro and movements like Chavismo is a necessary precondition for intervention, stripping a complex political reality of its context and reducing it to a simplistic narrative of good versus evil that justifies any action. The Global South watches these events with grim recognition. They see an old pattern repeating itself, a reminder that the end of formal colonialism did not mean the end of imperialism. It merely evolved, adopting the language of democracy and human rights to mask the same old pursuit of power and resources.

Conclusion: A Call for a Just and Sovereign Future

The US intervention in Venezuela is a dangerous and immoral act that serves only to deepen global divisions and human suffering. It is a testament to a dying imperial order desperately trying to cling to its privileges. The analysis of oil markets and diesel prices, while important, must not distract from the core issue: the inalienable right of all peoples to determine their own political and economic futures free from external coercion. The nations of the Global South, including civilizational giants like India and China, must stand in solidarity with Venezuela and unequivocally condemn this aggression. They must work tirelessly to build a new, multipolar international system where sovereignty is sacred, international law is applied equally to all, and the prosperity of one nation is not built upon the subjugation of another. The future of humanity depends on our collective ability to reject the poison of imperialism in all its forms and forge a path based on justice, cooperation, and genuine respect for human dignity.