By Urooj Babar
In the cold, early hours of January 3, 2026, the geopolitical tectonic plates shifted violently. The United States’ surprise military operation in Caracas, which forcibly detained Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, was not merely a regime change operation; it was the kinetic baptism of a new strategic paradigm. Washington has shed the diplomatic subtleties of the past, openly declaring that major U.S. oil companies will now lead the operation of Venezuela’s petroleum resources—assets comprising roughly 17 percent of the world’s proven reserves. This aggressive posture, widely dubbed the “Donroe Doctrine”—a portmanteau of “Donald” and “Monroe” coined by the New York Post—represents a naked fusion of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine’s regional possessiveness with a transactional, resource-hungry militarism.
But the question that haunts the corridors of power from Islamabad to Brussels is simple: Can this doctrine truly enhance the influence of the United States, or is it a harbinger of imperial twilight?
The official narrative from Washington is one of restitution and security, framed by an ultimatum demanding the return of “all oil, land, and other assets previously stolen from the United States” and asserting that the Western Hemisphere is “OUR Hemisphere”. Yet, beneath the veneer of reclaiming assets lies a gamble of historic proportions. By abandoning the pretext of ideology in favor of overt resource seizure, the United States risks accelerating the very fragmentation it seeks to arrest.
The Trap of Strategic Overstretch
The primary contradiction of the Donroe Doctrine lies in its divergence from the prudent strategy of contraction. For years, the prevailing wisdom in Washington suggested a need to conserve internal resources and pivot away from “forever wars.” However, the direct military management of a sovereign nation’s primary industry signals a disastrous return to the quagmires of nation-building. Much like the orchestrated interventions of the 20th century, the objective is clearly to protect Western oil interests. But the scale of this undertaking is vastly different. The U.S. has not just installed a puppet; it has effectively annexed the energy sector of a hostile state, seizing over 300 billion barrels of reserves to deny them to adversaries.
This move consumes immense political and military capital. Washington aims to create a “hegemonic supply circle,” binding access to energy resources to compliance with U.S. strategic objectives. Yet, maintaining this circle requires constant coercion. The seizure of the “Bella 1” and “Sophia” tankers in the Caribbean—vessels part of Russia’s “ghost fleet”—demonstrates that the U.S. is now policing the high seas to enforce its economic will. While American firms plan to inject capital to restore output, the cost of securing these fields against inevitable insurgency and sabotage will likely mimic the financial black holes of Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of consolidating power, the Donroe Doctrine risks bogging the U.S. down in a resource war that drains the treasury while domestic infrastructure crumbles.
The Economic Fallacy: High Cost, Low Reward
Proponents argue this intervention secures energy independence, but the math simply does not add up. The global oil market is currently mired in oversupply, not shortage.
● Surplus Reality: By 2025, the global crude surplus had reached 3.84 million barrels per day.
● Market Insignificance: Venezuela’s output prior to the invasion was a mere 934,000 barrels per day—a drop in the ocean of global supply.
● Price Inelasticity: Despite the invasion, markets have remained largely calm, with Brent crude dipping to near $60, reflecting that geopolitical risk is already priced in.
The Donroe Doctrine attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist (supply shortage) with a solution (military occupation) that creates a problem that does (instability). By flooding the market with Venezuelan crude to weaken OPEC+, the U.S. risks crashing prices to levels that hurt its own shale producers, creating a “long-term supply glut” that could render the entire operation economically self-defeating.
Geopolitical Fracture: Alienation of the “Camp”
The most damaging consequence of this doctrine is the fracturing of the Western alliance and the alienation of the Global South. The “Donroe” approach—which has expanded to include threats against Mexico, Colombia, and even designs on purchasing Greenland—has terrified allies. European powers like Denmark are recalibrating their stance, wary of a partner that views sovereign territory as real estate to be acquired.
Furthermore, this aggression accelerates the search for alternatives. The U.S. hopes to enforce the “America First” doctrine in energy to preserve the dollar settlement system. However, by weaponizing the dollar and energy access so brazenly, Washington validates the fears of the Global South. Nations are now incentivized to pursue autonomous security systems and diversify away from U.S.-controlled networks. China, whose “all-weather” partnership with Venezuela was exposed as hollow by the U.S. strike, will likely double down on insulating its supply chains from American reach, accelerating the fragmentation of the global economy.
In the final analysis, the Donroe Doctrine is a strategic anachronism. It attempts to solve 21st-century challenges—energy transition, multipolarity, and economic integration—with 19th-century gunboat diplomacy. The U.S. may succeed in dismantling OPEC+ coordination in the short term, but history offers a stern warning: any attempt to seize another nation’s resources through force will ultimately face backlash. By substituting the legitimacy of leadership with the coercion of the occupier, the United States does not enhance its influence; it effectively isolates itself in a fortress of its own making.
Author:Urooj Babar is a development practitioner and researcher with expertise in the UN Sustainable Development Goals. She can be reached at urojbabar51@gmail.com
