Thread Content
According to the Economic Daily, January 7, 2026: In the early hours of January 3 local time, the United States launched a large-scale military operation against Venezuela, launching a raid on the country’s capital, Caracas, and seizing President Maduro and his wife by force. This action was met with widespread and strong condemnation from the international community. This move exposes the true nature of U.S. geopolitical hegemony. The United States claims that its large oil companies will take control of Venezuela’s oil resources, referring to the country’s 17% share of global oil reserves; this reveals America’s underlying intent to seize control of energy sources through military means and reshape the global oil supply chain. Historically, the United States has launched military interventions on multiple occasions to protect its own oil interests, but it has always concealed its oil-driven motives under the guise of ideology and security threats. For example, after the Iranian government nationalized its oil industry in 1953, the United States and Britain orchestrated Operation Ajax, using the pretext of \"curbing **** expansion\" to overthrow the Iranian regime; their real intention was to protect their own interests related to oil. Furthermore, a series of other U.S. military interventions and political threats, such as those in Syria, Libya, Kuwait and other countries, have also revealed the core goal of the United States to ensure its oil reserves and energy security. With this action against Venezuela, the United States has completely abandoned its previous covert strategies; it has put forward its energy demands in the form of an ultimatum, directly demanding that Venezuela return to the United States all the oil, land, and other assets that were stolen in the past. After forcing control over Maduro, the United States did not rush to support the opposition to come to power; instead, it hinted to Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodríguez, to \"do the right thing.\" Some analysts believe this was a signal that she needed to cooperate with U.S. plans in order to avoid problems. Thus, it is evident that the intention of the United States is not merely a regime change, but direct control over Venezuela’s oil industry. The U.S. has made plans to allow American oil companies to return to Venezuela, and through capital investment and technological control, bring Venezuela’s oil industry fully under U.S. dominance. Due to the obvious intentions of the United States, the world oil market has taken on a peculiar pattern of appearing calm on the surface while underlying tensions persist. After trading opened on January 5, Brent crude oil futures dropped briefly by 1.2% to $60 per barrel, while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) also hit a low of 56.44 before recovering by the end of the day, reflecting speculative sentiment in the market. Behind this contradictory phenomenon lies a profound shift in the logic of the oil market under American hegemonic interference. On the one hand, the current world oil market is in a phase of oversupply and weak demand; by 2025, the global surplus in crude oil supply is expected to reach 3.84 million barrels per day, with the market already factoring in the risk of conflicts in pricing ； On the other hand, due to prolonged sanctions, Venezuela’s average daily crude oil production in November 2025 was only 934,000 barrels, accounting for less than 1% of global supply; any short-term shortfall can be covered by other oil-producing countries. The market has accurately grasped the intent behind America’s ‘ultimatum’ – that Venezuela has no other choice but to increase production – and the plans put forward by American companies to rebuild Venezuela’s oil industry have led the market to expect that Venezuela’s export volume could surge to 3 million barrels per day in the medium term. Therefore, the market has reached a consensus that \"short-term shocks are limited, while long-term supply is excessive.\" Despite the current halt in loading operations at Venezuela’s main oil ports, with a total of over 17 million barrels of crude oil remaining at sea and unable to leave, and despite the country having taken emergency measures to shut down some oil fields and wells, oil prices have not experienced the sharp fluctuations that were expected. However, market analysts believe that the United States’ aggressive actions in Latin America, with its blatant hegemonic interference, have disrupted the existing balance in the global refining industry chain, and the impact goes far beyond mere fluctuations in crude oil prices. As a major global supplier of heavy crude oil, Venezuela’s disruption in exports has led to a shortage of raw materials for refineries in Asia and Europe, which are highly dependent on this type of crude. As a result, these refineries are forced to reduce production or turn to West Africa and the Middle East in search of alternative oil sources, which in turn drives up the prices of these alternative resources as well as refining costs ； Coupled with rising shipping risks in the Caribbean region that have led to higher transportation costs, under these multiple pressures, although oil prices have not soared, the cost increases along the oil refining industry chain have triggered a chain reaction. What is even more concerning is America’s attempt to promote a \"camp-based\" structure in the oil supply chain. American companies plan to secure the rights to exploit the Orinoco heavy oil belt in Venezuela, shifting the export destination of its crude oil from traditional international markets to the United States, while Venezuela’s traditional crude oil buyers such as India are forced to restructure their supply chains. This shift is not merely a simple adjustment in trade flows; rather, it is a clear signal that the United States is using military means to forcibly fragment the global oil supply chain. The allocation of oil resources is now tied to “whether or not a country cooperates with U.S. strategies,” resulting in a dichotomy between a “hegemonic supply circle” and a “non-cooperative camp.” The trend toward shifting global oil trade from a “globally integrated model” to one driven by geopolitical alliances has thus begun to emerge. Another strategic objective of the intervention in Venezuela is to weaken the influence of the OPEC+ group, which consists of OPEC member countries and non-OPEC oil-producing nations, thereby strengthening U.S. hegemony. This is also a key step for the United States to reshape the global energy governance system through its \"energy hegemony,\" with the core goal of weakening the influence of the OPEC+ alliance. Some analyses suggest that the United States’ intentions are clear and direct: by taking control of Venezuela’s massive production capacity, it aims to create a \"key variable for regulation\" outside of OPEC+, thereby undermining or even destroying the alliance’s ability to coordinate its actions. Relevant data show that OPEC+’s ability to regulate prices has been continuously weakening. Since 2025, although the alliance has adjusted its production strategies on several occasions and clearly stated on January 4, 2026, that it would continue to suspend production increases in February and March 2026 in order to maintain the current production levels, its influence on the market has been significantly reduced. The reason is that the United States, as the world’s largest oil exporter, is gaining increasing influence. According to data from the International Energy Agency, in November 2025, global oil supply decreased by 610,000 barrels per day, with OPEC+ accounting for more than three-quarters of that reduction. Russia saw its oil exports drop by 420,000 barrels per day due to U.S. sanctions, resulting in a loss of $3.6 billion in revenue. Worse still, U.S. hegemonic interference has exacerbated internal divisions within OPEC+. Saudi Arabia aims to stabilize oil prices by reducing production, while Russia prefers to increase production in order to gain market share, which highlights the cracks within the alliance. Industry experts point out that this move by the United States is a clear manifestation of the \"America First\" principle in the energy sector; its main purpose is to maintain the dominance of the dollar-based settlement system and achieve \"price determination based on American interests.\" In consolidating the hegemony of oil and the dollar, there is a clear logic of monetary control at work. If Venezuela restores its production capacity under the leadership of U.S. companies, its crude oil exports are likely to be settled in dollars once again, which will further expand the use of oil dollars and counteract the trend of \"de-dollarization\" on a global scale. At the same time, the United States continues to impose sanctions on efforts to conduct oil settlements in currencies other than the dollar, striving to prevent the diversification of currencies used in oil trade settlements and to maintain its monetary monopoly in global energy transactions. Such behavior of \"reconstructing order through hegemony\" could push the global energy governance system into a situation characterized by weakened rules and a lack of mutual trust; traditional governance mechanisms would fail, no new order has yet emerged, and geopolitical risks would replace market supply and demand as the determinant factor of oil prices in this \"new normal\". Objectively, it has also severely weakened OPEC’s traditional dominance. It remains to be seen whether America’s strategic intentions will be successfully achieved. This is also why the global oil market is in a state of wait-and-see at present. Recent assessments by relevant international agencies suggest that, as a result of the ongoing influence of U.S. hegemony, the global oil market in the future will exhibit distinct characteristics of increased short-term volatility, loose supply and demand in the medium term, and structural restructuring in the long term. The geopolitical landscape dominated by the United States will profoundly alter the rules of the market. In the short term, military strikes by the U.S. forces against Venezuela at the beginning of 2026 will trigger risk-aversion sentiment. An increased shortage of heavy crude oil supplies worldwide, along with heightened uncertainty related to the conflict, will be the key factors driving price fluctuations in oil. Regarding crude oil, short-term geopolitical tensions will drive up the risk premium, providing upward momentum for oil prices; the expected range for Brent crude prices in January is $58 per barrel to $63 per barrel. Of course, the rise in international oil prices lacks fundamental support. The latest projections by the International Energy Agency indicate that there could be a daily surplus of up to 4 million barrels in the crude oil market by 2026, with inventory levels remaining high. There will be significant supply and demand pressures in the first quarter of 2026, and once geopolitical risks subside, oil prices are likely to drop below $60 per barrel. In the medium term, if the United States manages to take control of Venezuela, it will encourage American companies to invest in repairing its energy infrastructure. As a result, Venezuela’s crude oil production is expected to increase gradually from 934,000 barrels per day in 2025, with the potential to reach the historical peak of around 3 million barrels per day in the medium to long term. Coupled with the expansion of production capacity by Middle Eastern oil-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as the expectation that U.S. domestic crude oil production will remain at its historical high of 13.61 million barrels per day, the pressure of oversupply will become even more pronounced. The latest outlook report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that the average price of Brent crude oil in 2026 will be $55.08 per barrel, a slight increase from previous forecasts but still at a low level ； Goldman Sachs and **** have also lowered their forecasts for oil prices this year. They believe that from 2025 to 2026, the growth rate of crude oil supply will be three times that of demand, and the market surplus situation is unlikely to change. In the long term, U.S. hegemony will drive the global oil supply to adopt a tripartite structure of the United States, the Middle East, and Russia, resulting in a continuous weakening of OPEC+’s ability to regulate the market. At the same time, with the acceleration of energy transition, the peak oil demand is approaching. The International Energy Agency predicts that by 2030, the growth rate of global oil demand will fall below 0.5%, while oil consumption in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) will decline by 1.7 million barrels per day. It is only the emerging economies in Asia that will drive demand growth, with the petrochemical industry replacing the transportation sector as the main driver of demand. More importantly, the combination of the U.S. \"energy bloc\" supply chains and the energy transition will lead to market fragmentation, forcing countries such as Russia to establish \"independent security systems\" through diversified cooperation and a shift toward clean energy. Overall, the United States’ hegemonic strategies and its explicit demands for oil have, in the short term, reshaped the power structure of the oil market and exacerbated imbalances in global energy governance. The chain reactions resulting from this will continue to influence the trajectory of the global energy landscape for many years to come. The widespread condemnation by the international community of U.S. unilateralism and power politics also shows that any attempt to seize the resources of other countries by force or to trample on their sovereignty will ultimately be met with retribution from history.