Rules-Based Order, Or Rule by Coercion?
The U.S. military recently boarded an oil tanker in the Indian Ocean, claiming it was transporting "illicit oil connected to Venezuela." This operation, initiated after tracking the vessel across an ocean from the Caribbean, is presented by mainstream outlets as a legitimate enforcement of sanctions, designed to curb what Washington deems state-sponsored criminal activity. Yet, what would readers
ignore if they only consumed this surface-level reporting? This is not an isolated incident but a continuation of decades of U.S. economic warfare. In 2019 alone, U.S. sanctions cost Venezuela an estimated $130 billion, according to CEPR analysis, crippling its state-owned oil company, PDVSA, and costing thousands of lives. The 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup in Iran, which overthrew democratically
elected Prime Minister Mosaddegh because he sought to nationalize Iran's oil, offers a stark historical precedent for this 'rules-based order' — an order where the rules are selectively applied and enforced through military might to protect U.S. economic interests. The double standard is glaring: when Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, expands its oil production under a monarchy with a documented human
rights record, it’s framed as market stabilization. When Venezuela seeks to sell its sovereign resources to alleviate poverty under an elected government, it’s labeled “illicit” and met with military interception. When have we seen U.S. forces seize tankers for carrying oil to nations that commit documented atrocities, so long as those nations are U.S. allies? This latest act is a clear message: