Introduction: Structural, Not Political

Venezuela has figured in U.S. strategic thinking for more than a century because it repeatedly sits at the intersection of access, energy, and regional competition. It has done so across administrations, ideologies, and international systems. The pattern spans European imperial rivalry, U.S. regional consolidation, Cold War competition, and today’s great-power contest. Historian Sean A. Mirski traces this continuity in his book We May Dominate the World, showing how Venezuela repeatedly emerged as a site of U.S. concern regardless of the global order.

It has surfaced under monarchies and republics, during unipolar moments and multipolar competition, and under socialist governments and market reformers alike. The political labels change. The attention does not.

This recurrence is often explained in political terms: failed leadership, ideological alignment, or hostile intent. That lens falls short, and it cannot explain why Venezuela keeps returning to crisis, regardless of who governs. Structural theories of international politics start from a less forgiving place. Geography, natural resources, and power relationships persist even as regimes change. John J. Mearsheimer makes this case in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, arguing that structure constrains choice long before ideology enters the picture.

Venezuela’s strategic importance stems from enduring conditions rather than episodic political failure. This article argues that Venezuela’s presence in U.S. strategy lies at the intersection of three variables: proximity to maritime corridors, concentrated energy reserves, and a fragile internal order. Geography turns domestic instability into maritime exposure, energy magnifies the stakes, and weak governance lowers the cost of access for external actors. Together, these conditions trigger enforcement behavior that has remained consistent even as tools and language have changed. This older hemispheric logic now has a modern operational expression: access denial without territorial control.

The SOF Mandate: Access, Denial, and Irregular Competition

For Special Operations Forces (SOF), Venezuela and similar environments are not problems to be solved; rather, they are environments to be understood and conditions to be managed. Structural drivers constrain what political change can achieve and shape how military force can be applied. In this setting, irregular competition is not a transitional phase between wars; it is the operating environment.

Structural vulnerability explains why Venezuela repeatedly attracts external pressure. Political agency explains how quickly those vulnerabilities metastasize. Leadership decisions under Chávez and Maduro, including the centralization of power, the politicization of the state-owned oil and gas company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A (PDVSA), and the erosion of institutional checks, did not cause Venezuela’s fragility. They did, however, sharply accelerate it. The result is not a unique state but an exposed one, rendered acutely unstable by destructive political choices.

Viewed this way, Venezuela’s importance to hemispheric security helps explain why U.S. policy oscillates without resolution. It helps explain why external rivals emerge and why enforcement prioritizes access denial over territorial control. This logic aligns with the 2025 National Security Strategy’s renewed emphasis on homeland defense, hemispheric security, border control, migration pressure, hostile foreign influence, drug and human trafficking, and protection of transportation networks.

SOF’s role follows directly from that constraint. The task is not regime conversion or comprehensive stabilization; it is access management. SOF activity concentrates at access points that are becoming contested or unstable: maritime approaches, resource and logistics networks, financial and influence nodes, and partner capacity at critical seams. For SOF, this means the decisive work is not dramatic intervention but persistent access mapping: identifying external networks, strengthening partner maritime and border capacity, improving intelligence sharing, and keeping rival leverage reversible before it hardens into permanent footholds.

The Strategy: From Exclusion to Enforcement

The Monroe Doctrine emerged from President James Monroe’s 1823 address to Congress as a declaration of exclusion. Its purpose was to deter European powers from reasserting colonial control or establishing new footholds in the Western Hemisphere. The concern reflected early U.S. fears of great-power encroachment and is well documented in historical studies of Pan-Americanism and U.S. foreign policy.

Legally, the doctrine never constituted binding international law. Instead, it functioned as a unilateral policy assertion, deriving its force from power and practice. Oxford Public International Law notes that the doctrine endured because it was enforced and widely accepted under U.S. material dominance, rooted in naval power, economic leverage, and geographic proximity, rather than treaty obligations or international consensus.

The Olney interpretation expanded exclusion into authority. During the 1895 Venezuela–British Guiana boundary dispute, Secretary of State Richard Olney asserted that the United States had the right not only to object but also to interpret and enforce the Monroe Doctrine when European actions threatened regional order. In Washington, Britain’s refusal to arbitrate the entire boundary was treated not as a technical disagreement but as an attempt to convert proximity into leverage. Mirski identifies this functional concern with access hardening as central to U.S. hemispheric behavior.

Britain’s eventual acceptance of arbitration did little to advance Venezuela's territorial claims, but it mattered strategically. Winning the argument over the arbitration process mattered more than the final map. In that moment, the United States established itself as the arbiter of hemispheric disputes, shifting Monroe from a declaratory warning to an operational doctrine.

The Roosevelt Corollary completed the transition from exclusion to enforcement. President Theodore Roosevelt argued that instability itself could invite foreign intervention and that preventing European leverage might require U.S. action short of annexation. Economic instability and sovereign debt shifted from domestic concerns to strategic indicators, serving as early warnings that access might soon follow disorder.

This enforcement logic emerged from a practical crisis, and Venezuela served as a catalytic test case. European debt collection backed by naval force exposed the limits of exclusion alone and revealed a gap between doctrine and credible enforcement. That gap pushed U.S. policy from interpretive authority toward active order management. What mattered was not territorial seizure but access to, and control of, sea lanes, ports, and approaches, consistent with the maritime logic outlined by retired Adm. James Stavridis in Sea Power: The History and Geopolitics of the World’s Oceans.

The Three Variables: Energy, Access, and Order

Geography translates resource density into exposure. Venezuela sits at the hinge of the Caribbean Basin and the northern shoulder of South America, facing maritime corridors linking the Gulf of Mexico, the approaches to the Panama Canal, and Atlantic sea lanes. Ports, approaches, and shipping routes make that exposure unavoidable. Maritime strategists have long observed that instability in such locations tends to spill outward rather than remain contained.

This exposure helps explain why access, not territory, has historically governed U.S. hemispheric behavior. Maritime access and permanent basing operate on different strategic logics. Access governs movement and denial; basing entails sovereignty and occupation. Throughout its hemispheric rise, the United States consistently favored access control over territorial acquisition, keeping sea lanes open and rivals out rather than holding land indefinitely.

Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, a fact cited in U.S. government and international energy assessments and alluded to in the National Security Strategy. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data and Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) analysis show that, historically, those reserves underwrote the core functions of the Venezuelan state, accounting for the majority of export earnings and public revenue needed to sustain baseline fiscal capacity. While this has devolved into a system of discretionary wealth for the ruling elite in the current era, its historical function was foundational to the state's survival.

Energy alone is not sufficient to explain Venezuela’s recurrence in U.S. strategic thinking. These factors are not merely additive; they are mutually amplifying, creating a feedback loop of escalating instability.

Over time, Venezuela’s oil sector has imposed mounting environmental and institutional costs that compound instability. Chronic underinvestment, mismanagement, and degradation have damaged infrastructure, ecosystems, and human capital. A CSIS analysis found that environmental damage has weakened the state’s capacity to translate energy wealth into a durable order. The result is increased reliance on external financing and access arrangements, enabling conditions that heighten strategic exposure rather than restore sovereignty.

Venezuela’s fragile internal order is a primary driver of U.S. strategic anxiety. A collapsing state on its doorstep exports instability directly into the American hemisphere. The mass migration crisis has placed immense strain on regional partners like Colombia. At the same time, the proliferation of transnational criminal networks engaged in drug and human trafficking creates direct threats to U.S. domestic security. Furthermore, the existence of ungoverned spaces within Venezuela offers a potential foothold for extra-hemispheric rivals or non-state actors. The U.S. concern, then, is not only oil or freedom of navigation. It is preventing state failure from spilling across a strategically vital region.

Historically, enforcement relied on overt, legible force. Offshore gunboats, selective blockades, and forward presence shaped behavior through visibility and risk without annexation. The objective was compliance without conquest, a pattern documented across Caribbean interventions.

Over time, overt coercion became increasingly costly as legal norms hardened, global visibility intensified, and escalation risks increased. Institutions adapted by elevating sanctions, financial controls, and diplomatic pressure as more sustainable tools. The logic did not change. The tools did. As Mearsheimer’s work on international deception suggests, states often conceal coercive behavior behind more acceptable political language.

Today, enforcement relies on a blended set of instruments. Military presence, economic pressure, and legal authorities work together to compel compliance without occupying or administering the regime. These measures are calibrated to avoid open-ended commitments, consistent with competition below the threshold of armed conflict.

Structural Competition and Recurrence

When energy, geography, and weak governance converge in one state, recurrence is more likely to reflect underlying pressures than discretionary choice. Venezuela is the most transparent case in the hemisphere.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the United States treated European empires as hemispheric challengers not because of who they were, but because of what they did. Britain, France, and Germany followed a repeatable pattern: naval squadrons off Caribbean ports, debt enforcement through coercion, and commercial access converted into leverage through proximity. Washington responded by blocking footholds, mediating disputes, and intervening when necessary to remove leverage before it hardened into permanence. An external power became dangerous by performing a function, not by professing an identity.

That functional logic persists. Contemporary rivals engage Venezuela not through coordination, but through convergence. As Mearsheimer and Sebastian Rosato argue in How States Think, states respond to incentives created by power and position rather than shared intent or ideology. Venezuela’s energy endowment, maritime exposure, and weak internal order create permissive conditions that different actors exploit in distinct ways. While the variables are constant, the strategies vary.

China approaches Venezuela primarily as an energy and infrastructure issue. Venezuela’s concentrated hydrocarbon reserves create long-term resource incentives, while its geographic position provides access to Caribbean approaches and regional logistics corridors. Weak governance lowers entry barriers, enabling Beijing to pursue arms sales, aerospace infrastructure, intelligence cooperation, and digital systems without assuming security obligations. The result is leverage without responsibility and access without alliance.

Russia treats Venezuela less as an energy node than as a platform for disrupting order and signaling geopolitically. Maritime access and permissive governance enable episodic military presence, arms exports, and energy investment at relatively low cost. These activities do not aim at territorial control but at demonstrating reach and imposing friction on U.S. regional dominance. Access is as symbolic as it is operational.

Iran’s engagement reflects survival rather than power projection. Venezuela’s energy infrastructure and governance gaps create opportunities for sanctions evasion, fuel exchange, and limited military cooperation. Geography matters less for access than for insulation, enabling Tehran to extend its economic and security networks beyond the Middle East. The relationship is pragmatic, narrow, and driven by mutual vulnerability rather than strategic alignment.

These approaches differ in method and ambition, yet they respond to the same structure. Energy raises the stakes. Geography enables access. Weak order lowers costs. No actor created these conditions, and none fully controls them. U.S. strategy follows from this reality. The task is not to counter rivals individually but to manage the variables that make access profitable in the first place.

Instability as the Activation Mechanism

Instability acts as a catalyst, transforming Venezuela’s geographic location from a simple fact into a source of active strategic pressure. As internal order erodes, energy assets shift from national resources to contested prizes, raising the stakes for external actors reliant on predictable flows.

When these stakes increase, control over maritime access turns pressure into leverage. For SOF, those leverage points appear in ports, logistics firms, illicit finance channels, partner-force gaps, maritime patrol seams, and influence networks. For the U.S., presence, interdiction, and assurance enable influence without occupying territory, changing order enforcement from a partnership to a coercive approach. While stabilization rhetoric may suggest reconstruction, it often masks efforts to control access rather than genuinely rebuild sovereignty.

Over time, this approach reproduces the system it aims to manage. Instability invites intervention, which reshapes order without resolving underlying conditions. Unresolved structure, in turn, recreates instability. Venezuela occupies a sensitive position in this cycle, where geography, energy, and weak governance intersect, demanding persistent management. This is not fixation; rather, it is geopolitical convergence at work.

Conclusion

Venezuela is not an episodic problem; it is a recurring geopolitical pressure point due to its geography, energy sector, and weak governance. Strategic friction arises when recurrence is mistaken for failure. Persistent engagement is often seen as drift rather than a necessity, even though neither expansion nor withdrawal changes the underlying structure. Persistence reflects operational demand, not mission creep.

The access-denial mandate gives SOF a strategic role: regulate access, manage instability at its source, and prevent Venezuela’s vulnerabilities from becoming advantages for America’s rivals. Success is measured by containment rather than resolution. Access is regulated, leverage is kept reversible, and escalation pathways are bounded. The task is prevention: quiet, persistent, and often invisible.

Author’s Note: Chief Warrant Officer 3 Trevor Mayfield currently serves as an All-Source Intelligence Technician with over 19 years of experience supporting Special Operations and Conventional Forces. He is currently pursuing his Bachelor of Science in Library Science at the University of Nebraska-Omaha with a goal of becoming an elementary school librarian. The views, opinions, and analyses expressed do not represent those of the U.S. Army or the Department of War.

References
1. Center for Strategic and International Studies. The Role of the Oil Sector in Venezuela’s Environmental Degradation and Economic Rebuilding. Washington, D.C.

2. Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2001.

3. Mearsheimer, John J. Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

4. Mearsheimer, John J. The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2018.

5. Mearsheimer, John J., and Sebastian Rosato. How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2023.

6. Mirski, Sean A. We May Dominate the World: Ambition, Anxiety, and the Rise of the American Colossus. New York: PublicAffairs, 2023.

7. Oxford Public International Law. Monroe Doctrine. Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press.

8. Griffin, Andrew. Pan-Americanism and U.S. Foreign Policy. Washington: U.S. government historical study, public release.

9. Stavridis, James. Sea Power: The History and Geopolitics of the World’s Oceans. New York: Penguin Press, 2017.

10. The White House. National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Washington, D.C., December 2025.