Ideology, Oil and Global Power: Why the United States Intervened in Venezuela – Insights from Aprajita Kashyap

Operation Absolute Resolve in Context

The United States’ Operation Absolute Resolve, launched in the pre‑dawn hours of January 3, 2026, captured the attention of media outlets worldwide. United States troops entered Venezuelan territory, seized President Nicolas Maduro and First Lady Delcy Rodríguez, and transported both to New York City where the United States announced legal proceedings under the charge of “abetting narco‑terrorism.” The speed, secrecy and scale of the operation have prompted a flood of analysis, commentary and speculation.

To understand the latest episode, Down To Earth spoke with Aprajita Kashyap, Associate Professor at the Centre for the Study of the Americas, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Aprajita Kashyap provided a chronologically ordered review of United States interventions in the Western Hemisphere, explained the legal complexities surrounding the January raid, and offered a projection of what the United States’ involvement may mean for Venezuela’s oil sector—the world’s largest proven reserves.

Historical Overview of United States Involvement in the Hemisphere

Rajat Ghai (RG): The United States has a long history of intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean. Can you share a few examples from the past regarding this?

Aprajita Kashyap (AK): The modern states of Latin America and the Caribbean achieved independence from Spain (and Portugal in the case of Brazil) during the Wars of Independence between 1810 and 1825. After that wave of emancipation, the United States entered the region repeatedly, often justified by the protection of “democracy” or “human rights,” but frequently driven by strategic, economic or ideological motives.

The first wave of United States activity stretches from the mid‑nineteenth century to the early twentieth century. The Mexican‑American War (1846‑1848) stands as the earliest large‑scale conflict. United States forces invaded Mexico, and the resulting Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ceded present‑day California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas to the United States, dramatically expanding the American continent.

The next major episode unfolded with the Spanish‑American War of 1898. When Cuba rebelled against Spanish rule, United States naval forces intervened, defeated the Spanish fleet, and occupied the island. The United States imposed the Platt Amendment in 1901, granting Washington the right to intervene in Cuban affairs and establishing the Guantanamo Bay naval base. Though the United States later installed a government led by Fulgencio Batista, the strategic foothold in Cuba persisted for over a century.

In 1903 the United States supported Panama’s secession from Colombia, a move that cleared the way for the construction of the Panama Canal. The canal, completed in 1914, created a strategic maritime shortcut linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and cemented United States influence over global shipping routes.

The second phase, commonly referred to as the “Banana Wars,” spanned the early 1900s through the 1930s. United States forces intervened militarily in Nicaragua, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, ostensibly to protect human rights and democratic institutions. In practice, the United States protected the commercial interests of American fruit companies and secured the loyalty of local elites who would align with United States policy. During this period the United States also nurtured “Contras” groups—armed factions that would later emerge in the 1950s as counter‑revolutionary forces.

The third phase coincides with the Cold War, roughly from the 1950s to the 1980s. United States officials feared the spread of communism across the hemisphere and pursued a policy of containment. The first major Cold‑War operation occurred in Guatemala (1954), where the Central Intelligence Agency orchestrated a coup that ousted President Jacobo Arbenz in order to protect United Fruit Company holdings and prevent land reform. The aftermath produced decades of military rule and civil war.

In 1961 the United States attempted the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, a covert plan that aimed to topple Fidel Castro’s communist government. The failure of that operation brought the world perilously close to direct conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Later, in Chile (1973), United States intelligence agencies allegedly facilitated the overthrow of democratically elected socialist President Salvador Allende, paving the way for General Augusto Pinochet’s authoritarian regime. The United States justified the intervention as a fight against Marxist infiltration.

The fourth phase, often labeled “post‑Cold War,” saw United States support for anti‑communist or anti‑authoritarian forces across Central America. In Nicaragua, the United States equipped and financed Contras to battle the left‑wing Sandinista government. Similar patterns emerged in El Salvador and Guatemala, where United States‑backed death squads and paramilitary forces contributed to civil wars. The United States also invaded Grenada (1983) to oust a Marxist government, seized Panama in 1989 to depose military ruler Manuel Noriega, and intervened in Haiti (1994) to restore a democratically elected president. Each episode reflected a blend of security concerns, strategic positioning and economic interest.

All these interventions—whether executed through direct military action, covert operations, economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure or the backing of coups—form the backdrop against which the January 2026 raid on Venezuela must be examined.

International Law and the Legitimacy of the January Raid

RG: Does this intervention deal another blow to the credibility of international law globally?

Aprajita Kashyap (AK): The question of legality is layered and contested. The United States has repeatedly claimed that its interventions serve to protect security interests, democratic values, human rights and regional stability. Yet, from the standpoint of the United Nations Charter, the use of force against a sovereign nation is prohibited except under two narrowly defined circumstances: United Nations Security Council authorization, or self‑defence in response to an imminent threat.

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter states that all members must refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. In the case of the January 2026 operation, United States forces employed armed troops to capture President Nicolas Maduro and the First Lady, thereby exercising force against the sovereign government of Venezuela.

The three criteria for a lawful use of force are, therefore, not satisfied. First, there was no United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing the raid. Second, the United States did not demonstrate an imminent threat emanating from Venezuela that would justify self‑defence. Third, the United States did not invoke a defensive justification rooted in an armed attack. Consequently, the operation contravenes Article 2(4) and lacks a clear legal basis under international law.

Former President Donald Trump described the operation as a “law‑enforcement action,” but even domestic law‑enforcement missions abroad require explicit congressional authorization, which was not secured in this instance. The absence of a congressional mandate further erodes the operation’s legitimacy.

From an ethical perspective, some observers argue that the United States acted out of genuine concern for the Venezuelan populace, which faces severe humanitarian distress, hyperinflation, and mass displacement. While the moral impetus to alleviate suffering may be sincere, the means employed—violent intrusion into a sovereign state—remain at odds with the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

In sum, the January 2026 raid highlights a tension between proclaimed humanitarian objectives and the strict legal framework governing the use of force. The United States’ approach, lacking both Security Council backing and a credible self‑defence claim, represents a breach of established international norms.

Ideology, Oil and Geopolitics: The Core Drivers of the United States’ Venezuelan Gamble

RG: Donald Trump says the United States will be heavily involved in the Venezuelan oil reserves. What major developments can we expect in this regard?

Aprajita Kashyap (AK): The United States’ intervention in Venezuela can be understood as a convergence of three fundamental factors: ideological confrontation, competition for a strategic natural resource, and the broader contest for influence in international relations.

First, ideology. Since the rise of Hugo Chávez and the continuation of Nicolas Maduro’s rule, Venezuela has pursued a socialist model that stands in stark contrast to the United States’ capitalist democratic system. The United States perceives this left‑leaning project as a threat to its ideological dominance in the Western Hemisphere, especially when the Venezuelan government aligns itself with alternative great powers.

Second, oil. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, estimated at roughly 300 billion barrels. Control over this resource offers significant economic leverage, influences global oil markets, and can provide the United States with a strategic energy buffer. However, the physical output of Venezuelan oil has been severely limited for years because of underinvestment, aging infrastructure, mismanagement and sanctions.

Third, international relations. Venezuela has forged deep economic and military ties with the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran. These partnerships enable the United States’ traditional sphere of influence—often described as “America’s backyard”—to be contested by rival powers seeking footholds in Latin America. The United States therefore views the presence of China, Russia and Iran in Venezuela’s oil sector as a direct challenge to its regional hegemony.

When combined, these three dynamics explain why the United States seeks to become the primary investor and regulator of Venezuelan oil production and refining. In 2019, the United States under the Joe Biden Administration froze the assets of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), the state‑owned oil corporation. The January 2026 operation can be seen as an escalation of that policy, aiming to replace competing foreign investors with United States‑based companies.

Rebuilding Venezuela’s oil sector will require massive capital inflows, modern technology and extensive refurbishment of pipelines, refineries and export terminals. Even if United States companies obtain a foothold, the turnaround will be gradual because the challenges are not limited to financing. Decaying infrastructure, a politicized management structure and a workforce demoralized by years of neglect will all impede rapid production gains.

Moreover, Venezuela does not actively solicit United States investment. The United States, by forcefully positioning itself as the sole partner, risks alienating Venezuelan authorities and the broader population, which may view such overtures with suspicion given the history of United States intervention. The only conceivable advantage for Venezuela in embracing United States investment would be the prospect of security guarantees, relief from sanctions and access to stable export markets.

In the medium to long term, a shift toward United States involvement could reshape global oil trade patterns. Yet, because the United States must navigate a complex legal framework governing foreign investment, especially in a country that has been subject to multilateral sanctions, any substantial change in output will likely unfold over months to years, not weeks.

Looking Ahead: Scenarios for Venezuela’s Oil Future

Given the constraints outlined above, several plausible trajectories emerge:

• Gradual Rehabilitation: United States firms, possibly in partnership with multilateral development banks, could invest in a phased refurbishment of key refineries such as the Paraguaná Refinery Complex. Production would climb slowly, contingent on the resolution of legal disputes and the stabilization of the domestic political environment.
• Stalled Progress Due to Political Gridlock: If the United States continues to apply pressure without securing a cooperative aCrickxoment with the Venezuelan government, existing assets may remain idle, and oil output could stay at historically low levels.
• Geopolitical Realignment: China, Russia and Iran might intensify their investment, counterbalancing United States involvement. This could lead to a bifurcated oil sector where different fields and refineries are controlled by competing foreign powers, limiting any single nation’s influence over the entire resource base.
• Sanctions‑Driven Decline: Continued sanctions could further erode the financial viability of oil projects, leading to a deterioration of existing infrastructure and a permanent reduction in Venezuelan oil’s share of the global market.

Each scenario carries implications for global energy security, regional politics and the economic well‑being of the Venezuelan population. The United States, by choosing a path that balances strategic interest with respect for sovereignty, could mitigate the risk of prolonged conflict and foster a more stable energy landscape.

Conclusion

Operation Absolute Resolve, the most recent United States‑led raid on a sovereign nation in the Western Hemisphere, encapsulates a pattern that stretches back more than a century. From the Mexican‑American War to Cold‑War coups, from the Banana Wars to the Panama invasion, each episode reveals a mixture of ideological, economic and geopolitical motives.

In the case of Venezuela, the United States confronts a socialist government, the world’s largest oil reserves, and a strategic partnership between Venezuela and rival great powers. While the moral argument of protecting democratic values and alleviating humanitarian suffering resonates with some observers, the legal analysis shows that the United States’ use of force breaches the United Nations Charter because it lacks Security Council authorization and a legitimate self‑defence rationale.

Future developments will hinge on how the United States proceeds with oil‑sector investment, how Venezuela’s political leadership reacts, and whether rival powers deepen their involvement. The outcome will not only shape the lives of millions of Venezuelans but also influence global oil markets and the credibility of international law.

Aprajita Kashyap’s assessment underscores that any sustainable solution must respect Venezuelan sovereignty, address the structural decay of the oil industry, and consider the broader ideological contest that continues to define United States‑Latin America relations.