Venezuela and the Empire’s New War for “Peace”

Washington says it’s defending democracy in Venezuela. In reality, it’s defending access to oil, minerals, and obedience.

All of my op-eds are freely available, thanks to the generous support of readers like you. Nonetheless, independent journalism takes time, research, and resources. If you find value in this piece or others I’ve published, please consider sharing it or becoming a paid subscriber. Your support, whether big or small, truly matters and helps keep this work going.

Want to buy me a coffee (or two)? Just click [here].

You can always tell when Washington is preparing another “humanitarian” adventure. The language shifts first. Suddenly, phrases like freedom, democracy, human rights begin orbiting a country that happens to own resources American corporations want to own. Then the talking heads appear on television, senators start making casual threats, and within days, intelligence agencies receive new “authorizations.” The latest target in this recurring morality play is once again Venezuela.

Officially, the United States accuses Caracas of everything short of building a Death Star. The list is predictable: dictatorship, corruption, human-rights abuses, drug trafficking, and a vague “threat to US interests.” These accusations sound noble enough until you remember that the accuser is the same empire that armed sectarian death squads in Syria, armed Saudi Arabia’s genocidal war in Yemen, armed Israel’s onslaught against the Palestinians, invaded Iraq under false pretenses, and flattened Libya in the name of democracy. The hypocrisy is so thick you could drill it for oil, which, ironically, is precisely what this is all about.

Venezuela’s government is far from perfect. Years of mismanagement and corruption hollowed out the state, while U.S. sanctions strangled what remained of its economy. But that isn’t why Washington is suddenly talking about “liberating Venezuelans.” The real crime of Nicolás Maduro’s government is its sovereignty. Venezuela insists on controlling its own oil, its own foreign policy, and its own political model. In the eyes of Washington, that has to change.

Let’s talk numbers. Beneath Venezuelan soil lies roughly 303 billion barrels of proven crude. That’s more than any other country on Earth. Add to that vast deposits of gold, diamonds, and coltan, a mineral essential for smartphones and electric vehicles that define the 21st century. To put it bluntly, Venezuela possesses the raw materials for the next industrial revolution, and they are currently out of America’s reach. When former U.S. ambassador James Story said on television that “Maduro is sitting on top of the world’s largest oil reserves and minerals that will fuel the 21st-century economy,” he wasn’t revealing a secret. He was simply saying the quiet part out loud.

But resources alone do not provoke such an obsession. The deeper issue is ideological. For two decades, since the rise of Hugo Chávez, Venezuela has been a living affront to Washington’s economic orthodoxy. It nationalized oil, invested in social programs, and built alliances with countries that dared to defy U.S. influence.

Now, under the banner of “peace,” the Trump administration has authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations inside Venezuela. The wording of the directive—“to gather, disrupt, and neutralize hostile assets”—is bureaucratic camouflage for sabotage, infiltration, and possibly assassination. At the same time, U.S. warships have conveniently docked in Trinidad and Tobago, a short sail from Venezuelan waters. Officials call these “anti-narcotics exercises.” Caracas calls them what they are: a provocation. Washington prefers to keep its fingerprints clean, so it stages these maneuvers just far enough away to claim plausible deniability while sending the unmistakable message of power.

On Capitol Hill, the theater continues. Senator Rick Scott of Florida has advised Maduro to “head to Russia or China right now,” as if he were giving travel tips. Senator Lindsey Graham, never once against war, told CBS that “land strikes are a real possibility” and that “it’s time for Maduro to go.” When a journalist remarked that this sounded like regime change, Graham smiled and said, “Yes, it is.” The fact that such open talk of removing a foreign head of state no longer causes outrage tells you everything about how normalized imperial behavior has become.

Behind these statements lies a clear strategic logic. If Washington can reassert control over Venezuela’s oil, it would simultaneously weaken OPEC’s leverage, disrupt BRICS’ growing energy cooperation, and deliver a much-needed boost to the U.S. economy before the next election cycle. A compliant government in Caracas would reopen the Orinoco Belt to Western corporations and hand the world’s largest reserves back to Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Halliburton. The so-called “transition to democracy” would in practice be a transition from public to private ownership, from sovereignty to submission.

To make this project palatable, Washington dresses it in a humanitarian costume. Enter María Corina Machado, the opposition leader freshly decorated with a Nobel Peace Prize for “promoting democracy.” The timing could not be more convenient: a soft-power coronation to coincide with hard-power escalation. Machado openly promises to privatize Venezuela’s industries and “make U.S. companies a lot of money.” Yet in the Western press, she’s portrayed as the saintly reformer who will rescue her country from tyranny. When regime change comes wrapped in the glow of a peace prize, it looks less like plunder and more like salvation.

This combination of moral theater and covert aggression is classic Washington craftsmanship. Economic strangulation creates misery; media coverage blames everything on Maduro; covert operations destabilize the state; and an opposition figure is crowned as the people’s savior. Each step justifies the next, until invasion or coup becomes the “logical” solution to the crisis that Washington itself engineered.

None of this is about caring for Venezuelans. If it were, the U.S. would lift the sanctions that have crippled hospitals and fueled mass migration. It would support negotiations instead of sabotage. What it wants is control over oil, over ideology, and over the dangerous idea that a nation in the Western Hemisphere can chart its own path without American permission.

That’s why Venezuela matters so much. It’s not the size of the country but the symbolism of defiance. If a resource-rich nation in Latin America can survive two decades of economic siege and political warfare, others might follow. That possibility terrifies Washington more than any missile. Because the real threat to the empire isn’t Maduro, it’s multipolarity. It’s the notion that the world no longer needs a single gatekeeper for its destiny.

So the next time you hear an American official speak of “freedom for the Venezuelan people,” remember that freedom, in imperial vocabulary, means obedience. Remember that every “peace initiative” has a price tag, and every “covert action” begins with a lie. Venezuela’s greatest sin is not tyranny; it’s independence. And for that, it now faces the rage of a superpower that cannot tolerate the sight of sovereignty in its own backyard.

—Kevork Almassian is a Syrian geopolitical analyst and the founder of Syriana Analysis.