Analysis of: Trump claims to have cancelled ‘previously expected’ second wave of attacks on Venezuela – US politics live
The Guardian | January 9, 2026
The US military operation to seize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro represents a stark example of imperialist intervention where the veneer of democracy promotion has been entirely stripped away, revealing naked resource extraction as the primary objective. President Trump's same-day meeting with executives from Exxon, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron—promising $100 billion in oil infrastructure investment—demonstrates the direct coordination between state military power and private capital accumulation that defines late-stage imperialism. The article reveals a convergence of class forces: the US state apparatus acting as the armed wing of fossil fuel capital, with domestic political elites and transnational oil corporations as primary beneficiaries. The Venezuelan working class and broader Global South populations bear the costs through resource extraction, political destabilization, and the precedent of military intervention as acceptable foreign policy. Pope Leo XIV's condemnation of nations 'using force to assert their dominion' and Italian Prime Minister Meloni's warnings about NATO consequences indicate fractures even within the traditional Western alliance over this openly coercive approach. Simultaneously, the domestic context shows an increasingly militarized state: two separate shootings by federal agents in Minneapolis and Portland within days, with officials immediately defending the killings despite contradictory video evidence. This parallel development reveals how the same state apparatus that projects violence abroad to secure capital interests deploys similar force domestically against working-class communities, particularly immigrants and those who might impede federal operations. The contradiction between democratic rhetoric and authoritarian practice sharpens both internationally and domestically.
Class Dynamics
Actors: US state apparatus (executive branch, military, DHS/ICE), Transnational oil corporation executives (Exxon, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron), Venezuelan state (Maduro government), Venezuelan working class and political prisoners, US working class (including immigrants targeted by ICE), Democratic Party opposition, International ruling classes (Pope, Italian PM), Russian state interests
Beneficiaries: Major oil corporations gaining access to Venezuelan reserves, US energy capital receiving state-subsidized market expansion, Trump administration gaining political capital from 'successful' operation, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and fossil fuel-aligned officials
Harmed Parties: Venezuelan population facing foreign control of national resources, Political prisoners used as bargaining chips, Immigrant communities in the US facing militarized enforcement, Victims of federal agent shootings (Renee Nicole Good, Portland couple), Global South nations facing precedent of intervention, International legal order and diplomatic norms
The state functions as an instrument of capital accumulation, with military force deployed explicitly to facilitate corporate investment. The closed-door White House meeting with oil executives immediately following military operations demonstrates the subordination of foreign policy to corporate interests. Domestically, federal agencies operate with apparent impunity, with the executive branch preemptively defending agent actions before investigations conclude, indicating a unified front between political and enforcement arms of the state against potential opposition.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Venezuelan oil reserves (among world's largest), $100 billion promised investment in oil/gas infrastructure, US energy dominance strategy, Sanctions enforcement and shadow fleet seizures, Control of Caribbean shipping lanes
The intervention restructures Venezuela's oil production from national ownership under Maduro to a model facilitating transnational corporate extraction. The promised 'rebuilding in a much bigger, better, and more modern form' of oil infrastructure signals capital-intensive development that benefits foreign investors over domestic workers. The seizure of the Russian-flagged tanker Marinera demonstrates enforcement of US control over global oil markets, punishing nations that trade outside US-dominated financial systems.
Resources at Stake: Venezuelan petroleum reserves, Caribbean maritime control, Global oil market dominance, Sanctions enforcement infrastructure, Precedent for future resource interventions (Greenland explicitly mentioned)
Historical Context
Precedents: US interventions in Latin America (Guatemala 1954, Chile 1973, Panama 1989), Iraq invasion and oil contracts, Libyan intervention and subsequent oil sector restructuring, Monroe Doctrine enforcement throughout 20th century, United Fruit Company era of corporate-backed interventions
This intervention continues the historical pattern of US imperialism in Latin America, but with notable departures. Previous interventions maintained plausible deniability through proxy forces, 'humanitarian' justifications, or democracy promotion narratives. Trump's explicit framing—linking military action directly to oil executive meetings—represents an abandonment of ideological cover that characterized Cold War and post-Cold War interventions. This signals a shift toward what might be termed 'naked imperialism' where military force for resource extraction requires no legitimizing discourse.
Contradictions
Primary: The contradiction between the stated international order (sovereignty, international law, post-WWII institutions) and actual US practice of unilateral military intervention for resource control. Pope Leo XIV and even NATO ally Italy explicitly identify this contradiction, suggesting it cannot be indefinitely sustained without fracturing existing alliance structures.
Secondary: Contradiction between 'releasing political prisoners' framing and coerced compliance under military threat, Contradiction between democratic rhetoric and domestic authoritarian enforcement (ICE killings), Contradiction between Trump's claimed 'peace' and maintaining naval armada for 'safety', Contradiction between US criticism of Russian aggression in Ukraine while conducting parallel interventions, Contradiction between 'self-defense' claims and video evidence in Minneapolis shooting
These contradictions may intensify rather than resolve. International criticism from allies (Italy) and moral authorities (Vatican) suggests legitimacy costs accumulating. Domestically, the parallel militarization of immigration enforcement creates potential for broader resistance as federal violence affects citizens (Renee Nicole Good was a US citizen). The explicit coordination between military action and corporate interests, normally obscured, may politicize resource extraction in ways that generate opposition. However, without organized working-class resistance, the trajectory favors consolidation of this model as successful precedent.
Global Interconnections
This intervention must be understood within the context of intensifying inter-imperial competition. The seizure of a Russian-flagged tanker, Russia's objections, and the subsequent diplomatic exchange reveal Venezuela as a node in broader US-Russia-China resource competition. Trump's references to Greenland and Taiwan in the same interview period suggest a coordinated strategy of asserting US dominance across multiple regions simultaneously. The explicit abandonment of international law as a constraint—what Trump calls governing by 'national strength and military power' rather than 'international norms or long-lasting alliances'—signals a transition in the world system. Domestically, the interconnection between foreign military intervention and internal militarization is crucial. The same week sees US forces seize a foreign head of state, federal agents kill a US citizen and shoot two others, and the administration uniformly defends all uses of force while attacking critics. This reveals the state's coercive apparatus operating coherently across borders—the violence required to maintain capital accumulation abroad and discipline at home emerging from the same institutional logic.
Conclusion
The Venezuela intervention represents a crystallization of contemporary imperialism stripped of its traditional ideological justifications. For working-class movements, this clarity presents both danger and opportunity. The danger lies in normalized military intervention and domestic militarization proceeding without effective opposition. The opportunity emerges from the visibility of the capital-state nexus: when oil executives meet at the White House hours after military operations secure their investments, the class character of state action becomes difficult to mystify. Building connections between anti-imperialist movements, immigrant rights organizing, and domestic labor struggles becomes essential as these manifestations of state violence share common origins in protecting capital accumulation against popular sovereignty both abroad and at home.
Editorial Note: This analysis applies a dialectical materialist framework to news events. It represents one interpretive perspective and should not be considered objective reporting.
AI-Assisted Analysis | Confidence: 91%