VI Energy Politics & Supply SecurityAmericas
A former Costa Rican minister says oil drove the Venezuela intervention
- Institution
- Latinoamérica21
- Author
- Ottón Solís
- Country · language
- Latin America (Costa Rica) · Spanish / English
- Affiliation
- Independent commentary platform
Summary
Ottón Solís, Costa Rica's former minister of planning and economic policy, a former member of parliament and a faculty member at IE University, argues in a piece published by Latinoamérica21 on 4 October 2026 that economic interest, and oil in particular, lies behind the official justifications for military interventions. He traces the line back to the Spanish conquest and the Fourth Crusade of 1202–1204, with stops at the Carter Doctrine of 1980 and a former Fed chairman's 2007 remark that the Iraq war was largely about oil. In his view, after the Second World War 'bringing democracy' became the new justification, replacing religion and civilisation.
The weight of the piece falls on Venezuela. According to Solís, Donald Trump said on 3 January 2026, the day Nicolás Maduro was captured in a US military operation, that US troops would stay in the country because of oil. As evidence, the author cites the agreement announced on 28 August giving the US majority control over Venezuela's proven reserves of more than 65 billion barrels, and the White House's presentation of it as access at below-market prices. He also refers to a US State Department policy paper dated June 1950. Solís places Russia's actions in Georgia, Crimea, Donbas and Syria in the same pattern and calls for interests to be debated openly before any war.
Blind spot
What the West misses: the Venezuela deal the White House sells as energy dominance is read in Latin America as resource control dating back to the 1950s, which raises the political cost of US partnerships in the region. Weakness: the piece is more polemic than analysis; it does not document the 65 billion barrel figure or the below-market price claim against the agreement's text, nor discuss Venezuela's production capacity or investment needs.
Talay assessment
Bottom line
Solís's piece shows that US control over Venezuelan oil is debated in Latin America as a question of sovereignty rather than energy policy. If the claim of majority control over reserves of more than 65 billion barrels holds, governments in the region may become more cautious in energy and mining deals with the US. The most likely direction is criticism that stays rhetorical and does not change oil flows on the ground.
Likely effects
- Venezuelan oil supplyUncertain1–6 months
US majority control over reserves of more than 65 billion barrels takes decisions on who buys Venezuelan oil, and at what price, out of Caracas's hands.
- Regional politicsNegative6 months+
The spread of a narrative explaining intervention through oil makes resource deals with the US contentious in Latin American elections.
- Global oil balanceUncertain1–6 months
With disruption in Hormuz continuing, bringing Western Hemisphere reserves under US control strengthens Washington's hand in energy bargaining.
Possibilities, ranked
- 1Criticism stays rhetorical60%
Regional criticism continues, but governments do not cut economic ties with the US and Venezuelan oil flows are redirected to the US.
Watch: Data on Venezuelan crude exports to the US
- 2Regional backlash is institutionalised25%
Several Latin American governments formally criticise the deal and take it to a regional forum.
Watch: A statement at CELAC or OAS level on the Venezuelan oil deal
- 3The deal is renegotiated15%
Political pressure inside Venezuela leads to softer terms in the agreement.
Watch: An announcement of changes to the deal's price or share terms
Probabilities are calibrated judgement based on the sources, not measurement, and are revised as new information arrives. Not investment advice.
Original publication: latinoamerica21.com · 4 October 2026
This page summarises the institution's view and does not reflect the view of Talay Insight. No direct quotation is used.