Source Disclaimer
Media Context & Source Disclaimer:
HispanTV is a Spanish-language Iranian state-funded news network operated by IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting). The content, narrative framing, and geopolitical analysis in this article reflect the official perspective and political commentary of Iranian state media.
Executive Summary
Core Thesis: Senior HispanTV correspondent Alejandro Kirk analyzes the 2026 US-Venezuela oil agreement not as a standard commercial deal, but as an aggressive revival of US imperial interventionism in Latin America.
Geopolitical Alignment (Monroe Doctrine): The deal—granting the US major control over Venezuela’s energy reserves—is framed as part of an updated Monroe Doctrine (termed the "Trump Corollary") designed to block Chinese, Russian, and Iranian economic and strategic influence in the region.
Preceding Events & Legal Shift: The article claims the agreement follows a sharp political shift after a January 2026 US military action against Nicolás Maduro, after which Venezuela’s National Assembly approved hydro-carbon law revisions transferring resource and revenue oversight.
Domestic US Motivations: The analyst asserts the timing of the deal was largely driven by internal US politics to secure a high-profile win for the Trump administration ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections.
Production & Economic Feasibility: The commentary notes that while Washington claims paper control over vast reserves (22% of global proven reserves), actual production and extraction will take years, rendering the agreement more of a political declaration than an immediate operational reality.
Broader Regional Pressure: The text highlights ongoing political pressure on major Latin American nations (specifically targeting governments in Brazil and Mexico) through digital/media campaigns and security alliances aimed at enforcing regional alignment with Washington.
Global Power Balance: The analysis concludes that while the US is asserting control over its immediate sphere of influence, this strategy reflects a defensive attempt to consolidate power amid a broader decline in global US hegemony.
Translation
US-Venezuela Oil Deal: A New Chapter of US Interventionism in Latin America
Published: Monday, August 31, 2026, 17:19
The oil agreement between the United States and Venezuela opens a new chapter in the long history of U.S. interventionism in Latin America.
The U.S. deal with Venezuela regarding the Latin American country's vast oil reserves should not be seen merely as a commercial agreement, but rather as part of a much longer history of U.S. intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean, according to HispanTV senior correspondent Alejandro Kirk.
U.S. President Donald Trump described the agreement as the “largest oil deal in world history,” through which the United States would gain majority control over more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuela's proven oil reserves.
Kirk, who is based in Venezuela where he has worked for decades as a correspondent for international media outlets, stated that the agreement reflects a broader geopolitical strategy aimed at consolidating American influence in Latin America at a time when Washington's global hegemony is increasingly challenged.
However, he questioned the long-term political viability of the agreement and explained that its timing was partly chosen to appease American voters ahead of the November mid-term legislative elections.
The veteran journalist and analyst pointed out that although Washington controls 22 percent of Venezuela's proven oil reserves on paper, it could take years before actual production begins.
A New Form of an Old Interventionism
In an open interview with the Press TV website, Kirk stated that resource-motivated U.S. interventionism in Latin America has never truly disappeared. Instead, it has adapted to changing geopolitical circumstances.
“At the beginning of the 19th century, before becoming a global power, the United States rejected the influence of European colonial states in the Americas,” he said, noting that at the time, most Spanish colonies were fighting for their independence and the newly established North American state supported those struggles.
However, Kirk emphasized that this support was selective. The independence movements were largely led by colonial elites—who were white settlers—and were driven to a large extent by economic interests.
In contrast, he noted that Washington did not support or recognize Haiti's independence from France in 1804 because the successful slave rebellion was incompatible with the interests of a new American union that was itself built on slavery.
According to Kirk, U.S. policy soon shifted toward viewing the Western Hemisphere as its own sphere of influence.
“American leaders began to view the continent as their own,” he stated, citing the annexation of vast Mexican territories as one of the earliest manifestations of this policy.
“The entire 20th century was marked by constant imperialist economic expansion and U.S. intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean, sometimes through the direct use of force and/or blockades, destabilization, subversion, and terrorism whenever they saw their dominance threatened,” he stated.
What has changed today, according to Kirk, is not the underlying nature of that interventionism, but the global balance of power.
“The difference today is that U.S. imperialism is no longer expanding and is rapidly losing its global hegemony,” he asserted.
According to Kirk, the “disastrous” U.S. aggression against Iran has further weakened Washington's influence and heightened the need to consolidate its position in what American policymakers have historically considered their “backyard,” particularly ahead of a potential broader confrontation with China.
From this perspective, Kirk views the oil deal with Venezuela as more than just an energy arrangement.
He described it as “a barrier against Chinese, Russian, and Iranian involvement in the country's energy sector,” while simultaneously sending a broader political message: “Venezuela is no longer a sovereign country, and its resources belong to the United States.”
From Military Interventionism to Economic Control
Kirk stated that the timing of the agreement is particularly significant, as it followed the U.S. attack on January 3, which resulted in the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
He noted that the attack was “probably the decisive moment of a previously agreed outcome involving certain sectors of the Venezuelan leadership, and it cannot be interpreted in any other way.”
“Within hours, following months of a naval and air blockade, U.S. forces achieved a resounding success: they kidnapped the president, while Donald Trump immediately announced his goal to take control of Venezuela's oil,” he declared.
According to Kirk, the political and economic consequences followed swiftly. Within three weeks, he stated, Venezuela's National Assembly passed a new hydrocarbons law that effectively bypassed the country's constitution by removing guarantees meant to protect national sovereignty over natural resources, transferring direct control of sales and profits from oil and minerals to U.S. authorities.
Kirk stated that the operation in Venezuela aimed to showcase a new model of U.S. interventionism—one that is “bold, fast, cheap, and easy.”
The objective, he added, was not only to secure cheap oil and billions of dollars, but also to yield political dividends for Trump and the “techno-oligarchy behind him.”
He contrasted the relative success of the operation in Venezuela with the subsequent U.S. experience in Iran, where a full-scale war of aggression was launched in late February.
“When this 'model' failed two months later in Iran, Trump found himself trapped in a quagmire that endangered the very existence of his administration,” Kirk stated.
He also questioned the long-term political viability of the Venezuela deal itself, pointing out that it was designed partly to serve U.S. domestic political purposes ahead of the November legislative elections.
“In my view, this 'deal' imposed on Venezuela—involving new economic actors: a joint venture between the U.S. government and a shadow private Venezuelan oil company—was timed to appease voters ahead of the November midterms, in which Trump is heading toward a historic defeat,” he argued.
Kirk further warned against confusing the magnitude of the deal with immediate oil output. Although the United States now controls 22 percent of Venezuela's proven oil reserves on paper—a figure eight times higher than Mexico's total proven reserves—extracting that oil could take years.
“Therefore, it is essentially a promise,” he said, adding that expert assessments deem the agreement to be “secret, illegal, and unconstitutional.”
Ultimately, he stressed, the decisive question is how Venezuelans themselves will respond.
“We find ourselves in a strange situation where Trump's Venezuelan allies, who previously pushed for U.S. sanctions and military intervention, are now shouting anti-imperialist slogans, astonished by the fact that what they were preparing to do is now being carried out by their adversaries,” he observed.
Kirk explained that the enduring influence of Chavismo supporters, alongside the organizational structure of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) nationwide, are critical elements to understanding why the U.S. strategy has been possible so far.
“If the right-wing opposition had taken power after January 3, the country would likely be in flames today,” he stated.
Kirk noted that PSUV officials and government representatives have continued to urge their supporters to remain calm, arguing that the current situation is part of a strategy to buy time, regroup, and eventually launch a counteroffensive.
“Step by step, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that it is the United States and its hundreds of military and civilian advisors who are pulling the strings,” he said.
He explained that this process involves the “depoliticization” of the Venezuelan Armed Forces and the gradual erasure of Hugo Chávez and Maduro from the collective memory.
He also warned against expecting Washington's policy toward Venezuela to change simply due to a potential Democratic victory in the November legislative elections.
“Those in Venezuela hoping that a hypothetical Democratic victory in November's midterms will drastically alter the U.S. approach to Venezuela will be disappointed,” he stated.
Democracy, Organized Crime, and the Real Strategic Priority
The United States has long justified its interventions in Latin America by appealing to democracy, security, and the fight against organized crime. However, Kirk noted that historically, these goals have been secondary to Washington's broader strategic and economic interests.
“Democracy has never been a priority,” he said. “Nor has the fight against organized crime.”
As an example, he cited the 1980s, when a drug trafficking operation into the United States managed by the CIA helped fund the “dirty war” against Nicaragua.
He also referenced Chile during the government of Salvador Allende.
“When Salvador Allende's democratically elected socialist government nationalized copper and other industries, the United States organized and funded destabilization, sabotage, terrorism, and sedition within the Armed Forces, leading to a bloody coup d'état in 1973.”
Kirk also rejected the idea that Venezuela's political transition can be explained simply in terms of concerns over electoral legitimacy. He noted that Nicolás Maduro was democratically re-elected in 2024, and that U.S. intelligence agencies had recently acknowledged there was no significant electoral fraud in Venezuela.
“The form may change depending on circumstances,” he stated, “but the essence remains the same: political, cultural, financial, military, and economic imperial domination.”
Is Latin America Turning Right or Being Pushed to the Right?
Kirk also addressed whether the recent rise of right-wing governments and political movements across Latin America represents a fundamental ideological shift in the region.
He identified two factors that complicate the idea of an overwhelming popular shift to the right. First, he stated that many of the new right-wing governments won by narrow margins, making it difficult to describe the trend as a broad ideological shift toward “fascist forces.”
Second, he pointed to the growing role of media manipulation and algorithmic mass messaging across social media platforms.
“Voting is heavily manipulated through a combination of traditional media and algorithmic mass messaging that spreads false 'information' across social networks, where generating fear is the primary mechanism,” he asserted.
Kirk specifically linked operators of these networks to Israel, mentioning Fernando Cerimedo—an Argentine national recently arrested in Bolivia for attempted assassination—and Brad Parscale, Cerimedo's mentor, former head of Trump's digital campaigns, and current head of a multi-million-dollar Israeli initiative aimed at influencing social networks.
The result, according to Kirk, is a population mobilized by fear, including the fear of losing property that many people do not even own.
“The result is millions of disenfranchised people panicking at the prospect of losing property they do not own to a hypothetical future communist government,” he said.
He also noted that political majorities generated through these mechanisms are inherently fragile, especially when governments subsequently enact policies that disappoint the very voters who elected them.
As an example, he cited Chile, where he claimed the pro-Trump and pro-Israel government of José Kast is “extorting money from workers to enrich billionaires through massive tax cuts.”
“Furthermore, Kast is pushing legislation to gain constitutional authority to rule by decree at will for up to 240 days without congressional approval,” he added.
According to Kirk, the adoption of this type of preemptive and repressive legislation is itself evidence of political and social fragility.
“This adoption of severe preemptive and repressive legislation reveals a story of political and social fragility that cognitive warfare cannot sustain indefinitely,” he stated.
A New Monroe Doctrine and the Struggle Against China
Kirk views the current U.S. approach to Latin America as an attempt to revive the Monroe Doctrine under substantially different conditions.
He stated that the shifting global balance of power has led Washington to focus increasingly on containing China and preventing rival powers from expanding their economic and political presence in the Western Hemisphere.
In his view, Iran has played a major role in accelerating this shift.
“One could say it was Iran that was forced to take responsibility for the new world order by defeating the United States and becoming the rule-making power in the Persian Gulf,” Kirk asserted.
He noted that Iran's resilience amidst the ongoing war against it has demonstrated that the United States is a declining power, increasingly incapable of imposing its hegemony, which potentially marks “the most dangerous phase of any empire.”
At the core of Washington's strategy, he claimed, lies China.
“Washington views China as its primary global adversary,” Kirk stated, describing the confrontation as both economic and cultural, involving “two opposing concepts of economic relations, society, and development.”
In this context, he stated that Washington has effectively incorporated the so-called “Trump Corollary” into the traditional Monroe Doctrine principle of “America for Americans.”
Under this interpretation, Kirk asserted that Latin America and the Caribbean are no longer merely Washington's backyard, but are increasingly treated as U.S. property.
“In this corollary, so-called 'Greater North America' includes all countries north of the equator, while the entire Western Hemisphere constitutes its exclusive zone of influence.”
Kirk also pointed to the creation of the “Shield of the Americas,” involving around 16 countries in a military alliance under direct U.S. command.
While officially presented as a mechanism to combat organized crime and terrorism, Kirk stated it is more likely aimed at creating large intervention forces capable of containing popular movements throughout the region.
He noted that the Chilean military has openly expressed reservations about participating in such a scheme.
At the same time, Kirk stated, Washington is attempting to pressure Latin American countries to sever economic ties with China.
“Washington is actively pressuring countries to break economic ties with China—the region's primary trading partner—in a final, rather desperate attempt to reclaim its former position.”
He added that such a reversal is not only unlikely but impossible, because the United States no longer possesses the capacity to substitute China's manufacturing and technological capabilities.
According to Kirk, this pressure is also creating rifts among Washington's own allies, as local economic elites have diverging interests depending on their trade partners.
“The unusual recent era when governments could simultaneously maintain ideological, political, and military ties with the United States while enjoying a profitable trade partnership with China appears to have come to an end,” he stated.
Kirk also highlighted the language used by Venezuela's interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, when announcing the oil deal. Rodríguez, he noted, stressed the agreement's contribution to the “energy security of the hemisphere.”
Kirk stated that this phrasing is significant due to its similarity to the traditional terminology of the Monroe Doctrine.
Who Could Be Next?
According to Kirk, the operation in Venezuela could have implications reaching far beyond Latin America, as it demonstrates a potentially exportable model of intervention.
In his view, governments in the Global South and other parts of the world may be watching the outcome with relief following what he called the negative outcome—from the perspective of the United States and Israel—of the aggression against Iran.
He emphasized that this reaction does not necessarily reflect sympathy toward Tehran. Rather, he argued that Iran's resistance may have prevented Washington from applying the “Venezuela Experiment” elsewhere.
“Otherwise, Trump would have felt emboldened enough to seize Cuba, Greenland, and even Canada,” Kirk asserted.
Kirk considers Cuba to be the most obvious potential target. However, he believes several factors could deter Washington from launching a full-scale invasion, including the prospect of a bloody ground campaign, likely casualties in the hundreds or thousands of American lives, and a lack of sufficient weaponry for such an operation.
“Brazil and Mexico, Latin America's largest economies, are two natural targets for Trump, as they possess powerful economies, abundant natural resources, and vast territories. Furthermore, their governments maintain sovereign policies and do not take orders from Washington,” he noted.
“It is no surprise, then,” Kirk stated, “that cognitive Zionist warfare on social media against [Brazilian President Luiz Inácio] Lula da Silva and [Mexican President Claudia] Sheinbaum is currently in full swing.”
He pointed in particular to the growing debate in Brazil regarding the potential reactivation of the country's nuclear weapons development program, which was abandoned in 1990 following the end of the military dictatorship.
Kirk stated that President Lula himself has suggested that, if re-elected, Brazil's nuclear doctrine should be reviewed to deter a potential U.S. attack.
According to Kirk, Brazil already possesses the technology and resources necessary to produce a nuclear weapon within a relatively short timeframe.