Former Minister of State for External Affairs MJ Akbar has strongly criticised the United States’ recent military action against Venezuela, arguing that the operation has little to do with democracy or political reform and far more to do with control over natural resources, particularly oil. Speaking on the unfolding situation, Akbar described the US move as a modern-day revival of the Monroe Doctrine, warning that it could push the world towards a major geopolitical confrontation involving global powers such as Russia and China.

Reacting to reports of a US attack on Venezuela’s capital and claims surrounding the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Akbar said the action must be viewed through the lens of history rather than rhetoric. According to him, the justification of democracy and progress masks a deeper strategic objective: securing control over one of the world’s richest reserves of oil and minerals.

A Return to the Monroe Doctrine

Speaking to news agency ANI, Akbar said the US action under President Donald Trump’s second term represents a return to what is famously known as the Monroe Doctrine. He explained that the doctrine, articulated by US President James Monroe in December 1823, declared Latin America as being within the American sphere of influence and warned European powers against intervention in the region.

“President Donald Trump’s first war of his second term, which is the war in Venezuela, is, in historical terms, a return to what is famously known as the Monroe Doctrine,” Akbar said. He noted that Monroe’s message to the US Congress asserted that the Americas, including Latin America—then largely under Spanish and Portuguese control—were off-limits to European interference.

Akbar said that while the original Monroe Doctrine involved a promise by the United States not to intervene in European affairs, it simultaneously established a long-term principle of American dominance in the Western Hemisphere. “That principle,” he argued, “has now been extended in the modern age into a form of hegemonic control.”

According to Akbar, the current US approach to Venezuela reflects this historical mindset, where strategic dominance outweighs concerns about sovereignty, democracy, or internal political processes in Latin American nations.

Democracy as a Pretext, Not the Cause

Akbar acknowledged that Venezuela’s political system has long been controversial and that questions have been raised about the legitimacy of elections in the country. However, he rejected the idea that these concerns are the real reason behind US military intervention.

“Not all countries in Latin America have true democracy,” he said. “There are questions and doubts about the legitimacy of votes in Venezuela.” Yet, he added, such issues are not unique to Venezuela and have existed for years without triggering large-scale military action.

In Akbar’s view, the narrative of restoring democracy or promoting progress is being used as a convenient justification. “The conflict there, in my view, is not about democracy or about progress,” he said. “The conflict there concerns something President Trump has outlined in many ways and across the world. It’s about minerals and oil.”

Venezuela’s Oil: The Real Prize

Central to Akbar’s argument is Venezuela’s vast oil wealth. He pointed out that Venezuela holds the largest proven oil reserves in the world, even surpassing traditional energy giants such as Saudi Arabia.

“People do not realise that Venezuela has the largest reserves of oil in the world, much bigger than Saudi Arabia,” Akbar said. According to his figures, Venezuela possesses more than 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, compared to Saudi Arabia’s approximately 267 billion barrels.

He described this enormous resource base as the primary strategic attraction for Washington. “Venezuela now has over 300 billion barrels of proven reserves,” he said, adding that this places the country at the very centre of global energy geopolitics.

Akbar argued that President Trump’s foreign policy has consistently reflected a desire to ensure American dominance in the global supply of minerals and energy resources. He cited US involvement and strategic interests in regions such as Ukraine and parts of Africa as examples of this broader pattern.

“The Trump administration and President Trump want control over Venezuela,” Akbar said. “President Trump has shown a consistent desire to advance an America First agenda in the global control of minerals, whether in Ukraine or across Africa.”

According to him, this approach is driven by a belief that economic and strategic supremacy in the 21st century will depend heavily on access to critical resources. “Through repeated efforts and transactions, he has made this central to his interests,” Akbar said, adding that while many may disagree with this logic, “it is what it is.”

Hegemony and Global Power Politics

Beyond Venezuela itself, Akbar warned that the US action could have far-reaching consequences for global stability. He stressed that the most worrying aspect of the situation is not just American military intervention, but the likelihood of a broader confrontation involving other major powers.

He pointed out that Russia and China have both issued clear warnings that they would not accept American hegemony over Venezuela. Given their strategic and economic interests in the region, Akbar said their involvement could turn Venezuela into a major flashpoint in global geopolitics.

“What is the most important thing that we should be apprehensive about, worried about, is not only the American intervention,” Akbar said. He suggested that the US might rely on air power rather than large-scale deployment of ground troops, but even limited military action could escalate rapidly.

“The clear warning given by Russia and China that it would not accept American hegemony over Venezuela,” he said, “if that becomes a conflict point, then it will add to a very, very major conflict zone in 2026.”

Risks of a New Global Conflict Zone

Akbar’s remarks underline fears that Venezuela could become another arena for great power rivalry, similar to conflicts seen in parts of Eastern Europe and West Asia. With the US, Russia, and China all having strategic stakes, the risk of miscalculation or escalation is significant.

He warned that such a scenario would not be limited to regional consequences but could reshape global alignments and deepen existing geopolitical tensions. The involvement of multiple nuclear-armed powers, he suggested, makes the situation particularly dangerous.

According to Akbar, history shows that interventions driven by resource interests and hegemonic ambitions rarely end quickly or cleanly. Instead, they tend to produce long-term instability, humanitarian crises, and entrenched conflicts.

A Broader Critique of Interventionism

Akbar’s comments also reflect a broader critique of interventionist foreign policy, particularly when framed in moral or ideological terms. By invoking the Monroe Doctrine, he sought to place current events in a historical continuum, arguing that the language of democracy often masks enduring patterns of power politics.

While acknowledging Venezuela’s internal political problems, Akbar insisted that external military intervention is unlikely to resolve them. Instead, he warned, it could further destabilise the region and deepen global divisions at a time when international cooperation is already under severe strain.

As the situation in Venezuela continues to evolve, Akbar’s remarks add an Indian perspective to the global debate, highlighting concerns about resource-driven conflicts, great power rivalry, and the long-term consequences of unilateral military action.

In his assessment, the crisis is less about ideology and more about control—control over energy, influence, and the future balance of power. Whether the world can avoid the “very, very major conflict zone” he fears, Akbar suggested, will depend on how global powers respond in the months ahead.