This Isn’t National Security Policy — It’s Big Oil Policy
Recent U.S. actions against Venezuelan oil shipments are being framed as enforcement and security. But when you step back and look at the results, a different picture emerges.
The United States is seizing oil tankers and blocking Venezuelan oil exports. The predictable effect of restricting oil supply is higher prices. Higher prices benefit oil producers, traders, and refiners.
That outcome doesn’t depend on intent. It follows directly from how oil markets work.
When a policy reliably raises prices and boosts industry profits, it’s reasonable to ask who benefits — and whether the public interest is actually being served.
Policing Oil Markets Is Not Public Safety
If the primary goal were public safety or counter-narcotics, enforcement would focus on financial networks, corruption, and trafficking routes.
Instead, the focus is on oil shipments.
Seizing tankers does not stop drug trafficking.
It does not reduce violence inside Venezuela.
It does not make Americans safer at home.
What it does do is restrict oil supply in global markets.
Calling this “enforcement” doesn’t change its function. In practice, it is oil market control backed by military force.
Who Benefits From Higher Prices?
When oil supply tightens, prices rise. That benefits companies that produce, trade, and refine oil. It also benefits firms positioned to export fuel into higher-priced global markets.
Those gains are real and measurable.
At the same time, higher prices are felt by consumers and businesses, and the risks associated with enforcement are carried by U.S. servicemembers tasked with patrolling shipping lanes and boarding vessels.
The benefits and the risks are not shared evenly.
The Risk Is Shifted Downward
Oil market enforcement is not abstract. It requires:
Naval patrols
Boarding operations
The risk of escalation with other countries
Those risks are not carried by oil executives or shareholders. They are carried by people in uniform and by their families.
Using military force to influence energy markets shifts risk downward while concentrating reward upward. That tradeoff deserves scrutiny, especially when it is presented as a security necessity rather than an economic choice.
Venezuela Is the Case Study, Not the Exception
What’s happening with Venezuela isn’t new. Similar tactics have been used wherever oil supply intersects with U.S. strategic interests.
Venezuela isn’t being targeted because it poses a unique threat. It’s being targeted because it is economically vulnerable and because its oil still matters in global markets.
That distinction matters.
This isn’t about defending democracy or protecting the public. It’s about controlling supply in a way that benefits a powerful industry.
A Question Worth Asking
If enforcing oil policy requires military power, and if the predictable result is higher prices and higher profits for large oil companies, we should be honest about that reality.
Is this really national security policy?
Or is it energy policy shaped around the interests of Big Oil?
Those questions don’t require defending Venezuela’s government or excusing corruption. They simply require looking clearly at who benefits from these actions — and who bears the cost.
Before accepting the next escalation as necessary or inevitable, it’s worth asking whether this approach serves the public interest, or whether it primarily serves an industry that has long shaped U.S. foreign policy to its advantage.