U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks at a press conference on the 4th (local time), saying to Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed the presidential role after the arrest of Venezuelan President Maduro, "I hope you choose a different direction than Maduro." [Photo=Yonhap News]
When Donald Trump launched a decisive blow against Nicolas Maduro's regime in Venezuela through "Operation Absolute Resolve," the international community tried to interpret it as "the execution of justice against drug trafficking and human rights abuses." 

The official justifications presented by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) were also along these lines. However, in international politics, justifications are merely superficial packaging, and the substance always lies elsewhere. This situation is no different.

Although Maduro was indicted by U.S. judicial authorities on charges of drug trafficking, organized crime links, and human rights abuses, this does not automatically justify the arrest of a sitting head of state of a sovereign nation. Under international law, heads of state are generally immune from criminal jurisdiction and the exercise of coercive measures.

The U.S. action is highly debatable legally, and from a purely formal perspective, it constitutes a clear violation of sovereignty. Nevertheless, Trump accepted this controversy. The reason is simple: Maduro himself was not the target.

The Target is Not Maduro, But the Flow of Energy

Trump's real calculation was focused on Venezuela's crude oil itself, and more precisely, on cutting off the energy artery heading to China. 

The U.S. deployed military force to seize two Venezuelan oil tankers en route to China, thus moving beyond simple sanctions to exert actual energy control. This is a measure on a different level than diplomatic protests or financial sanctions.

China had been pursuing a strategy to reduce its reliance on the Middle East through Venezuela. By directly blocking this channel, the U.S. dealt an immediate blow to China's energy procurement structure. This action was a direct attack on China, but outwardly it was hidden behind the pretext of "punishing Maduro." This is a classic case of "making a feint to the east while attacking in the west" (성동격서).

Oil Prices, Inflation, and the Paradox of the Shale Industry

The issue of oil prices is a key pillar of this strategy. During the Joe Biden administration, the U.S. requested Saudi Arabia to increase production, but Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, coolly refused. However, when Trump re-emerged on the political scene, the situation changed. Saudi Arabia, despite short-term fiscal deficits, brought oil prices down to around $52-53 per barrel.

This price is below the average break-even point for the U.S. shale oil industry, which is $65-68 per barrel. As a result, U.S. shale oil companies faced pressure to go bankrupt, and the market raised questions about whether the U.S. was undermining its own industry. 

However, this too is a misunderstanding. Trump's plan was not about short-term industry protection but about securing long-term oil price control.

By removing the Venezuelan regime and enabling the U.S. to manage Venezuela's oil production and transportation routes, oil prices could once again be controlled. The shale oil industry would then need to survive in a restructured form when oil prices rebound. In other words, it is a strategy of long-term dominance through short-term sacrifice.

An Energy Lever to Bind Both China and Russia Simultaneously

The oil energy market is dominated by those with capital and hegemony. Frankly, the outcome of this fight was decided from the start.

While supply and demand fundamentally determine prices in the oil market, it is ultimately the "big players" that control the market. There are no invisible hands in the oil market; only big players who control oil prices. The price of oil is controlled and adjusted based on the choices and intentions of these big players. 

The essence of the oil market is predatory, and the current leading big players are the "Seven Sisters" – ExxonMobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, etc., descendants of Rockefeller – along with Saudi Aramco, OPEC countries, and Russia, Brazil, and Venezuela. Among these, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are the biggest players. 

They seize leadership in international politics by controlling oil prices. The U.S. plays the leading role, with Saudi Aramco in a supporting role. During the collapse of the Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia's role in dollar-denominated oil payments and its sustained production leading to low oil prices facilitated Mexico's moratorium and the Soviet Union's collapse. If energy prices had been high at that time, the Soviet Union, which financed its finances through crude oil and gas sales, might not have collapsed. 　

The ripple effects of this strategy are not limited to China. Both China and Russia heavily rely on energy prices and exports for their national finances. Lower oil prices weaken Russia's ability to sustain its war effort and inflict a multifaceted blow on China through increased manufacturing costs, logistics, and inflationary pressures. 

Trump chose a method to pressure both competing nations simultaneously through energy and markets, without military conflict.

The removal of Maduro was not a moral decision but a strategic starting point. The downfall of a head of state is not an end in itself but merely a beginning in regaining energy hegemony. In international politics, justice is often declared, but power is always calculated. 

Furthermore, the operation also aimed to solidify the direction for U.S. oil companies, such as ExxonMobil, to develop the large oil fields discovered in the Essequibo region of Guyana, a territory adjacent to Venezuela, which had been a subject of a territorial dispute between the two countries.

One Must Read the Structure and the Underside, Not Just the Pretext

When former President Biden visited Saudi Arabia and asked bin Salman to increase oil production, bin Salman coolly refused and instead cut production, driving up oil prices. 

After taking these actions, bin Salman visited the U.S. when Trump appeared, and without being asked, promised $1 trillion in investments and increased oil production to lower prices. The U.S. shale gas industry requires oil prices to be maintained above $65-68 per barrel to be profitable. Bin Salman intended to let the U.S. shale gas industry wither by lowering oil prices and then manipulate prices to pursue a high oil price policy again. 

Bin Salman took these actions while bearing fiscal deficits, but Trump struck at the heart of his intentions. The attack on Venezuela and the arrest of Maduro, while ostensibly for drug trafficking and human rights abuses, were in reality a strategy of making a feint to the east while attacking in the west, with the intention of controlling oil prices by adjusting Venezuela's oil production. 

Trump's arrest of Maduro is not about "drugs and human rights." It is a move in a grand strategic puzzle that links oil prices, inflation, energy, and U.S.-China-Russia competition into a single axis. Interpreting this puzzle solely through the language of pretexts leads to missing the essence. 

International politics should be read not as a matter of good versus evil, but as a matter of leverage and structure. Trump is once again demonstrating that harsh grammar. The moment you believe in pretexts, strategy becomes invisible. 

This is a time when a macroscopic perspective is needed to accurately understand the flow of energy in international affairs and to grasp the economic and industrial sectors through it. 

Editorial Writer, Hanmi Ilbo

◆ Ju Eun-sik, Editorial Writer

Editorial Writer, Hanmi Ilbo

Director, Korea Strategy Research Institute