The US Attack on Venezuela
What the operation reveals about the risks of fossil fuels for regional development and security
The political developments in Venezuela dominated news headlines around the world in January 2026. The military intervention undertaken by the US highlights certain facets of the fossil world order and the dangers connected to it. Not least from a climate mitigation perspective the events are a warning sign. In the aftermath of the operation, it became more and more obvious that fossil fuel interests are at the center of what is happening. Refraining from taking a final stance on the legal and political implications, this blog aims at emphasizing the role of oil in security policy, economic development, and strategic investment decisions. Furthermore, we seek to highlight the importance of rapid and comprehensive decarbonisation to increase security and prosperity not only for future generations but also for those affected by today’s conflicts.
The role of fossil fuel as a driver of conflict – decarbonisation as an opportunity for enhancing security
It would be a simplification to claim that military conflicts are always and exclusively related to (energy) resources and their scarcity. From ideological-cultural, ethnic, and historical components to domestic policy, personal and climatic influences, military actions are often linked to a whole range of factors. Multiple influencing factors require specific causal analyses instead of simplification. Oil, for example, can have a wide range of influences on foreign policy decisions, depending on the respective political context, regional security structure, and system of government. [1]
Each case must thus be considered individually. This also applies to the abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores on the night of January 2, which most experts agree was contrary to international law.
Donald Trump justified the attack primarily by citing the Venezuelan regime’s involvement in international drug trafficking. And without a doubt, there are various possible explanations for the military intervention. Among them are accusations of smuggling “illegal” migrants into the US, the decidedly anti-socialist stance of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, or even an attempt to distract attention from domestic political turmoil (Epstein files, economic problems) brought up by representatives of the Democratic Party and some media outlets. However, after justifying the operation with Maduro’s supposed violations of US law, Donald Trump went on to criticize what he saw as the incompetent handling of the country’s oil reserves. Apart from the announcement that the US would take over the governance of Venezuela, the President also declared that major US oil companies would be involved in the extraction of the Venezuelan “black gold” and the (re)construction of the necessary infrastructure. Shortly afterwards, he even promised subsidies to support the takeover process and unilaterally ordered the delivery of 30-50 million barrels to the US. In light of this unambiguous focus on Venezuela’s oil reserves, it can be said that it is evident that the country’s fossil resources played a crucial role in the US’s considerations.
The conclusion from this is as simple as it is clear: fossil fuels and their widespread use not only fuel the climate crisis but are also closely linked to security crises and military conflicts, as have been seen in past decades.
This is, though, not only a sobering realisation, but paradoxically at the same time a hopeful one. The technologies needed to overcome our long-standing dependence on oil are widely available for most sectors that use crude oil derivatives: from electric vehicles and heat pumps to hydrogen, sustainable biofuels, and renewable energies for power generation. Oil no longer needs to be part of a cycle of wars and conflicts. It could already be replaced adequately today through accelerated electrification of sectors such as transportation and heating, as well as the consistent decarbonisation of electricity production. Colombian President Gustavo Petro pointed in reaction to the events to the connection between a post-fossil world powered by renewable energy and the prevalence of peace and democracy. In fact, the move away from fossil fuels potentially represents enormous progress in terms of security policy: in addition to the aforementioned elimination of incentives for acts of war, the resilience of decentralised electricity production, and the increase in independence from autocratic regimes are only two more positive side effects of reinforced climate change mitigation efforts.
The economic perils of crude oil exploitation
Apart from oil being a conflict-inducing factor, there are also economic risks to the expansion of crude oil exploitation. From “Dutch disease” to the “resource curse”, the dangers related to a highly concentrated economy have been dubbed and explained in a variety of ways. Generally speaking, a lack of economic diversity combined with extractive institutions, widespread corruption, and a lack of democratic control, have often stood in the way of prosperity flowing from vast resource reserves. Additionally, an appreciating currency resulting from an increase in oil exports might lead to economic turmoil in other export-reliant industries. In the case of a stabilisation of exchange rates, inflationary tendencies are potentially difficult to avert. This is on top of the reinforced dependence on a highly volatile oil market that is increasingly under pressure due to the acceleration of electrification efforts around the globe and the destructive effects of oil extraction on nature and people. In sum, the American focus on Venezuelan oil might turn out to be a brake on the country’s development path instead of a remedy, especially in times when clinging to fossil fuels is at odds with the direction in which markets are heading and might threaten the necessary transformation. Notwithstanding the partially speculative character of these considerations, the message is again simple: unless inclusive, democratic institutions are put in place to support the long-term transformation towards a decarbonised economy, the expansion of oil extraction might not be for the benefit of the Venezuelan people, as repeatedly promised by the Trump administration.
Uncertainties in the international oil market and business risks for American oil companies
Thirdly, it should be noted that the investments in the Venezuelan oil industry announced by Donald Trump may well be a rather risky endeavor. The electrification of transport, heating, and industry, which is now gaining momentum, has the potential to permanently curb oil demand in the long term. Superior and more energy-efficient technologies such as electric cars and heat pumps are likely to progressively gain market share over their fossil fuel alternatives in the coming years. Especially against the backdrop of renewables being cheaper than their fossil alternatives in nine out of ten cases, this trend is crucial for energy markets worldwide. Although consequences for the global oil market are difficult to assess, analysts believe that sales difficulties associated with losses in revenue and profits are at least possible. In the case of Venezuela, economists estimate that tens of billions of dollars will need to be invested to enable a significant increase in output. The fact that Venezuela is primarily home to heavy crude oil that needs intensive, expensive treatment before being ready for refinement does not help either. But in addition to money, it will also take time to modernise the production infrastructure, which has barely been upgraded under Chávez and Maduro. High oil prices, technology, expertise, time and initial investment are indispensable for the modernisation campaign. Thus, the prospects remain unclear as the geopolitical and geoeconomic environment runs counter to some of these prerequisites.
In view of the risks to economic prosperity, security policy stability, corporate profitability, and, last but not least, climate change mitigation, caution is warranted when Venezuelan oil reserves are described as a blessing waiting to be exploited to bring prosperity, income growth, and security to the Venezuelan people. Instead, the manifold risks associated with oil must be priced in and alternative development paths recognised. Overcoming our dependence on fossil fuels is not merely an imperative in terms of maintaining the habitability of our planet but also contributes to long-term security and prosperity.
[1] As laid out by political scientist Jeff D. Colgan from Brown University in his 2013 monograph “Petro-Agression: When Oil Causes War”, published by Cambridge University Press.
By Levi Lempp