Skip to main content

Invading for freedom—or fuel? Democracy as cover, oil as motive

By Raqif Makhdoomi* 
There was a time when the United States claimed to “attack” countries to ensure democracy. Many believed it, until it became clear that democracy was never the real concern—oil was. In pursuit of oil, the United States has intervened militarily across the globe, yet no one calls it a terrorist nation. America moves into countries, leaves them in ruins, and walks away without consequences.
Today, Israel stands accused of violating almost every known UN resolution and human rights convention, yet Washington sees no “threat to democracy.” The reason is painfully obvious: Palestine has no oil. Had it possessed wells instead of olive groves, perhaps the United States would have suddenly discovered a crisis worth “saving.” Israel’s actions draw no military response, while Saddam Hussein faced the full weight of a US-led coalition over alleged weapons of mass destruction—weapons never found. Iraq’s real crime was having oil America wanted.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq included carpet bombing of residential areas far removed from any military target. Yet no serious accountability followed. The United States has not only attacked Iraq but intervened in China (1945–46), Syria (1949), Korea (1950–53), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Tibet (1950s–70s), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959), Kuwait (1991), Libya (1986 and 2011), and many others. By some counts, the United States has attacked or destabilized 48 countries out of roughly 195—nearly a quarter of the world. Still, no US president has ever been branded extremist, radical, or terrorist, while Saddam Hussein was executed after a hasty trial.
The United States pushed the UN to take action against Saddam but left Iraq devastated. Why? Because Saddam sought to strengthen his country, and a strong Iraq threatened America’s dominance. The US fears any nation becoming powerful enough to challenge it—China and Russia are too large to bully, but smaller states are easier targets.
The human cost of the Iraq war is staggering. Researchers from the US, Canada, and Iraq estimate that about half a million Iraqis died between 2003 and 2011 from violence and infrastructure collapse, far above the 112,000 violent deaths recorded by Iraq Body Count. These deaths happened under George W. Bush’s orders, yet he is not treated as a threat to democracy or humanity. Not a single recent US president has avoided bombing or invading another country, but none features on any terror list.
Meanwhile, the United States recently arrested Venezuela’s president—and boasted about it. When Iraq was accused of violating Kuwaiti sovereignty, America launched a full-scale war; when Washington violates another nation’s sovereignty to apprehend a head of state, it claims moral authority.
Venezuela is mired in crisis—sanctions, not socialism, deprived people of essential services. The pattern is familiar: America imposes sanctions, suffocates a country, and then pretends to care. Iran faces the same playbook. Protests become proxy tools; cultural debates such as hijab are weaponized. The aim is disruption, not liberation. But Iran is strong and unlikely to collapse under pressure.
And now the real reason for US interest in Venezuela is out in the open. Washington will receive 30 to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil, with shipments expected to continue indefinitely, in exchange for selective sanction relief. Sanctions were never about democracy or corruption—they were about access. The United States is stockpiling as much oil as possible, anticipating the day reserves decline and the world becomes dependent on American storage tanks.
At every turn, the pattern repeats. The United States has never cared about democracy, human rights, or freedom. What it cares about—what it acts for, bombs for, negotiates for—is oil.
---
*Law student and human rights activist

Comments

TRENDING

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan  The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

Four women lead the way among Tamil Nadu’s Muslim change-makers

By Syed Ali Mujtaba*  A report published by Awaz–The Voice (ATV), a news platform, highlights 10 Muslim change-makers in Tamil Nadu, among whom four are women. These individuals are driving social change through education, the arts, conservation, and activism. Representing diverse fields ranging from environmental protection and literature to political engagement and education, they are working to improve society across the state.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra   We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative   Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram   The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman*  In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative   A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

Samyukt Kisan Morcha raises concerns over ‘corporate bias’ in seed Bill

By A Representative   The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) has released a statement raising ten questions to Union Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan regarding the proposed Seed Bill 2025, alleging that the legislation is biased in favour of large multinational and domestic seed corporations and does not adequately safeguard farmers’ interests.