On Thursday night, President Joe Biden — acting without congressional approval — ordered airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen, an escalation in the regional spillover from Israel’s war in Gaza that now directly involves US military personnel.
Biden chose to escalate the conflict and bomb Yemen in response to Houthi fighters' Red Sea attacks. His unconditional support and steady flow of weapons to Israel appears to be increasing the likelihood of a regional war. Instead of using the U.S.’s considerable leverage over Israel to push for a ceasefire, Biden is enabling a brutal war that has killed more than 23,000 Palestinians, and ties his administration to Israel’s decisions as it inches toward an all out war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Biden should be honest with Americans: the longer Israel's siege of Gaza persists, the greater the chances of a regional conflagration that will put American lives in danger.
Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure
that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream
orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and
outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily.
Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage
— which you will find nowhere else —
into 2026. Happy Holidays!
Eli Clifton is a senior advisor at the Quincy Institute and Investigative Journalist at Large at Responsible Statecraft. He reports on money in politics and U.S. foreign policy.
Khody Akhavi is Senior Video Producer at the Quincy Institute. Previously he was Head of Video for Al-Monitor and covered the White House for Al Jazeera English, as well as produced films for the network’s flagship investigative unit.
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump Speaks During Roundtable With Business Leaders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Washington, DC on December 10, 2025 (Shutterstock/Lucas Parker)
Within hours of U.S. military strikes on Venezuela and the capture of its leader, Nicolas Maduro, President Trumpproclaimed that “very large United States oil companies would go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, and start making money for the country.”
Indeed, at no point during this exercise has there been any attempt to deny that control of Venezuela’s oil (or “our oil” as Trump oncedescribed it) is a major force motivating administration actions.
One irony here is that even as the White House is proudly embracing fossil-fuel imperialism in global oil, the markets are vastly different. Back in the 1970's and again in the early 2000's, the U.S. was the world’s biggest oil importer, leading to vicious spirals of higher crude prices and a weaker dollar as oil exporters feared they were being paid in a rapidly depreciating currency and sought other assets.
However, the U.S. is now the world’s biggest producer, and the world is sufficiently awash in oil so much that the price of benchmark Brent Crude was close to five-year lows late last week at about $60 a barrel. Conversely, the spike in oil prices to $120 per barrel right after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 saw the dollar strengthen dramatically against the yen and especially the euro. Markets reasoned that besides geopolitics, greater self sufficiency in energy also favored the U.S. over its developed market peers.
In other words, the U.S. geoeconomic position in energy has come a long way since the early 2000s and already has many of the attributes that control over Venezuelan oil would supposedly bolster.
Meanwhile, the combination of supply-demand dynamics in global oil markets and the scale of investment required to restore Venezuela’s oil production has made major oil companies wary about the opportunities supposedly being handed to them. They are unsure about the economics of sinking tens of billions of dollars over several years to restore dilapidated drilling infrastructure in a country that might have the world’s largest oil reserves, but this oil is also expensive to extract and process.
One report has suggested that the administration is telling oil companies that if they want compensation for assets nationalized by Venezuela, they will have to commit to making substantial investments in restoring the country’s oil infrastructure. In effect, private U.S. oil majors are being asked to act in Venezuela more like the state-owned-enterprises elsewhere that play a huge part in global oil production, often disregarding near-term profitability in the service of maintaining or expanding production for political, fiscal, or geopolitical goals.
But it is unclear how much tolerance Wall Street would have for such a posture from energy firms, particularly after the shale industry’s cumulative losses in the 2010s ran close to half a trillion dollars. In this decade, financial markets have been looking for “capital discipline” from oil companies.
More broadly, it seems as though the geopolitical and economic goals of the administration might not be entirely consistent, particularly when it comes to domestic and foreign oil markets. It rejoices over low gasoline prices, and hopes that the overthrow of Maduro in Venezuela will eventually lead to increased production anchored by American companies in that country. At the same time, the White House wants domestic U.S. oil production to rise as well, as expressed by the “drill, baby drill” slogan.
However, good prices for consumers are not necessarily the same thing as good prices for commercially motivated producers, who may react by curtailing investment, i.e., by planning to drill less rather than more. For such producers, the critical threshold is the “break even price,” which has been estimated at an average of about $60 per barrel for American shale. All this is occurring against a backdrop of global oil supply growing faster than demand, with the International Energy Agency projecting global supply increases of 3 million barrels a day in 2025 and a further 2.4 million in 2026, against demand increases of only 830,000 barrels in 2025 and 860,000 in 2026.
The events in Venezuela also suggest other issues that stem from the widely remarked centrality of the Western Hemisphere in the administration’s National Security Strategy. One of the administration’s goals is to install friendly regimes in resource-rich countries (the latter is a description that applies to much of Latin America) to enable both privileged American use of resources and the ability to deny those to competitors.
But this is where issues of the political economy of South America may come into play. The region has in the last few decades seen democratic alternation between left and right wing populisms in several countries, spurred by popular discontent at long-term economic disappointment punctuated by intermittent financial crises. This is arguably in good part a result of excessive reliance on commodity exports (something undoubtedly true of Venezuela, where oil is practically the only export), and the boom-bust cycles associated with the sector.
Electoral cycles in the region currently appear to favor the right (or parties more congenial to Washington), as seen in Bolivia, but there is little guarantee of a structural break in this political pattern as long as the structure of South American economies does not move beyond a dependence on commodity exports. Thus, it is possible that even a “successful” removal of Maduro does not deliver the economic and political transformation needed for the longer-term stability that American investors seek. And the Trump administration’s approach to Venezuela (and the region at large) seems to show little recognition of this.
The economic motivations behind the military intervention in Venezuela thus seem contradictory, grounded in a misunderstanding of America’s role in global energy markets, and oblivious to a central problem of political economy in South America — the continent’s commodity dependence.
The successful seizure and removal of President Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela demonstrates Washington’s readiness to use every means at its disposal — including military power — to stave off any diminishment of U.S. national influence in its bid to manage the dissolution of the celebrated postwar, liberal order.
For the moment, the rules-based order (meaning whatever rules Washington wants to impose) persists in the Western Hemisphere. As President Donald Trump noted, “We can do it again. Nobody can stop us. There’s nobody with the capability that we have.”
Put differently, “Team America” is back!
The question is what happens next? How will Washington consolidate its latest victory over Maduro and his regime? The plan seems murky if non-existent.
Presumably, Maduro will be tried and convicted in a U.S. court for drug-related crimes. Meanwhile Trump said Saturday that the U.S. will “take over” during the transition. Can Washington actually set up a new political order that will prevent Venezuela from sliding into civil war, or, more important, from hosting future drug-fueled violence?
President Trump said that opposition leader Maria Machado lacks the political strength to govern Venezuela. So who does that leave? Is there a CIA-preferred comprador for the job, or will Secretary of State Marco Rubio simply govern as an American Viceroy? In any case, can anyone — Venezuelan or American — govern the country without heavy reliance on U.S. Military power?
Meanwhile American firms and corporations are chomping at the bit to move into Venezuela to extract its oil. In addition to the world’s largest reserves (the oil infrastructure is decaying and it willtake a long time to rebuild), Venezuela is massively endowed with gold and one of the largest iron ore deposits in the Western Hemisphere. To these must be added significant reserves of natural gas, bauxite, nickel and some rare earths. No doubt the exploitation of these mineral resources will be seen as vital if the current intervention is to avoid the usual catastrophic costs associated with military intervention.
Protests from Moscow and Beijing notwithstanding, neither the Russians nor Chinese will directly interfere with events in the Caribbean Basin. The fact that Maduro was meeting with Chinese officials just 24 hours before he was captured is no doubt deeply disconcerting to Beijing. China might accelerate its liquidation of American debt with uncertain consequences for the American bond market. But Russian and Chinese leaders will not repeat Western stupidity in Ukraine and challenge American military power on its doorstep. The home court strategic advantage is undeniable.
Whatever happens next, the short-term impact of Maduro’s capture conveniently distracts from the Trump administration’s failed attempts to end the war in Ukraine on terms that might benefit Washington and its allies. In fact, the Trump administration is likely to quietly disengage from these efforts while Moscow turns its attention entirely to ending the war in Ukraine on its own terms.
Meanwhile, the ceasefire Trump brokered with a flourish earlier this year has not halted the destruction of life in Gaza. In the background, Iran’s missile factories are humming again having recovered from the 12-day war in June 2025. U.S. and Israeli strikes have set back Iran's nuclear ambitions but Israel won’t soon forget Iran’s ability to hit back with counterstrikes on Israeli soil. Not surprisingly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now pushes for fresh strikes before Iranian silos swell to 1,000 warheads a year, enough to overwhelm U.S. and Israeli air and missile defenses.
President Trump warns there will be “hell to pay” if Iran rebuilds. The president who promised to “end forever wars” now advocates for the next Middle East war, too.
At home, progress in a range of critical areas from living standards and educational performance to high-tech manufacturing is slow to non-existent. Inflated expectations of faster productivity growth through artificial intelligence are flagging. There is no evidence for any interest in breaking up overgrown, monopolistic media and IT corporations, or stopping mergers aimed at shaping narratives and suppressing free speech.
Still, Americans should cheer up. Congratulations from Trump’s Wall Street donors on the ostensible victory in Caracas are pouring in. The purportedly numerous Hamas and Hezbollah training camps that threaten Israeli national security will now vanish like the morning mist hanging over Venezuela’s jungles. Team America is back!
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro (Shutterstock/stringerAL) ; President Donald Trump (Shutterstock/a katz)
This is a developing story. This article will be updated as events unfold.
In a surprise operation, the U.S. captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and bombed military and civilian targets across Venezuela, leaving the future of the Latin American country uncertain.
Maduro is now headed to the United States to “stand trial on criminal charges,” said Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) after a conversation with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. In a press conference, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. will "run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition."
"We can’t take a chance that someone takes over Venezuela who doesn’t have the good of the people in mind," Trump said, adding that this could include American "boots on the ground."
The operation marks a dramatic turn of events after months of U.S.-led escalation against the Maduro regime, which included a series of attacks on drug boats and even some targets within Venezuela. Maduro’s abduction, which appears to violate international law, comes just days after the now-ousted president offered to negotiate with Washington. "I didn't want to negotiate," Trump told Fox News, adding that he may pursue a "second wave" of strikes if regime figures don't cede power.
Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez has requested that the U.S. provide proof of life for Maduro and his wife, who was also captured. Trump claimed that Rubio has spoken with Rodriguez and that she is "willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again."
Advocates of regime change in Venezuela have generally hoped that this year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner, Maria Corina Machado, would take over after Maduro. Machado, for her part, called for the installation of Edmundo Gonzalez, who is widely considered to be the legitimate winner of Venezuelan elections that took place in 2024.
In a scathing editorial, the New York Times editorial board described the attack as “latter-day imperialism.”
“By proceeding without any semblance of international legitimacy, valid legal authority or domestic endorsement, Mr. Trump risks providing justification for authoritarians in China, Russia and elsewhere who want to dominate their own neighbors,” the board wrote.
The attacks have drawn comparisons to the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama, during which American forces captured and extradited then-President Manuel Noriega.
In the months leading up to the strikes, Congress repeatedly voteddown bills that would have restricted Trump’s ability to carry out today’s attacks. The administration reportedly argued that there was no need for such a law because the administration did not intend to put boots on the ground in Venezuela.
Sen. Lee initially appeared to criticize Trump for carrying out strikes without congressional approval. But, following his conversation with Rubio, Lee argued that this operation fell under the president’s authority to protect troops from an imminent threat. (This loophole in war powers is “big enough to drive a tank through,” argued Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America.)
Hawkish members of Congress cheered on the strikes, with some arguing that Trump should now set his sights on other left-wing authoritarians in the region. “Maduro has fallen, [Cuban President Miguel] Díaz-Canel and [Nicaraguan President Daniel] Ortega are next,” said Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-Fla.). “Our hemisphere will be the hemisphere of freedom!”
Leaders from Chile, Cuba and Colombia condemned the attacks. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said the attacks were a violation of international law and put "regional stability at great risk." Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called the operation "reminiscent of the worst moments of interference in Latin American and Caribbean politics." American allies in Europe have so far largely restricted their comments to calls for de-escalation and respect for international law.
Targets of the U.S. bombing campaign reportedly included military facilities as well as a civilian port and Venezuela's legislative palace.
The reasoning behind the Trump administration’s dramatic escalation remains unclear. Trump has often cited drug interdiction as the driving force of his campaign, but experts say that Venezuela has little to do with the crisis of overdose deaths in the U.S., which are largely caused by fentanyl from Mexico. The administration has also expressed interest in taking over Venezuela's oil industry, which controls some of the world's largest oil reserves.
Another explanation may be the influence of Rubio, who long advocated regime change in various Latin American countries during his time in the Senate. Coupled with the Trump administration’s focus on Latin America in its National Security Strategy, this would suggest that the military campaign against Maduro may be a preview of further efforts across the region.
It remains to be seen whether Trump will simply declare victory now that Maduro has been removed from office. A broader effort at regime change would likely require a more sustained U.S. military effort — one that may include a full-scale invasion, which could tip the country further into chaos.
As of November, 70% of Americans opposed U.S. military action in Venezuela, according to a CBS News poll.
keep readingShow less
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.
