Earlier, Trump said the US would leave Iran “whether we have a deal or not” and stated that it could “finish the job” within “two or three weeks.”

Data from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries shows Venezuela holds the world’s biggest proven reserves, estimated at more than 303 billion barrels. Iran ranks third with about 208 billion barrels, behind only Saudi Arabia.

On paper, the U.S. military actions against these two countries were justified differently.

In Venezuela , Washington accused President Nicolás Maduro of leading a drug cartel and repeatedly portrayed the country as a source of deadly narcotics entering the U.S. Officials also described Maduro as responsible for mass migration into the U.S. and accused his government of exploiting American oil interests.

Iran , meanwhile, was framed as a security threat. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Washington knew Israeli action was imminent and that the U.S. had to act “pre-emptively” against expected Iranian attacks on American forces.

But both countries also sit on vast oil reserves at a time when the U.S. remains heavily dependent on crude.

The U.S. consumes about 20.6 million barrels of oil a day. Roughly 40 percent of that — about 9.1 million barrels — is used to power motor vehicles. The country imports around half of its daily crude supply, more than 10 million barrels a day.

Will Trump do to Iran what he did with Venezuela?

In late February, U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran triggered the most serious regional crisis in years. The attacks killed Iran’s Supreme Leader and targeted military and strategic sites across the country, drawing Tehran into direct confrontation with Washington and its allies.

Iran is not only a regional power but also one of the world’s largest oil producers. Any disruption to its energy sector reverberates through global markets.

At the same time, Washington has moved to rebuild Venezuela’s oil industry with the help of American firms.

The U.S. Department of State said the Trump administration has issued a series of licences allowing U.S. companies to market Venezuelan oil, supply essential production inputs and repair the country’s ageing oil infrastructure.

One licence authorises firms incorporated in the U.S. to market Venezuelan crude to buyers around the world, including largely in the U.S. Payments must be made on commercial terms and deposited into accounts in the U.S. overseen by the State and Treasury departments.

Other licences allow U.S. companies to sell diluent needed to produce Venezuela’s heavy crude and to provide equipment and services for the oil and gas sector. Additional authorisations permit negotiations on new upstream investment projects.

Washington has said the measures are designed to rebuild Venezuela’s energy sector after years of instability and mismanagement.

The State Department said revenues from the oil trade will be handled transparently and used for the benefit of the Venezuelan people, while the investments are intended to help modernise the country’s energy infrastructure.

U.S. officials have also framed the policy in terms of energy security.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said Venezuela — once heavily sanctioned — is becoming a “ strategic ally ” with the world’s largest oil reserves. Venezuelan crude, he said, could help stabilise fuel prices in the U.S. and reduce vulnerability to disruptions elsewhere.

Venezuela’s state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., has already signed new contracts to supply crude and refined products to refineries along the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Taken together, the developments place the world’s largest oil consumer closer to two of the biggest oil reserves on earth — one through renewed energy ties in its own hemisphere, the other amid escalating conflict in the Middle East.

The assessment, dated 29 January, identifies the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group and supporting assets as having "removed a key constraint that previously limited Washington's ability to act", making the threat of intervention "materially more credible" than earlier in the month.

Any strikes would likely target military and nuclear facilities rather than attempt to overthrow the Iranian government, with probable targets including Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps installations, missile and drone infrastructure, air defence systems, command centres, and potentially nuclear-linked facilities.

The warning comes as Iran faces what the assessment describes as "its most serious internal security crisis in several years", following nationwide protests that erupted on 28 December in response to severe economic deterioration. What began as demonstrations over economic grievances rapidly escalated into direct challenges to government authority.

Ending the blackout

The most violent phase of the crackdown occurred on 8-9 January during a nationwide internet shutdown, when security forces used live ammunition in multiple cities. Whilst exact death tolls remain impossible to verify independently, activist networks, medical sources and diaspora groups commonly cite figures ranging from several thousand to tens of thousands killed, with some estimates exceeding 30,000 deaths nationwide during January.

The assessment notes these figures should be treated cautiously but states there is "broad agreement that casualty levels are significantly higher than in recent protest cycles and that lethal force was used systematically".

A critical factor in the intervention timeline is Iran's partial restoration of internet connectivity, which began on 28 January. Intelligence analysts expect this will result in the rapid release of previously suppressed footage and testimony documenting the killings, particularly from the deadliest period.

"Once this material circulates, it is likely to intensify international outrage and domestic political pressure on the US administration, narrowing the space for continued restraint," the assessment states.

US options narrow

US President Donald Trump issued a public warning on 2 January that the United States would intervene if Iranian authorities killed protesters, introducing explicit external pressure into the crisis. The assessment suggests this has created "a difficult strategic corner" for the president.

"He has publicly framed the crisis as one involving mass repression and has repeatedly signalled that the United States would not stand by if protesters were killed," the document notes. "Earlier arguments for caution, notably limited US assets in the region, no longer apply."

The assessment warns that symbolic measures alone, such as statements, condemnations or incremental sanctions , are "unlikely to be viewed as sufficient", significantly raising the probability that Washington will demonstrate resolve through action.

Iran's deterrence strategy

Iran is expected to emphasise deterrence whilst attempting to avoid moves that would immediately justify a large-scale American strike. This includes heightened rhetoric, internal hardening and proxy signalling designed to widen the perceived cost of intervention.

However, the assessment warns that if Iran is struck first or judges an attack is underway, direct responses including missile or drone strikes on American bases, naval assets or regional partners "become much more likely, not just plausible".

Most likely Iranian retaliation targets include US military bases across the Gulf, particularly Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar and facilities in Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain and potentially the UAE and Turkey. Direct retaliation against Israel is also considered a realistic possibility if Tehran perceives Israeli involvement.

Senior Iranian clerics have warned that American-linked investments in the region could become targets, signalling a willingness to expand beyond purely military objectives to economic pressure points.

The Houthis in Yemen remain one of Iran's most effective tools for applying pressure, with their ability to threaten maritime traffic in the Red Sea allowing Tehran to impose economic disruption without direct confrontation. The assessment notes that even the threat of renewed Houthi activity can disrupt shipping routes, raise insurance premiums and affect global supply chains.

Regional implications

The document warns that Iran-aligned militias in Iraq represent "Tehran's most flexible and immediately usable response option", having already issued warnings they would act if Iran is attacked. However, even limited attacks on American facilities could prompt swift retaliation, potentially drawing Iraq into wider confrontation.

Hezbollah in Lebanon has publicly aligned itself with Tehran but appears constrained by Lebanon's economic struggles and the risk of overwhelming Israeli retaliation. The assessment notes that Hezbollah's involvement "would mark a sharp transition from contained escalation to regional conflict ".

Gulf Cooperation Council states are expected to seek to avoid involvement or visible enablement of American strikes, though heightened force protection measures, airspace restrictions and operational disruption are likely. The assessment references strikes last year involving both Israel and Iran on Qatari territory as having demonstrated that Gulf states are not insulated from escalation.

Cities Under Siege

Inside Iran, Tehran remains the centre of gravity for both political control and security operations, with checkpoints, patrols and rapid-response units highly visible throughout the capital. Mashhad, Iran's second-largest city and a key religious and transport hub, has emerged as a major pressure point, with protests met with firm enforcement even in this traditionally conservative area.

Western Kurdish-majority regions, including Sanandaj and surrounding areas, remain among the most volatile, with security operations particularly heavy and marked by frequent confrontations and heavier weapons use.

The assessment concludes that the risk of miscalculation is elevated, noting that proxy activity, maritime disruption or incidents involving American forces "could quickly escalate beyond Tehran's intended thresholds, particularly once US assets are forward-positioned and operating at high readiness".

In the decree announcing the mourning period, Díaz-Canel said the personnel were carrying out missions on behalf of Cuba’s Revolutionary Armed Forces and Ministry of the Interior, at the request of Venezuelan institutions. He stated that those killed died either in direct combat or as a result of bombardments on facilities, describing their actions as a reflection of Cuba’s longstanding policy of international solidarity.

Venezuelan authorities said the Cuban personnel were operating within the framework of cooperation between sovereign states, performing institutional protection and defence duties. Media reports indicate that the wider US attacks in the Venezuelan states of Miranda, La Guaira and Aragua have left at least 80 people dead, including both civilians and military personnel, further intensifying regional and international scrutiny of the operation.

“Donald Trump has ushered in a new world order where the military might prevail over rule of law and respect for an independent country’s sovereignty,” he said, arguing that the seizure of a foreign leader by force placed the US in the same category as the powers it routinely condemns.

Julian Borger, a senior international correspondent at The Guardian, described the strikes and abduction as a devastating blow to global norms. 

“The overnight strikes on Venezuela, the abduction of its leader, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, and Donald Trump’s declaration that the US would ‘run’ the country and sell its oil, have driven another truck through international law and global norms,” he wrote .

For Mogato, the implications extend far beyond Venezuela, and complicates Washington’s stance in criticising Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine or Beijing’s potential use of force against Taiwan. 

“Washington has lost its moral ascendancy after launching military operations in Caracas and grabbed its leader, Nicolas Maduro,” he said.

What’s the real purpose?

Hours after Maduro’s removal, the US president said his administration was ready to fix Venezuela’s oil industry and sell its output. 

Borger said Trump had made clear he was “more covetous of Venezuela’s oil than motivated by a desire to bring Maduro before a court, or deliver democracy.”

He cited US analyst David Rothkopf, who labelled the shift the “Putinization of US foreign policy ”, noting that Moscow has long argued that great powers are entitled to dominate their neighbourhoods by force.

Despite just days after the operation, Mogato said the consequences were already visible. 

“The world has become more dangerous and chaotic in 2026,” he said, describing a landscape in which “stronger states imposed their will on smaller and weaker states.”

Borger warned that anxiety would not be confined to Latin America , pointing to Trump’s recent threats against Iran, Greenland and Cuba. Events in Venezuela, he said, would “cause immediate anxiety” among governments that now fear they could be next.

How the regional drug trade works

Colombia remains the world's largest producer and exporter of cocaine, with an estimated 80% of the global supply originating within its borders.

The nature of the illicit industry has evolved over the years, challenging the efforts of local and international law enforcement

Fentanyl vs. cocaine

Another key point missing in the discussions, and especially Donald Trump's misleading claim that each drug boat destroyed saves 25,000 American lives, is that the drugs causing America's crisis are not coming from South America. Fentanyl, produced mainly in Mexico, not cocaine, originating in Colombia and Venezuela, is the most lethal substance.

And indeed, the crisis did not begin with drug gangs. Americans were hooked by their own big businesses as pharmaceutical companies co-opted doctors to prescribe highly addictive opiates. As Jorge Rodriguez, president of Venezuela's National Assembly, put it: "If they (the USA) want to bomb something, they should bomb the headquarters of Perdue Pharma."

Maduro and the "Cartel of the Suns"

The Trump administration has labelled President Maduro the "drug dealer in chief," alleging he heads an organisation known as the "Cartel of the Suns." While the Maduro government certainly has links to the drug trade, describing it as a centrally commanded, organised cartel is misleading.

The Venezuelan state is characterised by extensive corruption, with local officials and governors taking cuts from the trade. And the links between the Venezuelan government and transnational crime groups are well documented.

However, the US government's actions - such as the recent pardoning of former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted of drug trafficking in the US- underscore that the real issue is that Maduro is an ideological foe of the administration, not necessarily a unique threat in the drug trade.

Drugs as a livelihood

Much of the debate around the attacks on boats has centred around the question of whether those on board were drug traffickers or simple fishermen. It's impossible to know, but the difference is also not as stark as it might seem. In poor coastal regions, the drug trade is a significant part of the economy, along with agriculture and fishing.

Under most legal codes, a drug dealer or a fisherman would have the same status in law unless convicted in court: innocent.

This is where Colombian president Gustavo Petro, not a natural ally of Maduro, meets his neighbour ideologically. Both argue that the law is being ignored, and their citizens have lost their right to a trial.

Next steps

The US seizure of an oil tanker off the Venezuelan coast marks a significant escalation in the pressure exerted on Maduro. And while the Venezuelan president has already offered to resign, his terms were clearly not acceptable in Washington. Tensions are set to rise, and the people of Colombia and Venezuela, regardless of any links to the drug trade, will feel more pain.

Click here to watch our previous episodes

World Reframed is produced in London by Global South World, part of the Impactum Group. Its editors are Duncan Hooper and Ismail Akwei.

ISSN 2978-4891

Venezuela’s human rights crisis continues to deepen as NGO Foro Penal confirmed that the number of political prisoners has risen to 875, marking one of the highest tallies in recent years. The organisation reported a surge in detentions targeting opposition figures, student activists, journalists, and civil society members. Analysts say this reflects a renewed campaign to suppress dissent and intimidate political movements ahead of upcoming electoral milestones. Human rights advocates warn that the trend showcases the government’s intent to maintain tight control over political life.

HRW calls for international pressure

Human Rights Watch issued a strong condemnation of conditions inside Venezuelan detention facilities, accusing authorities of intensifying the isolation and mistreatment of political detainees. According to HRW, prisoners are being held incommunicado, denied medical care, and subjected to psychological intimidation and overcrowded cells. The rights organisation urged foreign governments, particularly in the Americas and Europe, to increase diplomatic pressure on President Nicolás Maduro’s administration and pursue accountability measures through international legal channels.

US Military activity heightens

Geopolitical tensions continue to escalate as the United States boosts its military presence in the Caribbean as part of an effort to disrupt what Washington describes as Venezuelan-linked narcotrafficking networks. The move forms part of a broader strategy to pressure the Maduro government and counter regional security threats. Venezuela's leadership has denounced the deployment as provocative and politically motivated, while observers warn that rising military posturing raises the risk of miscalculation in an already volatile regional environment.

Machado’s Nobel Peace Prize

Opposition leader María Corina Machado’s Nobel Peace Prize recognition sparked cautious celebration worldwide, yet public reaction inside Venezuela remained subdued. Citizens and activists largely refrained from public gatherings or displays of support, citing fears of retaliation by security forces and pro-government groups. The restrained mood underscores the climate of surveillance and repression that persists despite international attention and recognition of Venezuela’s democratic opposition.

Regional activists criticise Nobel award to Machado

Machado’s Nobel Prize also sparked sharp criticism from regional left-leaning organisations and social movements, particularly in Latin America. Critics argue that her political stance and alliances align with conservative agendas and do not represent transformative peace-building values. While international institutions hailed her role in advocating for democratic freedoms, detractors insist the award overlooks Venezuela’s complex political landscape and risks reinforcing ideological polarisation in the region.