PNN – Contrary to what American analyses claim, the main threat to global energy security and trade is not Venezuela, not Iran, and not the “shadow fleet,” but America’s aggressive and unilateral foreign policy.
The analyses being published these days in American media and think tanks regarding escalating maritime pressure on Venezuela are, more than a description of geopolitical realities, a reflection of an old and dangerous mentality in American foreign policy; a mentality that calls intervention, blockade, and seizure of others’ property not aggression, but “law enforcement.” The seizure of the Venezuelan oil tanker “Skipper” and the effective declaration of an oil blockade on Caracas are presented in Washington’s narrative as a legitimate action to confront the Maduro regime, but in reality, it is a clear example of the militarization of sanctions and a return to the logic of 19th-century maritime colonialism.
The American think tank “Foundation for Defense of Democracies” wrote in its recent report: “America is blockading sanctioned oil tankers in Venezuela. Iran also deserves the same treatment.” The main danger of this narrative is not only directed at Venezuela. The authors of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies openly declare that this model can also be used against other countries. In other words, what is happening today in Caribbean waters is a field exercise for a scenario that may be pursued tomorrow in the Persian Gulf or the Sea of Oman.
The Spectacle of “Law Enforcement” and the Reality of State Piracy
The American narrative attempts to define the seizure of tankers within the framework of “sanctions enforcement” and “fighting smuggling,” but this framework is severely flawed from the perspective of international law. America’s unilateral sanctions, even if legitimate from Washington’s viewpoint, lack binding legal backing at the international level. No United Nations Security Council resolution has given America the authority to seize ships in international waters or the territorial waters of other countries.
What America is doing is not law enforcement, but the imposition of will through military force. There is a fundamental difference between combating piracy and piracy itself, and when a military power confiscates the property of an independent country without international authorization, it precisely assumes the position of the very pirate it claims to be fighting.
Read more:
The Collapse of American Hegemony from Within, as Narrated by John Mearsheimer
Militarization of Sanctions; a Dangerous Crossing of Red Lines
Sanctions in the classical literature of international relations are considered an economic and diplomatic tool, but what America is pursuing regarding Venezuela is the transformation of sanctions into a direct military instrument. The deployment of aircraft carriers, destroyers, and marine units alongside the seizure of oil tankers clearly shows that Washington has moved beyond the phase of economic pressure and entered a phase of informal military blockade.
This trend has consequences beyond Venezuela. If any country can endanger international shipping lanes citing its own internal sanctions, the foundation of global trade collapses. Energy security, which is the lifeline of the global economy, becomes a tool in the hands of military powers; a trend that will lead above all to instability and widespread conflict.
The Narrative of an “Illegitimate Regime”; a Tool to Justify Intervention
In American analysis, Venezuela is presented not as an independent state but as the “Maduro regime”; a label with a specific function: delegitimization to justify pressure, sanctions, and ultimately intervention. This pattern has been employed previously in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and even Iran.
America appoints itself as the judge of governments’ legitimacy, without regard to election results, internal legal structures, or the principle of national sovereignty. This is while many of America’s allies in the region and the world lack minimum democratic standards but never face such pressures. The criterion for legitimacy is not the people’s vote, but the degree of obedience to Washington.
Oil as a Lifeline; Economic War against the People
American analysis explicitly states that cutting off oil exports can lead to the “financial collapse of the Maduro regime.” What is intentionally overlooked is the fact that economic collapse, first and foremost, targets the lives of ordinary people. Sanctions and an oil blockade pressure not political elites, but workers, patients, the elderly, and children.
The experience of Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela has shown that economic war is not a tool to change governments’ behavior, but a weapon for the collective punishment of nations. America, fully aware of these consequences, continues on this path and then attributes the resulting humanitarian crisis to “internal mismanagement.”
Shadow Fleet; a Consequence of Sanctions, Not an Inherent Crime
One of the focal points of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank’s analysis is its focus on the “shadow fleet”; a network of ships operating to circumvent sanctions. But the fundamental question is: If illegal sanctions did not exist, would such a fleet have formed? The shadow fleet is a direct product of America’s sanctions policies. When official trade routes are closed, the global economy shifts to informal routes. America first blocks legal channels and then presents the inevitable result as a “security threat.” This is a vicious cycle that is consciously reproduced.
Venezuela as a Laboratory; Iran as the Ultimate Target
The most dangerous part of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies analysis is where it explicitly speaks of “modeling for Iran.” This admission shows that Washington’s goal is not merely pressure on Venezuela, but establishing a new precedent for dealing with independent countries.
If the seizure of a Venezuelan oil tanker becomes normalized, tomorrow the seizure of ships from other countries, including Iran, will be justified with the same logic. This trend severely threatens the security of the Persian Gulf and could place the world on the brink of direct maritime confrontation. The responsibility for such a situation lies directly with policymakers who have chosen force over diplomacy.
The Illusion of Efficacy; the Failed Experience of Sanctions
American analysis assumes that blockade and seizure will ultimately lead to political surrender. This assumption has repeatedly failed in practice. Neither crippling sanctions against Iran led to regime change, nor the blockade of Cuba, nor maximum pressure against Venezuela.
What has changed is not the behavior of governments, but the level of distrust of nations towards America. Sanctions have led to the strengthening of resilient economies, the expansion of South-South cooperation, and reduced dependence on the Western financial system; a trend that, in the long term, weakens America’s position.