Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, left, met the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in Tehran on Oct. 22, 2016. Photo: Supreme Leader Press Office/Anadolu Agency/file photo.
By Roger D. Harris – Mar 7, 2026
Venezuela and Iran hold the largest and third-largest petroleum reserves in the world, respectively. Both have been targeted for regime change by Washington. The world’s hegemon naturally seeks access to such resources. Yet it would be simplistic to think that would be only for narrow economic motives.
Dominion over energy flows – especially from countries with large reserves – is central to maintaining global influence. Washington requires control of strategic resources to sustain its position as global hegemon; a goal reflected in its official policy of “full spectrum dominance.” The 2017 National Security Strategy establishes “energy dominance” as an instrument of imperial power.
For Venezuela and Iran, sovereign control over their vast hydrocarbon wealth is a prerequisite for exercising even a modest degree of independence and some regional and global influence within a geopolitical landscape dominated by the US and its allies.
Venezuela-Iran nexus
Venezuela and Iran were founding members of the OPEC alliance of oil-producing countries in 1960. Both countries rejected Western dominance and nationalized their considerable oil sectors. In Iran, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh established the National Iranian Oil Company in 1951, precipitating the CIA-MI6 coup that deposed him. In Venezuela, President Carlos Andrés Pérez nationalized the oil industry in 1976 through the creation of a state oil company. PDVSA was later expanded and reoriented by President Hugo Chávez after 2002.
In a prescient address at Tehran University, Venezuelan President Chávez admonished:
“If the US empire succeeds in consolidating its dominance, then humankind has no future. Therefore, we have to save humankind and put an end to the US empire.”
Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution and Iran’s Islamic Revolution are both of necessity anti-imperialist projects that have forged ties with Russia and China, Washington’s two major-power “strategic competitors.” The hegemon’s response reflects its broader pattern of targeting resource-rich, independent states that resist integration into the US-led “world order.”
Both countries have been targeted for their non-aligned foreign policy. Iran occupies a central position in the resistance to Zionism, supporting Hezbollah, the former Syrian government, Ansar Allah (the Houthis), and above all the Palestinian struggle. Likewise, Venezuela has been among the strongest supporters in Latin America of Palestinian self-determination, severing relations with Israel in 2009. Venezuela, too, has been the main supporter of the beleaguered Cuban government.
In 2015, US President Barack Obama declared Venezuela an “extraordinary threat” to US national security as an excuse to impose unilateral coercive measures on Caracas. Two years later, President Donald Trump intensified the hybrid war against Venezuela, modeled on the “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran.
Washington has repeatedly signaled its disregard for international law: Obama’s drone strikes on US citizens in 2011; Trump’s killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020; the January kidnapping President Nicolás Maduro and “First Combatant” Cilia Flores; and on February 28, the murder of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
In short, the US-led empire has demonstrated its readiness to capriciously employ lethal force whenever deemed expedient – with confidence that it will face few immediate consequences from the international community.
Oil markets and the timing of war
The US-Israeli attack against Iran on February 28 was anticipated. Iran’s Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi both warned of an imminent strike. Nasirzadeh was killed in the attack, while Araghchi survived. Israeli officials had earlier described previous attacks as “only the beginning,” while President Trump publicly acknowledged that a strike “could very well happen.”
Energy markets had also been anticipating escalation. Official agencies, market commentary, and the corporate press repeatedly warned about potential oil supply disruption, especially via the Strait of Hormuz chokepoint. Oil market indicators reflected these concerns, with oil prices surging in the days preceding the attack.
For years US policymakers had explicitly linked Iran sanctions to oil-market management. Foreshadowing the present escalation, the US announced in 2019 that ending Iranian oil waivers was intended to drive Iran’s exports to zero, while coordinating with major producers to keep global markets “well supplied.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo based the pace of reducing Iranian oil exports on “market conditions.”
At the same time, US officials openly discussed Venezuela’s vast oil resources as strategically significant. This convergence suggests that Venezuelan oil capacity played a role – at least indirectly – in the timing of Washington’s Iran policy.
Oil-market stability therefore acted as a timing constraint on Washington’s Iran policy. In this context, Venezuelan oil assets could potentially be an offset option to buffer the impact of supply disruptions in the Middle East. It was expedient for the US to stabilize the Venezuelan oil supply prior to upending the Iranian one.
Thus, Washington’s Venezuela strategy was in part to secure oil assets to cushion markets. The same senior personnel and “maximum pressure” logic applied to both countries. Elliott Abrams, for example, held roles relating to both Iran and Venezuela during the first Trump administration. US interdictions of Iranian petroleum shipments to Venezuela in 2020 further illustrated how the two sanctions theaters intersected.
At the same time, Venezuelan oil was only one factor. Washington had already identified Saudi and Emirati production capacity as critical to maintaining global supply should Iranian exports disappear. Restoring Venezuela’s oil infrastructure to former levels will take time. So US intervention there may mainly serve a psychological purpose – helping calm markets during the Middle Eastern conflict.
Venezuela’s resilience
Despite the January 3 seizure of President Maduro, Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution survived the decapitation with a seamless continuation of leadership under interim President Delcy Rodríguez. This outcome compelled the US to negotiate rather than outright conquer – as they did in Iraq and Libya and are attempting to do in Iran. Still, the strategic balance of power is heavily titled in Washington’s favor.
So far Venezuela has avoided Iran’s fate: an ever mounting death toll, massive infrastructure devastation, widespread destruction of cultural institutions, and the assassination of top political, religious, and military figures. The US president has even floated the threat to “wipe them [Iran] off the face of this Earth.” The same USS Gerald R. Ford – the world’s most technically advanced aircraft carrier – was part of the January 3 attack on Venezuela and is now deployed off the coast of Iran.
Against this backdrop, President Rodríguez received the CIA director, cabinet-level energy and interior secretaries, the commander of US Southern Command, and the US diplomatic envoy. On March 5, Washington and Caracas announced an agreement to reestablish diplomatic and consular relations.
Venezuela’s new Organic Hydrocarbons Law reflects changing conditions since the original legislation was enacted a quarter of a century ago. Higher cost structures for heavy and extra-heavy crude require major investments, while Venezuela’s ability to attract foreign capital has been strangled by US sanctions.
The new law preserves state ownership of PDVSA and majority state ownership in joint ventures. In contrast, opposition politician María Corina Machado’s “Venezuela, Land of Grace” program would privatize it all.
An ephemeral détente
But make no mistake – the ultimate goal of the empire remains regime change. Washington’s kidnapping of President Maduro was intended to demonstrate the empire’s dominance. Yet it also revealed its limits: the durability of the Bolivarian Revolution and the reality that even great powers must sometimes negotiate with governments they oppose.
As Venezuelan oil analyst Franco Vielma observed, the country’s leadership has developed “creative resilience, strategic prudence, and pragmatic flexibility.”
“They have their strategy, and we have ours,” said Venezuelan President Rodríguez. The contest between imperial domination and national self-determination therefore continues.
RDH/OT
Roger D. Harris
Roger D. Harris lives in California and is with the anti-imperialist human rights organization Task Force on the Americas, the Venezuela Solidarity Network, the US Peace Council, and the Marxist Forum. He writes regularly on Latin American and the Caribbean with a special emphasis on Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua.
