US Rethinks 'Intervention Limits' After Venezuela Runs Dry

The article discusses the 'limits of intervention' in Venezuela, a phrase often deployed when US-backed coups or sanctions regimes fail to install preferred leadership. It frames Venezuela as a 'footnote' in oil markets now that US shale has boomed, effectively admitting that US interest was always less about 'democracy' and more about controlling global energy supplies. The unmentioned context

here is the consistent US interference—from the 2002 coup attempt against Chavez (which the Bush administration initially recognized) to the crippling sanctions escalated under Trump and Biden, designed to destabilize the economy and, presumably, force a regime change. Instead of addressing the 1999 CIA report that explicitly mentioned Venezuela's massive crude reserves as a target, or the

2018-2023 sanctions that decimated Venezuela’s oil production by preventing it from accessing global markets (and ironically, forcing it closer to Russia and China), Al Jazeera focuses on how this 'dangerous reminder' might affect the Middle East. Perhaps the 'limits of intervention' become clearer when the interventions themselves create the conditions for a lack of influence, rather than a

failure of will. How many 'democratic transitions' does it take before we question the interventionists?

Read the full story on The Piaz