US Asks: Is Venezuelan Oil America's Primary Goal? (Again.)
According to the BBC, Nicolás Maduro claims Trump wants Venezuela's oil – a statement they then cast as potentially misleading by highlighting Venezuela's 'plummeted' output. The underlying question, however, isn't about current output but historical precedents. From Mossadegh in Iran (1953) to Arbenz in Guatemala (1954), Allende in Chile (1973), or even Chavez himself (2002 coup attempt), US
foreign policy regarding resource-rich nations with independent leaders has a curious, consistent pattern. The 'real goal' almost always aligns with geopolitical control and resource access, regardless of who occupies the White House at any given moment. Output figures often drop *after* decades of US sanctions, not before. Suggesting that depleted output somehow disqualifies oil as a motive for
intervention conveniently sidesteps the US's documented history of destabilizing governments to ensure favorable access to future resources or prevent hostile ones. (Or perhaps, to ensure friendly corporate entities are in charge of 'restoring its former glory'.) One might wonder why questioning a foreign leader's 'real goals' is considered critical journalism, while questioning patterns in US
foreign policy throughout the Global South is often relegated to 'conspiracy theory.' The BBC presents this as if Maduro's statement is outlandish, rather than a well-observed commentary on a recurring theme in global power politics.