Menu

Recent Items

Shining a Light on How Exxon Mobil Bankrolls Think Tank “Experts” Pushing for Regime-Change War in Venezuela

Posted on by

For the US oil major, this is about reclaiming its stake in a market it walked away from in 2007, after the Hugo Chávez government called for a fairer divvying up of profits. 

The US’ seizure last Wednesday of an Iranian oil tanker carrying Venezuelan oil was definitive confirmation that the US’ war of aggression in Venezuela has nothing to do with drug cartels and everything to do with oil majors.

Venezuela has the largest proven reserves of heavy crude in the world, with an estimated 303 billion barrels, as well as the largest reserves of light crude oil in the Western Hemisphere. But it’s not just that Venezuela is home to the largest oil reserves on the planet, it’s that those reserves are sitting “right next door” to the US, as Trump himself said in 2023:

President Trump’s obsession with seizing other countries’ oil goes back a ways, to even before he entered politics. Here he is explaining in 2011 why the US should seize half or more of Libya’s oil after murdering its leader, Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi, and plunging what was arguably the richest country in Africa (on a per-capita basis) into total chaos.

The money quote: “you know the old days, when you had a war, it was ‘to the victor the spoils.'”

As has been patently clear since the very beginning, and was just reaffirmed by Democrat Senator Chris Murphy, Trump’s military strikes against boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific are entirely devoid of legal or national security justifications. Yet they continue.

Meanwhile, Julian Assange has filed a criminal complaint against the Nobel Foundation for allowing its peace prize to serve as an instrument of war. The Wikileaks founder alleges that giving the 2025 edition award to Maria Corina Machado constitutes misappropriation of funds and facilitation of war crimes.

Yet even as the holes in the whole war narrative grow larger, mainly because of Trump’s own conflicting statements, the war drums grow louder.

Now, Trump has said the quietest part out loud: his government is imposing a total siege on Venezuelan oil because the US wants “ITS” oil back from under Venezuela’s soil — the same oil that the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez dared to take back sovereign control of from foreign companies in 2005 (more on that shortly).

Trump’s blockade of all sanctioned tankers carrying Venezuelan oil does not affect Chevron’s daily shipments. From the Wall Street Journal:

President Trump on Tuesday ordered a complete blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers going into and out of Venezuela, escalating his administration’s pressure campaign against strongman Nicolás Maduro.

For Chevron, though, it remains business as usual. The company is still sending oil tankers to the U.S. Gulf Coast, its operations unimpeded thus far by rising tension between Trump and Maduro.

As Sony Thăng points out in the Tweet below, Trump’s candid declaration of US ownership of Venezuela’s is the “most honest colonial confession of the 21st century… you are saying, out loud, what empire has always believed in private: what lies under Venezuelan oil belongs to Washington.

Coming Full Circle

There are, of course, a plethora of other reasons for the US’ aggressive moves against Venezuela that we’ve discussed before, including the country’s large deposits of gold, rare earth minerals and freshwater; the opportunity to open up a mid-sized country’s market to rampant privatisation and liberalisation.

Caracas’ close ties with Russia, China, Iran and Cuba no doubt play a play, as does its long-standing opposition to Israel’s treatment of Palestine.

There’s also, of course, the small matter of the Epstein scandal, from which the Trump administration needs to distract its voters. And what better distraction than a new war, especially given the tens, perhaps even hundreds, of billions of dollars of new business it will create for the MIC?

But the main motive is — and always has been — the oil. And we’ve now come full circle, with Trump and members of his inner circle now openly admitting as much.

A fitting depiction of what is happening:

Trump’s claim that the Maduro government has stolen US-owned oil, land and other assets constitutes an extremely egregious case of projection. It is, after all, the US, mainly during Trump’s two presidencies, that has been stealing all kinds of Venezuelan assets, from the country’s gold reserves to the oil tanker seized in the Caribbean last week, to the president’s official plane, to Venezuelan oil company Citgo.

Trump’s words are even causing blushes among members of the Machado opposition, as Max Blumenthal told Judge Napolitano on Judging Freedom. After all, how can they sell their regime change story back home when Trump is telling the world that a Maduro-free Venezuela will essentially belong to the US — lock, stock and, most importantly, barrel?

One company in particular that stands to benefit from the US’ latest regime change operation is Exxon Mobil. An recent article by the Argentine geopolitical analyst Bruno Sgarzini shines a light on how the company is helping to fund influential think tank “experts” who are pushing for a regime-change war against Venezuela (machine translated):

“The Brookings Institute and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) are the two major think tanks we work with and actively participate in,” said Keith McCoy, a lobbyist for Exxon Mobil in 2019. What McCoy didn’t know is that the conversation was being recorded and that the person he was speaking to, supposedly a representative of an energy investment company, was actually a climate activist. The lobbyist had unwittingly confessed that he relied on the academic reports of both think tanks to influence congressmen, and the media, against any anti-fossil fuel legislation.

The academics, in charge of presenting their reports in Congress, and the board of both institutions, of course, denied any connection to the oil company. But the data speaks for itself; Exxon Mobil has contributed 12 million dollars to the CSIS that have flowed towards its program of “Energy Security and Climate Change” and others related to energy initiatives in the “Americas and Africa”, two regions where the oil company has deep interests.

It also contributed, according to records, $5 million to the construction of the institute’s new headquarters. Its executive board also includes Exxon’s current CEO, Darren W. Woods, who replaced the company’s former boss, Rex Tillerson, Trump’s former secretary of state during his first administration…

The positions of the CSIS are usually conveyed through reports whose message is then reinforced with the appearance of the authors on mainstream media, such as CNN, Fox News, NBC and CBS, or opinion columns in newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and magazines specializing in international issues such as Foreign Policy.

[They also feature prominently] in congressional hearings, which gives these experts the possibility of influencing specific issues that benefit CSIS donors, such as Exxon Mobil. Brooke Williams, a professor of journalism at Boston University, wrote [in the New York Times]:

“Think tanks, which position themselves as ‘universities without students,’ have power in government policy debates because they are seen as researchers independent of moneyed interests. But in the chase for funds, think tanks are pushing agendas important to corporate donors, at times blurring the line between researchers and lobbyists. And they are doing so while reaping the benefits of their tax-exempt status, sometimes without disclosing their connections to corporate interests.”

According to CSIS, it usually has regular meetings with representatives of its donors to discuss the issues they are dealing with.

A Guerrilla Lobby 

The fact that a think tank like CSIS is serving the interests of one of its biggest corporate donors is hardly news to NC readers. Even the New York Times reported in 2016 on how think tanks are “amplifying Corporate America’s influence”. This is, you could argue, their raison d’etre.

What may be news is that since Trump began deploying a large chunk of the US’ naval fleet to the Caribbean in early September, the CSIS has launched a guerrilla lobby of sorts in favour of removing Chavismo from power. That this perfectly aligns with the interests of one of its main donors, Exxon Mobil, is probably no coincidence, writes Sgarzini:

In an article in Foreign Policy, CSIS’ director for Latin America, Ryan C. Berg, has spoken in favor of “overthrowing Maduro without troops on the ground.” He has also questioned the anti-war visions of the MAGA world held by journalist Tucker Carlson and former Trump strategist Steve Bannon.

“Distinct from a boots-on-the-ground invasion of Venezuela aimed at overthrowing Maduro, a regime collapse would entail a more limited campaign of U.S. strikes on targets at the heart of the Maduro regime’s state-crime nexus, implicating the country’s armed forces and its political elites. These strikes would leverage precision-guided munitions and U.S. standoff weapons fired from a safe distance, possibly catalyzing movement internally to force Maduro’s exit—all without putting U.S. personnel at risk as with a “regime change” strategy.”

The promotion of this thesis… was reinforced by technical-military reports by Mark Cancian, a former U.S. colonel who participated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, who compares the firepower being deployed [in the Caribbean] with other military campaigns such as NATO’s in Libya and Yugoslavia.

“The forces currently compromised are insufficient for an amphibious landing or ground invasion. This would require at least 50,000 soldiers, and war strategists would probably want a much larger number—perhaps 150,000—to achieve the overwhelming force they desire. However, the air and naval resources accumulated over the past three months have provided enough firepower to the Caribbean to launch air and missile strikes against Venezuela…”

These reports, in practice, function as information weapons to maintain the perception of an “imminent attack” and thereby influence decision-making.

CSIS has been at this a long time. During the first year of Juan Guaidó’s clown “presidency”, in 2019, it organised a meeting to evaluate the use of military force in Venezuela. Guest speakers included the former head of Southern Command, Kurt Tidd; Roger Noriega, former US undersecretary for Latin America and one of the architects of the Iran-Contra scandal; and William Brownfield, former US ambassador to Caracas.

During the Biden administration, Berg was a vociferous critic of the oil licenses granted to Chevron, Exxon Mobil’s biggest rival. On Trump’s return in January, Berg co-wrote a report with Juan Ignacio Hernández, Juan Guaido’s former special prosecutor, titled “Ending Maduro’s Oil Lifeline”. The report argued for the reapplication of sanctions as a tool of pressure, and the revocation of the current oil licenses that allow Western companies to partner with PDVSA.

The report’s presentation event even featured the participation of María Corina Machado. From 2023 to 2025, the opposition leader has participated in different CSIS events moderated by Berg, at which she reiterated her refusal to negotiate with Maduro and called for Washington to apply tougher measures against Venezuela.

At the beginning of Trump’s second term, it was not clear which way his government would lean on the question of Venezuela. As readers may recall, Trump even dispatched his special mission envoy, Richard Grenell, to Caracas to discuss with Maduro the return of migrants currently in the US. As a gesture of good will, Caracas released half a dozen US citizens held in Venezuelan prisons who were accused of being mercenaries and plotting terrorist attacks on Mexican soil.

As we noted at the time, this was clearly an attempt by the US to reestablish relations with Venezuela after over a decade of escalating sanctions and multiple failed regime change operations against the country:

After Maduro and Grenell closed the deal, the prisoners were taken to the airport, blindfolded, hooded and handcuffed. No financial or other concessions were promised to Maduro, other than the prospect of improving relations with the US, Grenell said.

The only reward for Maduro was my presence: the first senior US official to visit the country in years , Grenell said. It was a great gift for him to receive a visit from an envoy of President Trump.

While these words may ring of imperial hubris and arrogance, the truth is that Maduro seemed the picture of contentment in the meeting. And who could blame him? Just a month [earlier], all the talk was of yet another regime change operation, led this time by Venezuela’s CIA-sponsored “Iron Lady”, Marìa Corrina Machado. Biden had just given the opposition’s official candidate, Edmundo González, the red carpet treatment at the White House, pronouncing him as “president elect” of Venezuela just days before Maduro’s inauguration for a third term.

Richard Grenell’s strategy may have sought to offer Venezuela economic respite by extending the sanctions relief enacted by the Biden administration in 2023, since which time Venezuela has been one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America. However, all of the White House’s decisions since the summer of 2025 point in the opposite direction.

Clearly, the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, his Miami-based backers, neocons like Elliot Abrams and all the other belligerents, including CSIS, have gained the upper hand.

However, if Trump does declare war against Venezuela, it could be hugely disruptive for US oil companies operating in Venezuela, like Chevron, and the huge refineries that process Venezuela’s heavy crude on the US’ Gulf coast — especially if, as many have warned, the spiral of violence unleashed in Venezuela becomes intractable.

But this wouldn’t be a problem for Exxon Mobil since it hasn’t had operations in Venezuela since 2007.

Exxon’s Long History in Venezuela

Exxon has a long, rich history in Venezuela dating back over a century. Its predecessor, Standard Oil, was one of the first companies to explore for oil in the South American country in the 1910s. Between the 1930s and the first decade of this century, Exxon was a dominant player in Venezuela through its 95% control of the Creole Petroleum Corporation — so much so that the country became known as the “ranchito de los Rockefeller“.

But that all came to a halt in 2005, when Hugo Chávez ordered all existing “operating agreements” with foreign oil companies to be converted into joint ventures in which the state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), held a mandatory majority stake (over 50% ownership and operational control). Exxon refused to sign while most other companies, including BP, Total and Chevron, took the deal.

In 2007, Exxon left Venezuela for good and began a long court battle against the Chavista government at the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (CIADI). The US oil giant sought compensation of $18 billion, but after several appeals the courts sided with Venezuela and in 2014 the oil company was awarded only $1.6 billion in damages.

When Trump accuses Venezuela of stealing US oil, he is presumably referring primarily to Exxon’s oil.

But Exxon’s revenge came with the the discovery of oil off the coast of Essequibo, a sparsely populated 160,000 square-kilometre chunk of land in neighbouring Guyana. The ownership of Essequibo has been the subject of an ongoing territorial dispute between Guyana and Venezuela since the mid-19th century — a territorial dispute whose initial antagonist, readers will be shocked to learn, was the British Empire.

Exxon was one of the first companies to begin drilling for oil in the Essequibo’s disputed waters. As the Washington Post reported in 2017,  it was the “perfect revenge” for Exxon’s then-CEO Rex Tillerson, whom Donald Trump would later go on to appoint as his secretary of state.

Rex Tillerson hadn’t been CEO of ExxonMobil very long when the late president Hugo Chavez made foreign oil companies in Venezuela an offer they couldn’t refuse. Give the government a bigger cut, or else.

Most of the companies took the deal. Tillerson refused.

Chavez responded in 2007 by nationalizing ExxonMobil’s considerable assets in the country, which the company valued at $10 billion. The losses were a big blow to Tillerson, who reportedly took the seizure as a personal affront.

Only Tillerson didn’t get mad, at least in public. He got even.

Flash forward to May 2015. Just five days after former military general David Granger was elected president of the South American nation of Guyana, unseating the country’s long-ruling leftist party, ExxonMobil made a big announcement.

In the deep blue waters120 miles off Guyana’s coast, the company scored a major oil discovery: as much as 1.4 billion barrels of high-quality crude. Tillerson told company shareholders the well, Liza-1, was the largest oil find anywhere in the world that year.

For tiny Guyana (population 800,000), the continent’s only English-speaking country and one of its poorest, it was a fortune-changing event, certain to mark a “before and after” in a country long isolated by language and geography.

There was just one problem with this undersea bonanza. Venezuela claimed the waters — and the hydrocarbons beneath them — as its own.

Clearly drilling in the disputed area was potentially a good business decision for ExxonMobil, not some sort of elaborate revenge scheme by its CEO.

But revenge had been served. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Chavez’s successor, was livid.

“There is a brutal campaign against Venezuela of lies, funded by ExxonMobil … which has great influence at the Pentagon,” Maduro declared, calling the dispute an attempt to corner Venezuela and precipitate “a high-intensity conflict.”

That high-intensity conflict is now closer than ever. But it needs to be packaged and sold to US lawmakers, media, members of the armed forces, and Trump’s war-weary MAGA base. And that is where CSIS’ “experts” come in. And they appear to be marketing this war on behalf of a company that has much to gain from a military intervention, and which bears the biggest grudge against Venezuela’s Bolivarian movement.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *