Related videos:
The narrative that the United States wants to "steal Venezuela's oil" has once again taken center stage in the official discourse of Havana and Caracas following the launch of Operation 'Southern Spear', the current naval and aerial deployment by Washington in the Caribbean.
The military movement, under the command of Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), includes warships, aircraft carriers, and surveillance aircraft aimed at strengthening drug control and regional security.
However, neither the available data nor the official U.S. documents support the accusation of an imperialist plan.
The facts and strategies declared by the government of Donald Trump aim at a policy focused on curbing drug trafficking, limiting Russian and Iranian influence in the region, and pushing for a democratic transition in Venezuela, rather than the appropriation of the South American country's energy resources.
The propaganda of Havana and the old theory of "imperialism"
In recent weeks, figures from the Cuban regime such as Miguel Díaz-Canel, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, and officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MINREX) have intensified their rhetoric regarding an alleged "aggression" from Washington against Venezuela.
According to those statements, the "real" objective of U.S. operations would be to "seize the oil and natural resources" of the country and “forcibly overthrow the constitutional government of Nicolás Maduro.”
On his official X account (formerly Twitter), Díaz-Canel called for “international mobilization to prevent aggression” and to “preserve the Latin American Zone of Peace.”
Rodríguez Parrilla went further, stating that the so-called 'Cartel of the Suns' is "a fabrication of the United States government to justify violent actions and seize Venezuelan oil."
The MINREX, for its part, published a statement in which it accused Washington of preparing "a military action" against Caracas, in order to "install a subordinate government" and "put Venezuelan oil at the disposal of the United States."
That script is not new. It is the same anti-imperialist rhetoric that Havana has used for over six decades: blaming the United States and its "imperialist" economic interests for any conflict, and portraying its allies—in this case, chavismo—as victims of a foreign conspiracy.
What do the official documents from the U.S. really say?
The reports and public statements from the State Department, the White House, and the U.S. Congress show a different reality.
According to the Integrated Country Strategy for Venezuela, covering the period 2024–2025, Washington's policy is based on a comprehensive vision that combines the defense of democracy with regional stability.
The document states that the central purpose of the U.S. action is to contribute to restoring the rule of law and democratic institutions, while reinforcing support for civil society and human rights defenders.
It also emphasizes the need to curb the influence of criminal groups and drug trafficking networks that operate both inside and outside of Venezuela, which are considered a direct threat to hemispheric security.
Additionally, it incorporates a humanitarian component: addressing the social and migratory crisis caused by the country's collapse, and strengthening regional cooperation to prevent Venezuelan instability from extending beyond its borders.
On the contrary, the United States has maintained a regime of severe sanctions since 2017 that prevents its own companies from doing business with the Maduro government or with Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA).
Even the BOLÍVAR Law, approved in 2024 by Congress, prohibits the Executive from signing contracts with companies that have ties to the chavista regime.
In other words: Washington not only does not seek to take ownership of Venezuelan oil, but has explicitly renounced any economic benefit derived from that relationship as long as the country remains under authoritarian control.
Oil is no longer the prize
The myth of "oil looting" overlooks an evident fact: the Venezuelan industry is technically collapsed. Lack of maintenance, corruption, brain drain, and international sanctions have reduced production to historic lows.
Today, a large portion of Venezuelan oil is traded irregularly, through triangulations with Iran, Russia, or China, in opaque conditions and without benefits for the population.
Far from intervening to seize those resources, the United States has focused its policy on preventing oil from financing criminal or terrorist networks.
The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) supervises every transaction related to PDVSA, and any U.S. company that violates those sanctions faces severe criminal and economic penalties.
A historical precedent: Iraq and the myth of "energy imperialism"
The same argument was used against Washington after the invasion of Iraq in 2003: that the United States wanted to seize Iraqi oil. But twenty years later, the facts proved otherwise.
According to data from the Ministry of Oil of Iraq and the International Energy Agency (IEA), the legal and operational control of Iraqi crude oil remained in the hands of the State through public companies such as Basra Oil Company and North Oil Company, overseen by the state-owned SOMO (State Oil Marketing Organization).
Regarding foreign participation, the largest volumes of current production come from consortia led by Chinese and Russian companies, not American ones.
Reports from the specialized portal Iraq Oil Report and the consulting firm Wood Mackenzie confirm that PetroChina and the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) currently operate the Ahdab and Halfaya fields, while the Russian company Lukoil controls West Qurna 2, one of the largest in the country.
In contrast, ExxonMobil and BP, the two major Western companies that arrived after the 2003 invasion, have gradually reduced their presence since 2020 due to financial and security reasons.
In recent years, the presence of major Western oil companies in Iraq has significantly decreased. ExxonMobil, which for over a decade operated the massive West Qurna 1 field, transferred its main rights to PetroChina in 2024, as reported by the Chinese company itself.
BP has also reduced its direct involvement in projects in southern Iraq, restructuring its assets through local consortia.
This gradual withdrawal reflects a shift in balance within the sector: Asian capitals—particularly Chinese—and Russian companies have expanded their operational roles, while the Iraqi State, through SOMO and public companies like the Basra Oil Company, has strengthened its control over oil revenues and strategic decisions.
The case of Iraq is, therefore, an empirical example that the narrative of "oil imperialism" does not hold up when analyzing concrete results.
Applied to Venezuela, the parallel is evident: the United States is not seeking to control wells or exports, but rather to weaken the power of regimes allied with Russia and Iran in its own hemisphere.
Security and democracy: The true interests
The statements made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and President Trump himself align on one point: Venezuela is not an economic target, but rather a geopolitical and moral one.
The presence of Russia, Iran, and China in the Caribbean—especially in Venezuelan and Cuban ports—is seen as a direct threat to hemispheric security.
Therefore, the deployment of ships and aircraft in the region is currently based on a logic of pressure and deterrence, not invasion.
The U.S. strategy also relies on cooperation with democratic countries on the continent—Colombia, Panama, the Dominican Republic, and Costa Rica—to intercept drug trafficking routes and monitor hostile intelligence movements.
In the political sphere, Washington aims to oust the illegitimate and fraudulent government of Maduro, promote a peaceful transition in Venezuela, and restore sovereignty to the Venezuelan people, who predominantly voted for change by choosing Edmundo González Urrutia and María Corina Machado as the leaders of a much-desired democratic government.
Propaganda as a smokescreen
The Cuban regime knows that the narrative of "Yankee imperialism" continues to be effective among sectors that are wary of Washington. That's why they repeat it every time the United States takes action in the region.
However, beyond the ideological discourse, Cuba and Venezuela are facing profound internal crises: shortages, inflation, migration, censorship, and repression.
Blaming an external enemy is a classic mechanism of political distraction and social control.
Propaganda cannot withstand the evidence: The United States is not invading or intending to plunder Venezuela, nor is it solely seeking to benefit from its oil, despite the fact that American companies have legitimate interests in investing in that and other sectors of the country's economy.
Its stated objective —and verifiable in public documents— is to contain the expansion of authoritarian regimes allied with extra-hemispheric powers and to promote conditions for democratic recovery.
Attributing intentions of oil looting to Washington is to repeat a script written in the 1960s by Soviet propaganda and recycled by Havana and Caracas to justify their failures.
The data shows that the United States' policy towards Venezuela does not seek to “seize” anything: it aims to limit Russian and Iranian influence, combat drug trafficking, and support the Venezuelan people's right to determine their future.
Recent history, from Iraq to the Caribbean, confirms that the myth of "oil imperialism" is just that: a myth. And like all political myths, it serves those who propagate it, not those who endure it.
The regime's "anti-imperialist" narrative in Cuba is particularly hypocritical considering that Havana has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of Venezuelan oil for more than two decades, received at subsidized prices or even without direct payment, in exchange for its political, military, and intelligence cooperation.
Under this scheme, thousands of Cuban advisors have operated within the structures of Chavismo—from the citizen identification system to the security and repressive apparatuses—while the Venezuelan population has been deprived of the benefits of a transparent and fair commercialization of its natural resources.
Cuba, which accuses the United States of "energy imperialism," has sustained a significant part of its economy thanks to the unequal barter of oil for political control, a model that has enriched the elites of both regimes and impoverished the citizens of Venezuela.
In this context, the discourse from Havana regarding the supposed American plundering is nothing more than survival demagoguery, a desperate attempt to externalize the blame for its own dependency and the internal exploitation it has helped to perpetuate.
Filed under: