Washington, Jan 9 — President Donald Trump has framed the U.S. intervention in Venezuela not as a limited military operation but as the opening move in a broader economic and geopolitical recalibration, with control over oil resources at its core. In public remarks following the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, Trump made clear that Washington’s involvement would be long-term, signaling consequences that extend well beyond Latin America.

In a televised interview on Fox News’ Hannity, Trump repeatedly emphasized oil as the central justification for the operation, describing Venezuela’s nationalization of American energy assets as a historical wrong now reversed. “They took the oil from us years ago,” Trump said. “We just took it back.”

The president claimed that U.S. authorities have already seized billions of dollars’ worth of Venezuelan crude under sanctions enforcement mechanisms, asserting that the operation is producing immediate economic returns. According to Trump, American energy companies are now preparing to rebuild Venezuela’s collapsed oil infrastructure, positioning the United States as the primary external actor shaping the country’s economic future.

Trump argued that restoring Venezuelan oil production would have global ramifications, particularly by easing pressure on energy markets. He linked U.S. foreign policy directly to oil prices, stating that increased supply would help lower costs worldwide—an assertion that underscores how closely the administration is tying geopolitical action to commodity economics.

While acknowledging that rebuilding Venezuela’s energy sector would take time, Trump suggested that U.S. involvement would remain open-ended. “We’re going to be there till we straighten out the country,” he said, signaling prolonged oversight rather than a rapid transition. On the question of elections, the president maintained that Venezuela is not yet capable of conducting credible polls, portraying the country as institutionally degraded after years of mismanagement.

Beyond economics, Trump presented the operation as a demonstration of deterrence. He said the removal of Maduro sent a clear message to governments across the region, particularly Cuba and Colombia, suggesting that decisive action in one country reshapes behavior elsewhere. “They saw what happened,” he said. “They’re treating us with great respect.”

Trump also framed the intervention as a domestic security success, accusing the former Venezuelan government of exporting crime and drugs to the United States. He claimed a dramatic reduction in maritime drug trafficking following the operation, asserting that U.S. forces had disrupted nearly all illicit seaborne routes. While no independent verification was offered for these figures, Trump repeatedly returned to the argument that military action paired with law enforcement had produced tangible security gains.

Describing the raid itself, Trump characterized it as high-risk but precisely executed, claiming U.S. forces entered heavily fortified areas, reached Maduro quickly, and exited without fatalities. While acknowledging injuries to helicopter pilots, he contrasted the operation with past U.S. military failures, citing Iran in 1980 and Afghanistan in 2021 as examples of what this mission avoided.

Notably, Trump declined to outline clear limits or conditions for further escalation, refusing to specify red lines or exit strategies. The absence of defined parameters has raised questions among analysts about the long-term implications of U.S. involvement, including congressional oversight, international law, and regional stability.

Taken together, Trump’s remarks suggest that Venezuela represents more than a single intervention. Instead, the episode signals a broader shift toward a foreign policy doctrine that openly links military power, economic assets, and geopolitical influence—one that may redefine how Washington asserts authority in an increasingly fragmented global order.