The U.S. Just Seized a Venezuelan Oil Tanker — And We Have No Legal Right To Do It
A few weeks ago, I wrote about how the U.S. government has been leaning hard on a new “narco-terrorism” story to justify a more aggressive posture toward Venezuela. It’s a narrative built on dramatic language but thin evidence — a story that makes military actions sound like law-enforcement necessities rather than political choices.
Now we have a real test of that narrative:
The United States just seized a massive oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela.
Not a drug boat.
Not a weapons shipment.
A tanker carrying crude oil — the same commodity that has dragged this country into conflict again and again.
And here’s the truth: we have no legal authority to do this.
Not under international law. Not under any treaty. Not under the rules the U.S. once insisted the rest of the world follow.
This isn’t counterterrorism.
It’s not stopping cartels.
It’s a military power grab aimed at someone else’s oil supply.
And the American people are tired of it.
What Actually Happened
U.S. forces — Navy assets, Coast Guard teams, federal tactical units — boarded a foreign-flagged tanker operating near Venezuela’s waters. They took control of the ship, its crew, and its cargo.
Officials immediately framed the move as a “sanctions enforcement” action. They claimed the tanker was tied to illicit trade, that it was carrying oil linked to sanctioned actors, and that the U.S. had every right to intervene.
Venezuela called it what it is: a violation of sovereignty and an act of piracy.
And legally, they’re not wrong.
International Law Isn’t Complicated Here
There are a lot of gray areas in maritime law.
This is not one of them.
The United States cannot:
Use military force to seize a commercial vessel in another country’s maritime zone.
Enforce U.S. domestic sanctions on the high seas as if the entire planet is under American jurisdiction.
Board a ship without UN authorization, treaty authority, or consent from the flag state.
None of those conditions exist here.
So what is the U.S. really enforcing?
Its own power — and its own interests — not international law.
When we condemn other nations for ignoring rules and acting like regional bullies, this is exactly the kind of behavior we’re talking about.
The Story Americans Are Being Told Doesn’t Match the Reality
The government wants people to think this is a narcotics case. It’s not.
They want people to believe this is about terrorism. It’s not.
The cargo wasn’t fentanyl, cocaine, weapons, or anything remotely connected to those threats.
It was oil.
Venezuela’s most important source of revenue.
Cuba’s most important source of energy.
And a long-standing point of U.S. interest in the region.
The “narco-terrorism” language is a smokescreen — a political shortcut that attempts to turn a geopolitical action into a moral crusade. It’s the same strategy used in past decades to sell the public on policies that had far more to do with resources than national security.
Let’s Be Honest: Our Military Is Still Being Used to Control Oil
Most Americans — across the political spectrum — have had enough of oil-driven foreign interventions.
They remember Iraq.
They remember the promises that “energy independence” would finally get the U.S. out of overseas oil conflicts.
They remember being told that our military presence abroad was about democracy, freedom, and global stability.
And here we are again:
U.S. helicopters chasing down a commercial oil tanker.
Armed personnel taking control of a foreign cargo.
Washington insisting it has the right to police global oil flows.
This isn’t what Americans voted for.
It’s not what they were promised.
And it’s not a path to greater security — it’s a recipe for escalation.
You don’t have to support the Venezuelan government to recognize a simple truth:
We are using the U.S. military to interfere with another country’s natural resources.
That is the oldest story in modern American foreign policy — and the one people are most tired of reliving.
Why This Is Bigger Than Venezuela
When a country with as much power as the United States starts seizing commercial ships near foreign coasts, several things happen:
Other countries stop trusting international rules because they see that we ignore them when convenient.
Rival powers feel justified in acting the same way.
Global shipping becomes less stable and more dangerous.
The U.S. loses the moral authority it once used to shape maritime law and global norms.
And for what?
Another oil shipment? Another opportunity to flex U.S. power? Another crisis framed as a noble mission?
Americans don’t want another conflict tied to oil.
They’re struggling economically. They’re exhausted by foreign entanglements.
They want their government focused on things that actually improve life at home — not replaying the last 50 years of mistakes.
A Pattern We Can’t Ignore
The tanker seizure is not a one-off.
It fits the pattern of the administration’s broader approach:
Inflate a threat.
Invoke “terrorism,” “drugs,” or “security.”
Use military force where legal authority is thin or nonexistent.
Claim victory and expect the public not to ask too many questions.
This is exactly what the “narco-terrorism” narrative was built for:
to make controversial actions seem inevitable, righteous, and beyond debate.
But nothing about this seizure was inevitable.
And nothing about it was legal.
The Real Question
At some point, Americans deserve to ask:
If we’re no longer supposed to be fighting wars for oil, then why is our military still being used to seize it?
That’s the question at the center of this story.
And it’s a question the administration doesn’t seem eager to answer.