Mattha Busby is a freelance journalist and author who has written widely on health policy, drugs, society and culture.
The war on drugs is best understood as a political metaphor. It is a thinly veiled tool of geopolitical warfare the U.S. has conveniently deployed to justify extending its hegemony across the world. And now in Venezuela, the U.S. war on drugs – that unwinnable forever war – is proving a useful fig leaf onc again. What’s clear is that it’s the latest installment in the United States’ inglorious history of dozens of “regime change” efforts in Latin America over the past two centuries.
Venezuelan president nicolás Maduro found this out the hard way earlier this month when he was unquestionably kidnapped, and then indicted, by the U.S. for “narco-terrorism.”
Maduro’s indictment claims he had “moved loads of cocaine under the protection of Venezuelan law enforcement” and “allows cocaine-fueled corruption to flourish,” citing alleged details of the deposed president’s direct involvement in cocaine trafficking. Ultimately, it seems the Venezuelan state has been able to at least partially manage the irrepressible tide of cocaine smuggling through the country, unlike some of its neighbors, and capture some of the criminal profits for security forces – leading to claims it is a “criminal hybrid state.” But perhaps this was a wise move. Seali
U.S. from Venezuela was saving countless American lives. Maduro warned Trump was “coming for Venezuela’s riches,” namely the world’s largest proven oil reserves, but his remarks were largely footnotes in the Western media.
Lo and behold, following the extraordinarily flagrant violation of international norms in the U.S. attack which lead to the rendition of maduro,trump predictably pivoted away from the war on drugs premise to a might-makes-right quest to exploit Venezuela’s vast oil fields. Even while Vance clings to the entirely false idea that these war games will help ease the fentanyl crisis in the U.S., it is now clear that the killings of more than 120 people operating the alleged drug trafficking boats - likely including both actual fisherman and subsistence traffickers – was just the latest Trojan horse for self-interested U.S. meddling.
“As everyone knows the oil business in Venezuela has been a bust, a total bust, for a long period of time,” Trump said after the pre-dawn capture of Maduro. “We’re going to have our very large United states oil companies, the biggest in the world, go in … and start making money for the country.” Left unclear was which country would benefit from all that money. It was an honest culmination of the effort to seize back effective control of Venezuela’s oil fields after the nationalization of the industry back in the 1970s seriously reduced Yankee influence.
But there were high-profile examples of the media running with the oft-repeated drugs rationale, rather than oil. The New york Post almost entirely dodged using the word “oil” in its initial report. The Associated Press regurgitated the drug narrative,and Fox News hosts The “Enemies Not Allowed” Policy and Control of Syrian Oil Reserves
Table of Contents The Trump administration, through its former ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, articulated a policy of preventing adversaries from benefiting from Syrian oil reserves, effectively seeking to control these resources post-ISIS defeat. This policy,revealed in 2018,aimed to finance the rebuilding of Syria without involving the Syrian government or its allies,especially Iran and Russia. In December 2018, Nikki Haley stated that the U.S.would ensure that “enemies of america” would not profit from Syrian oil. This involved working with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to secure oil fields in eastern Syria and utilizing revenue generated from oil sales to fund stabilization efforts. The stated goal was to prevent the Assad regime and Iranian-backed militias from accessing these vital resources. The policy was framed as a means to incentivize a political resolution to the Syrian civil war, though critics argued it constituted resource exploitation. haley specifically mentioned that the U.S.would work to ensure that oil revenues did not fall into the hands of Iran and Russia, both of whom support the Assad government. She emphasized that the U.S. was not seeking to own the oil, but rather to prevent it from being used to fund terrorism or prop up hostile regimes. Example: During a UN Security Council meeting on December 18, 2018, Haley declared, “We are not going to let Iran and Russia benefit from the oil in Syria. We are going to make sure that the oil is used to rebuild Syria, and we are going to work with our partners to do that.” Middle East Eye reported on this statement, highlighting the controversial nature of the policy. The legality of the U.S. policy under international law has been questioned. critics argue that controlling and benefiting from Syrian oil resources without the consent of the Syrian government constitutes a violation of Syrian sovereignty and potentially a breach of international law. The policy also raised concerns about potential war crimes, specifically regarding the exploitation of natural resources in occupied territory. the Syrian government has consistently condemned the U.S. policy as illegal and an act of aggression.Russia has also criticized the policy, accusing the U.S. of seeking to plunder Syrian resources. Evidence: In January 2019, the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates issued a statement describing the U.S. policy as “a blatant violation of international law and a continuation of the U.S. policy of aggression and interference in Syria’s internal affairs.” Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) published the full statement, detailing the government’s objections. While the Trump administration initially spearheaded the “enemies not allowed” policy, the Biden administration has continued to maintain a military presence in eastern syria, primarily to counter ISIS and protect SDF-controlled oil fields. However, the Biden administration has shifted the focus away from explicitly preventing adversaries from benefiting from the oil and towards ensuring the long-term defeat of ISIS. The U.S. continues to work with the SDF to secure oil infrastructure, but the public rhetoric surrounding the policy has become less focused on resource control and more on counterterrorism. The economic benefits derived from Syrian oil continue to be a source of contention, with the Syrian government and its allies maintaining their opposition to the U.S. presence and resource exploitation. Data Point: In November 2023, the U.S. Department of Defense reported that approximately 900 U.S. troops remain in Syria, primarily focused on supportingDetails of the Policy
legal and International Concerns
Current Status (as of January 22, 2026)
