The Enduring American Taboo: When 'Oil Grab' Becomes 'Strategic Imperative'
The NY Times Politics article notes Trump's move as 'shattering an American taboo' concerning direct oil seizure. This framing suggests a deviation from established norms. However, the 'taboo' has always been a matter of semantics and method, not fundamental objective. FIRST INSTANCE: The 'Good Neighbor' and the Iron Fist The concept of U.S. intervention for resource control, particularly oil, is
not new. While often couched in terms of 'stability' or 'hemispheric security,' direct control over vital resources has been a consistent, albeit sometimes veiled, aim. For instance, in the early 20th century, U.S. Marines were frequently deployed to Caribbean and Central American nations to protect American commercial interests, including early oil concessions. The 1927 intervention in Nicaragua,
officially to quell a civil war, ultimately secured U.S. influence over potential canal routes and broader economic assets (Wikipedia, 2023). This established a precedent: indirect control preferred, direct intervention if necessary. REPETITIONS: Coups & Sanctions as Modern Precursors By the mid-20th century, overt military 'oil grabs' became less palatable. Instead, intelligence operations and
economic pressure took center stage. The 1953 CIA and MI6-orchestrated coup in Iran, which overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh after he nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, was a textbook example. While not a 'seizure' by U.S. forces, it ensured favorable oil agreements for Western corporations (Declassified CIA files, 2013). This established the 'taboo'