SCENARIO: Venezuela's oil industry under U.S. control

Editorial: Venezuela’s Oil Industry Under U.S. Control

Imagining a scenario in which Venezuela’s oil industry falls under direct U.S. control is to envision one of the most radical geopolitical shifts in modern energy politics.

Venezuela, home to the world’s largest proven oil reserves, has long been a symbol of resource nationalism, where oil wealth was wielded as both an economic lifeline and a political weapon.

To place this industry under U.S. control would mean dismantling decades of sovereignty, ideology, and resistance, replacing them with a framework of foreign management and strategic exploitation.

At the heart of this scenario lies the clash between resource sovereignty and global power projection. For Venezuela, oil has been more than a commodity; it has been the foundation of its national identity and the engine of its political system.

U.S. control would strip away this symbolic ownership, turning Venezuela into a client state whose most valuable asset is managed externally. The implications would ripple through society: the government’s ability to fund social programs, maintain political legitimacy, and assert independence would collapse. In its place, Washington would dictate production levels, pricing strategies, and export destinations, aligning Venezuela’s oil flows with U.S. geopolitical interests rather than Venezuelan priorities.

Economically, such control could stabilize production and modernize infrastructure, given the chronic mismanagement and corruption that have plagued Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, PDVSA. U.S. companies, with their advanced technology and capital, could restore output to levels unseen in decades. Yet this “efficiency” would come at a steep cost. Revenues would no longer be channeled primarily into Venezuelan hands but redirected to U.S. corporations and government interests. The Venezuelan people, already battered by inflation and shortages, would likely see little of the wealth generated from their own soil.

Internationally, the scenario would ignite fierce backlash. Latin America has a long memory of U.S. interventions, from Guatemala to Chile, and Venezuela’s oil takeover would be viewed as neo-colonialism in its purest form. Regional powers such as Brazil and Mexico would be forced to respond, either by condemning the move or recalibrating their own energy policies to avoid similar vulnerability. Globally, rivals like Russia and China, both heavily invested in Venezuela’s oil sector, would interpret U.S. control as a direct strategic loss, potentially escalating tensions in other theaters of competition.

Domestically within the United States, control of Venezuelan oil would be framed as a triumph of energy security. With reserves dwarfing those of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela under U.S. management could guarantee cheap and abundant crude for decades, insulating the American economy from Middle Eastern volatility. Yet the moral and political costs of such dominance would be immense. Critics would argue that it represents a betrayal of democratic values, an imperial seizure that undermines international law and sovereignty.

Ultimately, the scenario of Venezuela’s oil industry under U.S. control is less about barrels of crude than about the meaning of power in the 21st century. It would mark a decisive return to resource imperialism, where might dictates ownership and local populations are relegated to spectators in the exploitation of their own wealth.

For Venezuela, it would mean the erasure of its most potent symbol of independence. For the U.S., it would mean unparalleled energy leverage but at the price of global legitimacy. And for the world, it would serve as a stark reminder that oil, even in an age of renewable transition, remains the most combustible fuel of geopolitics.