Yes it is.
> But Trump has also made his desire for Venezuelan oil clear. He said that the blockade of sanctioned oil tankers going to and from the country would remain “until such time as they return to the United States all of the oil, land, and other assets that they stole from us.” He did not clarify what land and “other assets” he was referring to.
> In a social media post, Miller also characterized the expropriations as an injustice against the US. “American sweat, ingenuity and toil created the oil industry in Venezuela,” wrote. “Its tyrannical expropriation was the largest recorded theft of American wealth and property.”
> And in a 2023 speech, Trump was even more pointed about his designs on the country’s oil. “When I left, Venezuela was ready to collapse,” he said, referring to the end of his first term in the White House. “We would have taken it over, we would have gotten all that oil, it would have been right next door.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-17/trump-s-v...
“Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America. It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before — Until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us.”
This along with other direct quotes from officials is what led me to the conclusion that, yes, oil is a large factor.
The problem is that you can't cherry-pick quotes from this administration and use them as a source of truth like you could with previous administrations.
Especially from Mr. Trump, who says something and then an hour later states the opposite. (See his record on solar, electric vehicles, various personnel and congressmen.) Keeping people guessing is part of this administration's strategy, and is inherited from how he did business.
US even mastermind amd helped overthrowned Iranian elected government and then only recently admitted and apologized to that but the damaged already done [2].
[1] The real reason Venezuela matters [video]:
[2]1953 Iranian coup d'état:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
Anyway be clear, I'm talking about this administration. Specifically their choice to invade Venezuela and capture their head of state, while simultaneously pardoning the ex-Honduran head of state who was convicted for the exact same thing. When I say inconsistent, I mean: they are saying (vocally and militarily) that they are anti-drug cartel, but also they are apparently pro-some-cartels? It makes no sense to me.
I agree that tariffs and economic sanctions are similar. But tariffs are in theory targeted at economic conduct that affects us. While sanctions are used to police the moral behavior of other countries, which I don’t support.
There's no need to really fight with the Venezuelan government over this, unless Venezuela decided that they'd rather leave the oil in the ground.
This is a super small niche, with oil margins constantly getting squeezed around the world it'd probably be tricky to convince anyone to significantly scale up production in Venezuela even if the US lifted all sanctions and whatnot.
Apparently a lot.
> The 2003 Iraq War, initiated as a U.S. unilateral action, has also been viewed through the lens of economic interests, particularly oil access. Following the conflict, significant American business opportunities arose, notably through contracts with oil companies to exploit Iraqi oil fields, marking the end of Iraq’s long-standing oil nationalization policy. Technological advancements were another key economic byproduct of these wars; innovations developed for military use often transitioned into civilian applications, influencing various sectors.
> Additionally, a trend towards privatization emerged, as private firms undertook roles traditionally held by the military, further intertwining the defense industry with the economy. This shift raised ethical concerns and sparked debate regarding the implications of privatizing military functions. Overall, the Iraq wars illustrate the complex intersection of military action, resource control, and economic interests within American foreign policy.
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jan/03/caracas-e...
Yes, US foreign policy is connected to oil. It's not just about control but price.
"War for oil" is always the easy go-to to criticize any American military action, even in countries that don't have oil.
And while Venezuela has oodles of oil, is this really the case of America wanting Venezuelan oil?
America has more oil than it knows what to do with, and because of that, prices are so low that there are lots of newspaper articles about how American oil companies have dramatically slowed exploration and production. Plus, even under the current administration, America is using more and more renewable energy sources (some states now get more than 50% of their energy from wind/solar).
With the whole Chevron situation, I'm willing to think that oil may play a role here, but again the "war for oil" seems like nothing more than a convenient slogan for a high schooler's protest sign.