On Saturday, U.S. forces carried out a dramatic offensive in Venezuela that resulted in the capture and forcible removal of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. They were airlifted to New York and are currently in federal custody. Maduro appeared in federal court on drug and weapons charges and pleaded not guilty. Several governments, international law experts and United Nations officials have said the military operation was an illegal “kidnapping” and a violation of international law. The UN Secretary-General warned that this would set a “dangerous precedent” that undermines fundamental norms of sovereignty under the UN Charter.
But while Washington primarily justifies its operations with rhetoric about oil and drugs, a deeper examination reveals a different dynamic. This was first and foremost an ideological struggle shaped by US domestic political motives, particularly the strategic influence of Florida voters and their political elites.
Oil is not the main motivation
The mainstream narrative frames Venezuela’s vast oil reserves (officially one of the world’s largest confirmed oil reserves at approximately 298 billion to 303 billion barrels) as a core strategic interest. However, a detailed evidence-based analysis shows that the immediate economic case is weak.
The United States’ crude oil imports from Venezuela were once large, but as of 2024 they have fallen to about 220,000 barrels per day (bpd), accounting for less than 4% of the United States’ crude oil imports. In contrast, imports from Canada account for the majority, accounting for approximately 60-63% of the United States’ crude oil import demand, and the United States’ light crude oil production is rapidly increasing, reducing its dependence on foreign resources. This change undermines the argument that Venezuelan oil alone is strategically essential.
Why is Venezuelan crude oil important in the first place? The answer lies in its composition. Venezuelan oil is heavy and sour, the type that many refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast are designed to process. However, this reflects the configuration of the refinery rather than a compelling strategic case at hand. Furthermore, Venezuela’s oil infrastructure has deteriorated from years of underinvestment, with production expected to decline from about 3.5 million barrels per day to about 1 million barrels per day by 2025, and meaningful recovery will require years of sustained and consistent investment. Market reaction to Maduro’s capture was muted, with global oil prices remaining relatively stable, suggesting that oil was not the main driver of the operation.
It’s not even a drug: excuses and reality
U.S. officials have cited drug trafficking and “narcoterrorism” as some of the reasons to justify the intervention. Mr. Maduro and other Venezuelan officials have been indicted in the United States on suspicion of cocaine trafficking, and these charges have been repeatedly brought up in court. However, research by international organizations and independent analysts suggests that while Venezuelan territory is used as a transit route, it is not a major source of drugs entering the United States, which are overwhelmingly produced and trafficked through Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. This gap between the scale and basis of the drug trade has led many analysts to view the drug trade discussion as a pretext rather than a major driver of this operation.
Florida, ideology and domestic political motivations
A more compelling rationale emerges when we consider the domestic political motives shaping U.S. foreign policy, particularly the role of Florida voters and elite networks. With 31 electoral votes, Florida remains an extremely important state in the presidential election, and even the slightest change in a key district could sway the national outcome.
This political reality is reinforced by Florida’s large and politically mobilized Latino community. While Cuban-American voters have long prioritized anti-communist foreign policy positions, the Venezuelan-American community, many of whom have settled in the state over the past decade, has expressed strong opposition to Caracas’s authoritarian left-wing rule. Political scientists say these constituencies constitute important voting blocs in close elections, giving political elites strong incentives to take tough positions against left-wing governments that resonate with these voters.
At the center of this dynamic is Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State and Florida native. His political career is deeply rooted in opposition to leftist governments in Latin America. Mr. Rubio’s family is an exile from communist Cuba, and he has consistently championed policies of confrontation against socialist and dictatorial regimes in the region. During the negotiations, President Maduro reportedly offered concessions on oil and economic issues that could have been commercially beneficial, but advisers aligned with Florida’s political interests reportedly pushed a harder line, prioritizing ideological conflict over economic pragmatism.
Florida’s political ecosystem also includes an influential donor network that has historically supported hawkish foreign policy positions, including a well-organized pro-Israel constituency with influence at the state and national level. In recent months, Israeli leaders’ high-profile visits to Florida and continued engagement with U.S. politicians have strengthened an ideological coalition that frames regimes seen as hostile to or aligned with Israel’s adversaries as challenges that require a decisive response. The convergence of electoral incentives, ideological commitments, and elite networks helps explain why U.S. policy toward Venezuela has been shaped by domestic political factors as well as external strategic interests.
Lessons for the Middle East
The implications for stakeholders in the Middle East are profound.
First, international law appears to be weakening. The United States’ detention of a sitting head of state without multilateral recognition highlights its willingness to circumvent international legal norms when domestic political obligations take precedence. The seeming disregard for the ineffectiveness of the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force without Security Council authorization or clear self-defense has caused global concern.
Second, the strategic relevance of the Middle East remains, albeit in an evolving context. Although global energy markets are less dependent on Middle Eastern oil than in past decades, other factors, such as capital flows, counterterrorism cooperation, strategic geography, and durable security partnerships, maintain the region’s importance. U.S. concerns about intensifying U.S.-China competition and close ties between China and the Middle East are likely to continue to anchor U.S. involvement in the region. Israel, for its part, is expected to continue its strong lobbying efforts in Washington and European capitals to maintain strategic ties.
But the Venezuela episode shows that alliances based primarily on energy security can be fragile, and that foreign policy priorities can be suddenly reshaped by ideological and domestic political factors. Therefore, Middle Eastern countries need to pursue a coordinated diplomatic strategy. This means engaging with the United States, where its interests are concentrated, while avoiding sudden changes driven by domestic political calculations.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
