As President Trump intensifies a naval blockade and demands the return of “stolen” oil assets, critics and supporters alike are debating the emergence of a 21st-century interventionist policy aimed at securing the Western Hemisphere’s energy reserves.
The White House’s escalating confrontation with Venezuela has been dubbed by geopolitical analysts as the “Donroe Doctrine,” a modern, aggressive twist on the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine. Following President Donald Trump’s order for a “total and complete” naval blockade of sanctioned tankers, fears are growing in Washington and abroad that the U.S. is heading toward an energy-driven conflict that echoes the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The strategy combines crippling maritime interdictions with the recent designation of the Nicolás Maduro government as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization.” It’s trying to achieve what decades of sanctions couldn’t: force regime change by cutting off Caracas’s economic lifeline.
At the heart of this “oil war” is Trump’s demand that Venezuela compensate American energy firms for assets seized during the Hugo Chávez era. The administration claims billions of dollars in “stolen” infrastructure and reserves belong to the American people, and the blockade won’t lift until “restitutions” are made.
Economic analysts say the stakes are huge. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, and the “Donroe Doctrine” appears designed to bring those reserves back under U.S.-aligned corporate control, effectively pushing out Chinese and Russian influence in the Caribbean.
“This isn’t just about security; it’s about energy rights that were illegally taken from us,” Trump told reporters earlier this week. “We’re not going to let a failed, terrorist regime sit on the world’s largest oil pool while they fund crime at our doorstep.”
But the aggressive posture has drawn sharp criticism. “We are seeing the playbook for Iraq 2.0 being written in real-time,” a senior UN diplomat warned. “By framing a resource dispute as a counter-terrorism operation, the administration is creating a justification for a military intervention that could destabilize the entire region.”
The term “Donroe Doctrine” has caught on as shorthand for the President’s “America First” approach to the Western Hemisphere. Unlike the original Monroe Doctrine, which aimed to keep European powers out of the Americas, the “Donroe” version is seen as more transactional and interventionist, focusing on direct control of strategic assets.
The comparison to the Iraq War comes from three parallels historians have noted:
- The focus on a “rogue” leader sitting on vast oil reserves.
- The use of “terrorism” designations to bypass traditional diplomatic channels.
- The assembly of a massive naval armada to enforce a blockade without a formal declaration of war.
With the U.S. Navy already stopping vessels in the Caribbean, the risk of something going wrong is at an all-time high. If the blockade fails to collapse the Maduro government, the administration may face a choice: back down and lose credibility, or escalate to a ground-based “stabilization” mission. For now, the “Donroe Doctrine” is in full swing, and global oil prices are reflecting the growing instability in the Gulf of Mexico.
Also Read / Trump demands Venezuela return ‘stolen’ oil assets after ordering naval blockade.
Leave a comment