US President George W. Bush said he was invading Iraq to keep America safe. But critics saw a hidden motive: oil.
“No blood for oil!” became a global rallying cry, and Iraq’s president, Saddam Hussein, accused Bush of seeking “to control the Middle East oil”.
The Bush administration rejected the charge and was determined to refute it. After invading and occupying Iraq in March 2003, Bush officials were careful to leave Iraqis in control of their oil industry, and they never sought special treatment for American firms.
US presidents have long been accused of plotting to control foreign oil. But while the United States has built relationships and even intervened abroad for oil, it has never simply seized control of another country’s oil reserves.
“I can’t think of a military operation that the US engaged in to actually take oil from anybody,” said Richard Fontaine, the CEO of the Centre for a New American Security.
Until now.
Immediately after US forces captured Venezuela’s leader, Nicolas Maduro, in January, President Donald Trump announced plans to take control of the country’s oil industry.
Since then, Trump has forced Venezuela’s government to begin “turning over” as many as 50 million barrels for sale by the United States and is pressuring American firms to start drilling in the country, which sits on the world’s largest proven oil reserves.
“The people of the United States are going to be big beneficiaries,” Trump said. (Trump has also said that some oil revenue will be returned to Venezuela, but not how much.)
Venezuela’s parliament passed legislation in late January opening the country’s mostly state-run oil sector to more foreign investment, a decision critics note was made as US warships floated near Venezuela’s coast.
“You are taking their oil at gunpoint,” Democratic Senator Chris Murphy told Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a hearing in late January. Trump is selling “stolen oil”, Republican Representative Thomas Massie has charged.
Trump’s fixation with Venezuelan crude is somewhat puzzling, given that global oil prices are relatively low, and that the United States is now a net energy exporter no longer dependent on foreign oil supplies.
Despite that, analysts say that Trump is confirming some of the worst suspicions about US motives worldwide. He also risks infuriating ordinary Venezuelans, who could oppose American efforts to drill their oil – possibly with violence – and resist a political alignment with Washington.
“One lesson that emerged from Iraq,” said Meghan O’Sullivan, a former Bush administration official who worked closely on Iraq policy, “was how toxic the oil narrative can be – and how potent it can be in fomenting anti-Americanism.”
Critics say Trump’s plan revives bitter memories of colonial exploitation and flagrantly violates international law, including a 1974 UN resolution that asserts that every country has full rights to “all its wealth, natural resources and economic activities”.
In China, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Trump was “bullying” Venezuela to give up its oil. Spain joined with five Latin American countries, including Mexico and Brazil, in denouncing “the external appropriation” of Venezuela’s natural resources as illegal.
Trump has sought to turn the tables, charging that Venezuela “took our oil away from us” and “stole our assets” in 2007 when it increased state control over its oil industry and forced two of the three US companies operating in the country to abandon their projects at considerable expense.
Whether that is Trump’s true motivation is unclear. He has asserted a US right to “take the oil” from other countries, from Iraq to Syria to Libya, although he has not previously done so.
Blood for oil
In his 1980 State of the Union address, President Jimmy Carter made a dramatic declaration: America would fight a war for oil.
“Our excessive dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to our nation’s security,” Carter explained.
Thus, any attempt by an outside power to control the Persian Gulf and its oil “will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America”, and would “be repelled by any means necessary, including military force”.
The Carter Doctrine, as that position came to be known, was prompted by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan months earlier. US officials worried that Soviet troops might continue west, into the oil fields of neighbouring Iran.
That did not happen. But a decade later, the United States would launch its first oil war.
In August 1990, Iraq invaded its oil-rich neighbour Kuwait.
President George HW Bush quickly decided to respond with force, arguing that it was vital to defend global order.
But he did not hide his economic motive to free Kuwait’s oil fields from Saddam’s control.
“We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless,” Bush said.
His secretary of state, James Baker, explained why: “If you want to sum it up in one word, it’s ‘jobs’.”
After US forces liberated Kuwait, Bush made no effort to take control of any oil. He even declined grateful Kuwaiti offers of preferential treatment for American oil companies.
Iraq: WMD or oil?
Even so, when Bush’s son George W. invaded Iraq in 2003, many sceptics dismissed his main rationale – a false claim that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction – as a cover story for the secret goal of controlling Iraq’s oil.
Shifting explanations and misstatements from Bush administration officials invited doubts about their motives.
But experts say there is extensive evidence showing that US officials never tried to commandeer Iraq’s oil or win special treatment for American firms, and actually took steps to limit their own role in the country’s post-war oil industry.
“This idea that the war was meant to be a permanent oil grab is false,” said Emily Meierding, an assistant professor at the Naval Postgraduate School and the author of The Oil Wars Myth: Petroleum and the Causes of International Conflict.
American companies including Exxon Mobil did sign early contracts with the country’s new government. But high risks and disappointing results caused them to retreat. (Exxon Mobil recently signed a deal to return to Iraq.)
A lesson for Venezuela
The mere perception that America was stealing Iraq’s oil inflicted severe damage there, O’Sullivan said, helping to fuel a bloody insurgency against US forces and undermining public trust in Iraq’s US-backed government.
That might be a cautionary lesson for Trump.
US oil executives already say the risks and costs of doing business in Venezuela are daunting. Those obstacles could grow if Trump’s approach angers Venezuelans who might otherwise be sympathetic to the United States.
The Venezuelan people “are extremely sensitive to any perception of foreign exploitation”, Meierding said. “So they’re going to want their industry to revive, and they know they’ll need foreign investment. But they are not going to accept direct US control, at least for the long term.”
Meierding suggested what may be the main reason countries do not wage wars for oil more often.
“People will resist an occupation for their resources, and resist forcefully,” she said. — ©2026 The New York Times Company
This article originally appeared in The New York Times
