Trump’s claims to Venezuelan oil are part of broader ‘resource imperialism’, experts say | Donald Trump

Donald Trump’s recent claims that the US should keep Venezuelan oil away from seized tankers are part of a broader belief in right-wing “resource imperialism”, experts say.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has increased pressure on Venezuela. calling drug trafficking allegations This month, the United States stopped two tankers carrying Venezuelan oil and began pursuing a third, intensifying its campaign against the country’s president, Nicolás Maduro.

Critics compared the attack to the Iraq war, citing a familiar mix of regime change rhetoric, security excuses and oil interests. This month, the Trump administration labeled fentanyl, which it said came from Venezuela, a “weapon of mass destruction.”

On Monday, Trump suggested that oil seized from Venezuela could be considered a US asset. “Maybe we’ll sell it, maybe we’ll keep it” he told reporters. “Maybe we can use it in strategic reserves. We also keep the ships.”

These remarks echo Trump’s previous statements in which he repeatedly called for the United States to seize oil from other countries; This demonstrates a broader belief that US power gives it the authority to control or extract resources from other states.

“The Administration’s global energy policy is mostly about using threats of violence or withholding aid to secure inputs into a ‘many of the above’ energy strategy,” said Patrick Bigger, co-director of the Transition Security Project, a research initiative focused on the climate and geopolitical concerns of militarization. This strategy only excludes solar and wind.

The Guardian has contacted the White House for comment.

Trump’s belief in what Bigger calls “resource imperialism” emerged during his first presidential campaign. He later repeatedly argued that the United States should not have started the Iraq war, but should have bought the country’s oil as compensation for the cost of the conflict.

“You win the war and you take it,” he told ABC in 2015. “You don’t steal anything… We pay our own expenses.”

He expanded on this argument the following year: “If we had taken the oil, there would be no ISIS, because ISIS was formed from the power and wealth of that oil,” he said at an NBC News forum.

He took a similar approach to resource extraction in Syria, tying the deployment of US troops to control of oil fields in the east.

“We have secured the oil and therefore a small number of US troops will remain in the area where the oil is, we will protect it and decide what to do with it in the future,” he said. in question In October 2019, he later added that Exxon Mobil could: lead the effort to tap resources.

The president tried to prevent other countries, especially Iran, from selling their own resources. Through a combination of sweeping sanctions and threats of military force, the administration has sought to cut off Iran’s revenue stream, framing it as a strategy to curb the country’s regional influence and nuclear ambitions.

“Any country or person purchasing ANY AMOUNT of OIL or PETROCHEMICALS from Iran will be subject to immediate Secondary Sanctions,” the President said in a post on Truth Social this year.

Beyond targeting other countries’ oil, Trump has sought to secure rare earth minerals from other countries that are vital for the production of batteries, cell phones, electric cars and weapons systems, even trying to strong-arm traditional U.S. allies to obtain them.

The president has long focused on Greenland, an autonomous region under Danish rule, and said earlier this year that the United States needed the island “very badly” for “national security and international security” reasons. In the face of the extraordinary threat shaking Denmark, Trump did not rule out using force to seize Greenland and this week appointed a special envoy to the region.

The island contains numerous deposits of cobalt, nickel, copper, lithium and other minerals, and the White House taken into account is taking a direct stake in the largest rare earth mining project. JD Vance warned earlier this year that China and Russia were “interested in minerals in the Arctic region”, saying: “We must ensure that America is the leader in the Arctic, because if we don’t other countries will fill the void.”

Meanwhile, in April, the Trump administration struck a deal with Ukraine that gave the United States privileged access to the country’s minerals and uranium in exchange for continued military support against Russia’s ongoing occupation.

When Trump is not demanding resources directly for the United States, he has actively propagated for increased use of fossil fuels by his ostensible allies. In September, Trump called on Britain to open the North Sea to more oil drilling and criticized the British government for “making it impossible for people to drill.”

That same month, the US president expanded on a worldview dominated by fossil fuels in a discursive and often fact-free speech at the UN, warning countries that “if they don’t get rid of this green hoax, your country will fail.”

He added: “If you want to be great again you need strong borders and traditional energy sources.”

Adam Hanieh, a development expert and author of Crude Capitalism: Oil, Corporate Power, and the Making of the World Market, said the “elephant in the room” in Trump’s quest to seize foreign resources has increased tensions with China. The US-China rivalry is “pushing the US to assert control over various energy and industrial supply chains.” he said.

Hanieh added that this was a playbook followed by previous administrations.

“I think the difference between Trump and other US administrations is mostly tone,” he said. “Previous administrations maintained the same strategic control over energy, minerals and transit, but disguised it under multilateralism and ‘market stability,’ while Trump speaks directly to the exploitative logic.”

Trump’s approach is “essentially resource nationalism,” according to Alice Hill, an energy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations and former climate and national security adviser in Barack Obama’s White House.

“He sees fossil fuel dominance as the key to our national power and doesn’t care about international norms or what climate science says,” Hill said.

“This is very unfortunate, given the clear need for rapid decarbonisation. This is a short-term gamble that will cost everyone dearly. It makes a disastrous mistake for current and future generations who will have to deal with climate change.”