The US administration’s overt focus on accessing Venezuela’s oil and mineral wealth, alongside interest in Greenland’s rare earths, signals a strategic shift towards resource-centric geopolitics that challenges traditional diplomatic narratives and raises legal and stability concerns.
The capture of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and the US operation that preceded it have made plain what previous administrations masked in more palatable language: access ...
Continue Reading This Article
Enjoy this article as well as all of our content, including reports, news, tips and more.
By registering or signing into your SRM Today account, you agree to SRM Today's Terms of Use and consent to the processing of your personal information as described in our Privacy Policy.
to natural resources. According to India Today, the Trump administration has been unusually candid about its motive, with President Trump openly framing the intervention as a bid for Venezuela’s oil and mineral wealth rather than a narrow counter‑narcotics operation.
Trump’s public statements have cut through traditional diplomatic euphemisms. “The oil companies are going to go in. They are going to spend money. We are going to take back the oil that, frankly, we should have taken back a long time ago… A lot of money is coming out of the ground, we are going to be reimbursed for everything we spend,” he told reporters, and later asserted on Truth Social that “This oil will be sold at its market price, and that money will be controlled by me.” India Today reports he briefed oil executives ahead of the operation and said the interim Venezuelan government would transfer 30–50 million barrels to the United States.
Venezuela’s reserves are indeed vast. India Today cites figures showing Venezuela holds 303,221 million barrels of proved crude oil, roughly one‑fifth of global reserves, yet long‑standing sanctions and mismanagement have reduced its output to about 1.1% of world production. The immediate fiscal payoff in selling tens of millions of barrels would be modest relative to US public debt, India Today notes US federal debt at $38.4 trillion, but control over those reserves would carry strategic leverage beyond the raw dollar value. Renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs told India Today that the operation “was more about oil than drug trafficking” and characterised Mr Trump as “a maniac” who sees oil as something to be claimed.
The Venezuelan prize extends beyond hydrocarbons. India Today highlights the Guayana Shield’s deposits of gold, diamonds, iron ore, bauxite and rare earths, materials critical to advanced electronics and defence supply chains. US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters the administration wants to “reviv[e] Venezuela’s mining sector” and bring back “all the critical minerals.” That ambition forms part of a broader US strategic pivot to secure mineral supplies away from China, which has dominated rare earths processing and, until recent trade concessions, used export controls as leverage.
International coverage has placed these moves in a wider pattern. Reporting in The Guardian and S&P Global noted that Mr Trump’s overtures toward Greenland have been driven in large part by its estimated rare earth and other mineral endowments. The US Geological Survey estimates Greenland may hold about 1.5 million metric tonnes of largely untapped rare earths, according to S&P Global, though extraction faces formidable technical and climatic hurdles. Associated Press reporting shows senior US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, defending interest in Greenland and other strategic sites on national security grounds and citing Chinese activity in the Arctic and Latin America.
The administration’s rhetoric has at times been explicit about coercive options. Associated Press coverage in 2025 recorded Mr Trump refusing to rule out the use of military force to acquire Greenland and asserting control over the Panama Canal, prompting sharp rebuttals from Danish and Panamanian authorities and a firm public response from Greenland’s government. Greenlandic leader Múte B. Egede emphasised the territory’s desire to remain independent of any transfer of sovereignty, according to AP.
Observers warn that the transactional clarity of this approach, eschewing democracy‑promotion language in favour of resource realpolitik, risks intensifying global contestation over critical commodities. The Guardian argued that Mr Trump’s candid resource focus undercuts earlier narratives that packaged interventions as liberalising or stabilising missions. S&P Global analysts and industry commentators have pointed out the practical limits: Venezuela’s production remains depressed by years of decline, and Greenland’s reserves are costly to develop, meaning strategic control does not instantly translate into market dominance.
Legal and diplomatic complications are also substantial. Seizing or directly administering another sovereign state’s resources would confront international law, produce protracted resistance, and likely trigger economic and political blowback. Industry data and geopolitical analysts cited by S&P Global and The Guardian note that supply‑chain diversification from China is a long‑term undertaking that requires investment, partnerships and stable governance, conditions that forcible acquisition is unlikely to foster.
The policy thus reflects a high‑stakes gamble: consolidate access to hydrocarbon and mineral wealth now, and accept the diplomatic costs and technical hurdles later. India Today records Mr Lutnick’s promise to “fix” Venezuela’s mining history and Mr Trump’s triumphalist declarations; The Guardian and S&P Global underline the strategic logic driving interest in Greenland and other mineral‑rich territories. Whether the administration can convert rhetoric into sustainable supply security without triggering wider instability remains the central question confronting policymakers and markets.
Source: Noah Wire Services
