World News
Oil: Wealth, Curse—and the Price of Defiance
Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : For nations blessed with oil, the central question is never geological. It is political. Oil can finance schools, hospitals, roads, dignity, and independence—or it can finance coups, client rulers, sanctions, wars, and broken states. The difference is not the size of the reserves under the sand. The difference is whether the owners of that oil are allowed to own it in practice.
Before 1953, Iran’s petroleum was not simply an export commodity. It was an imperial system. Britain’s Anglo-Iranian Oil Company dominated production and refining, and Iran’s share of value was widely viewed inside Iran as humiliating—wealth extracted from Iranian soil, feeding foreign prosperity while ordinary Iranians remained poor. In 1951, Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh took the step that shook the entire post-war order: he pushed legislation to nationalize Iran’s oil industry.
That single principle—“Iranian oil is for Iranian people”—was treated in London and Washington not as a commercial dispute but as a strategic revolt. In August 1953, Mosaddegh was removed in a coup funded by the United States and the United Kingdom, and the Shah’s rule was restored. From the Iranian public’s perspective, this was not merely regime change; it was a message to every oil-producing nation: ownership is tolerated only until it threatens the architecture of Western control.
This is how the “oil curse” is manufactured. The curse is not oil itself. The curse is what happens when a nation tries to convert oil into sovereignty.
Look at the sheer scale of what is at stake. Venezuela sits on roughly 303 billion barrels of proven reserves; Saudi Arabia about 267 billion; Iran about 208.6 billion; Iraq about 145 billion; Kuwait about 101.5 billion; Libya about 48.4 billion; and even gas-rich Qatar holds about 25.2 billion barrels of proven crude reserves. In today’s prices, this is not “resource wealth.” It is civilizational leverage—trillions upon trillions of dollars in potential value across generations.
So the key fight is not only over barrels in the ground, but over the entire chain that converts those barrels into money: drilling technology, service contracts, shipping insurance, tankers, refining capacity, trading houses, dollar clearing, and finally the security umbrella that protects friendly producers and suffocates defiant ones.
That chain is where American and British power has historically lived.
In the Gulf monarchies, the relationship evolved into a bargain: security and survival in exchange for strategic alignment. The U.S. became the guarantor of maritime routes and regime stability, and in return the Gulf became the world’s most important energy reservoir within an American-led order. The United States itself is also a giant producer—about 21.91 million barrels per day in 2023, the largest share of world production—so “control” is not only about imports; it’s also about shaping global pricing, shipping lanes, sanctions enforcement, and who can sell to whom.
But when a producer refuses alignment, the logic flips: oil stops being “their national asset” and becomes “the world’s problem”—a justification for pressure.
Iran is the classic case. After the Shah was imposed back into power with Western backing, Iran became a central pillar of Western strategy—until popular resistance exploded into the 1979 revolution. The hostage crisis was a symptom, not the root: the deeper driver was the belief among millions of Iranians that their wealth had been managed for outsiders and for a domestic elite seen as subordinate to foreign interests. The revolution survived because it was not merely a government; it became a public identity—built on defiance and sacrifice. That is why decades of pressure did not dissolve it.
Then came the region’s great furnace: the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam Hussein was treated as a counterweight to revolutionary Iran; the result was catastrophic human loss and the militarization of the entire Middle East. Even when that era ended, the template remained: defy the Western order and you face isolation, sanctions, and, if the moment suits, destruction.
Iraq’s later destruction was sold to the public with dramatic claims. But the deeper strategic obsession was always the same: who commands the oil state, and whose system the oil state finances.
And now, in December 2025, the pattern is unfolding—loudly—in Venezuela.
Reuters reports that on December 20, 2025, the United States intercepted an oil tanker near Venezuela. The vessel was reportedly carrying 1.8 million barrels of Venezuelan crude bound for China. Reuters also reports that U.S. authorities are pursuing additional vessels, describing an expanding crackdown and blockade concept aimed at sanctioned flows.
This is not symbolic enforcement. It attacks the bloodstream of the Venezuelan economy, which relies heavily on oil revenue. Reuters notes exports falling sharply (from over 1 million bpd in September to an estimated ~702,000 bpd in December), implying severe fiscal strangulation.
And notice the exception that exposes the logic: even as “dark fleet” shipping is disrupted, Chevron continues operating under a U.S. license structure. The Wall Street Journal describes Venezuelan shipping largely stalling “except Chevron,” underscoring how sanctions enforcement can separate “illegal oil” from “licensed oil”—meaning the barrel is acceptable when it flows through approved channels. Reuters similarly describes Chevron’s continued role under restricted authorization.
This is the modern oil empire: not necessarily ownership of the wells, but command over the rules of extraction, trade, and cashflow.
Across the region, Western majors remain embedded where states permit them—often through partnerships, service contracts, or joint ventures. Iraq, for instance, is again signing major deals with U.S. and European firms; Reuters reports ExxonMobil’s return via an agreement tied to the giant Majnoon field. Libya’s National Oil Corporation is engaging BP and Shell to study major fields, a sign of how foreign expertise re-enters when political conditions allow. Qatar’s North Field expansion, the backbone of future global gas supply, includes partnerships with ExxonMobil and other Western companies. Even in the Saudi-Kuwait “Neutral Zone,” Chevron’s legacy role appears in joint operations alongside state entities.
So when the West “benefits,” it is not always by directly stealing national revenue in one crude transaction. It benefits by sitting at multiple toll booths: technology and services, project equity stakes, shipping and trading, refining margins, finance and insurance, and—most importantly—strategic power: the ability to punish a seller, freeze a buyer, choke a port, or seize a ship.
That is why oil becomes a curse precisely at the moment a nation tries to treat it as democratic wealth. The moment leaders say, “this belongs to our people,” the system asks: will you still obey? If yes, you are protected. If not, your “resource blessing” is recast as a reason you must be disciplined.
This is the real warning to oil nations—whether in the Gulf, in Africa, or in Latin America. Oil is wealth only if you are allowed to keep it wealth. If you attempt to convert it into independence against the priorities of great powers, oil becomes the trigger for destabilization, sanctions, and war.
And that is why the same barrel can build prosperity in one country and produce ruin in another. The difference is not the oil. The difference is who is permitted to command the oil.
ISLAMABAD: Parliamentary Secretary for Information and Broadcasting Barrister Danyal Chaudhry on Monday stressed that national security was “non-negotiable” after Pakistan carried out strikes on terrorist targets in Afghanistan, killing over 80 terrorists.
“Pakistan has always chosen the path of dialogue and peaceful coexistence. But when Afghan soil continues to be used for proxy attacks, we have no choice but to defend our homeland. National security is non-negotiable,” Chaudhry said in a statement.
The PML-N MNA affirmed that the people of Pakistan “stand firmly” with their armed forces in the fight against terrorism.
He urged the Afghan government to take “decisive action to prevent its land from being used for cross-border militancy”, warning that lasting peace in the region depended on the “complete dismantling of terrorist sanctuaries”.
Noting that the recent operation “successfully neutralised militants involved in attacks on Pakistani soil”, Chaudhry stressed: “This action was aimed solely at those responsible for violent attacks inside Pakistan. Every precaution was taken to protect innocent lives.”
He also pointed to Afghanistan’s emergence as a “sanctuary for multiple terrorist groups”. Referring to a United Nations report, he noted that militants from 21 terror outfits were operating from Afghan territory, posing a serious threat to regional stability.
He specifically called out India’s “continued support for terrorist networks”.
“India is actively funding and training these groups, equipping them to carry out cross-border attacks against Pakistan. Such elements deserve no concessions,” the parliamentary secretary asserted.
His remarks came after Pakistan carried out airstrikes on Afghanistan in a retaliatory operation targeting groups responsible for recent suicide bombings in Pakistan.
The strikes killed “more than 80 terrorists”, according to security sources.
The strikes were conducted in retaliation for a series of suicide attacks in Islamabad, Bajaur, and Bannu that had claimed the lives of Pakistani security personnel and civilians. Authorities described the operation as intelligence-based and proportionate, aimed solely at those responsible for the attacks.
‘Decisive struggle against terrorism’
Separately, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Governor Faisal Karim Kundi asserted that the country will “not allow our soil to be destabilised by forces operating from across the border in Afghanistan”.
In a post on X, he said: “The citizens of Pakistan, especially the resilient people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, stand firmly with our armed forces and security institutions in the defense of our homeland.”
He further said: “The sacrifices of our martyrs bind us together as one nation. In this decisive struggle against terrorism, Pakistan stands united, resolute, and unwavering.
“Our sovereignty is non-negotiable, and the people of this country stand shoulder to shoulder with the state to protect it at all costs.”
A total of 1,557 Venezuelan political prisoners have applied for amnesty under a new law introduced on Thursday, the country’s National Assembly President has said.
Jorge Rodríguez, brother of Venezuelan interim President Delcy Rodríguez and an ally of former President Nicolás Maduro, also said “hundreds” of prisoners had already been released.
Among them is politician Juan Pablo Guanipa, one of several opposition voices to have criticised the law for excluding certain prisoners.
The US has urged Venezuela to speed up its release of political prisoners since US forces seized Maduro in a raid on 3 January. Venezuela’s socialist government has always denied holding political prisoners.
At a news conference on Saturday Jorge Rodríguez said 1,557 release requests were being addressed “immediately” and ultimately the legislation would extend to 11,000 prisoners.
The government first announced days after Maduro’s capture, on 8 January, that “a significant number” of prisoners would be freed as a goodwill gesture.
Opposition and human rights groups have said the government under Maduro used detentions of political prisoners to stamp out dissent and silence critics for years.
These groups have also criticised the new law. One frequently cited criticism is that it would not extend amnesty to those who called for foreign armed intervention in Venezuela, BBC Latin America specialist Luis Fajardo says.
He noted that law professor Juan Carlos Apitz, of the Central University of Venezuela, told CNN Español that that part of the amnesty law “has a name and surname”. “That paragraph is the Maria Corina Machado paragraph.”
It is not clear if the amnesty would actually cover Machado, who won last year’s Nobel Peace Prize, Fajardo said.
He added that other controversial aspects of the law include the apparent exclusion from amnesty benefits of dozens of military officers involved in rebellions against the Maduro administration over the years.
On Saturday, Rodríguez said it is “releases from Zona Seven of El Helicoide that they’re handling first”.
Those jailed at the infamous prison in Caracas would be released “over the next few hours”, he added.
Activists say some family members of those imprisoned in the facility have gone on hunger strike to demand the release of their relatives.
US President Donald Trump said that El Helicoide would be closed after Maduro’s capture.
Maduro is awaiting trial in custody in the US alongside his wife Cilia Flores and has pleaded not guilty to drugs and weapons charges, saying that he is a “prisoner of war”.
Students at several universities in Iran have staged anti-government protests – the first such rallies on this scale since last month’s deadly crackdown by the authorities.
The BBC has verified footage of demonstrators marching on the campus of the Sharif University of Technology in the capital Tehran on Saturday. Scuffles were later seen breaking out between them and government supporters.
A sit-in was held at another Tehran university, and a rally reported in the north-east. Students were honouring thousands of those killed in mass protests in January.
The US has been building up its military presence near Iran, and President Donald Trump has said he is considering a limited military strike.
The US and its European allies suspect that Iran is moving towards the development of a nuclear weapon, something Iran has always denied.
US and Iranian officials met in Switzerland on Tuesday and said progress had been made in talks aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear programme.
But despite the reported progress, Trump said afterwards that the world would find out “over the next, probably, 10 days” whether a deal would be reached with Iran or the US would take military action.
The US leader has supported protesters in the past – at one stage appearing to encourage them with a promise that “help is on its way”.
Footage verified by the BBC shows hundreds of protesters – many with national Iranian flags – peacefully marching on the campus of the Sharif University of Technology at the start of a new semester on Saturday.
The crowds chanted “death to the dictator” – a reference to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – and other anti-government slogans.
Supporters of a rival pro-government rally are seen nearby in the video. Scuffles are later seen breaking out between the two camps.
Verified photos have also emerged showing a peaceful sit-in protest at the capital’s Shahid Beheshti University.
The BBC have also verified footage from another Tehran university, Amir Kabir University of Technology, showing chanting against the government.
In Mashhad, Iran’s second-largest city in the north-east, local students reportedly chanted: “Freedom, freedom” and “Students, shout, shout for your rights”.
Sizeable demonstrations in other locations were also reported later in the day, with calls for further rallies on Sunday.
It is not immediately clear whether any demonstrators have been arrested.
Last month’s protests began over economic grievances and soon spread to become the largest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (Hrana) said it had confirmed the killing of at least 6,159 people during that wave, including 5,804 protesters, 92 children and 214 people affiliated with the government.
Hrana also said it was investigating 17,000 more reported deaths.
Iranian authorities said late last month that more than 3,100 people had been killed – but that the majority were security personnel or bystanders attacked by “rioters”.
Saturday’s protests come as the Iranian authorities are preparing for a possible war with the US.
The exiled opposition is adamantly calling on President Trump to make good on his threats and strike, hoping for a quick downfall of the current hardline government.
But other opposition groups are opposed to outside intervention.
The opposing sides have been involved in disinformation campaigns of social media, trying to maximise their conflicting narratives of what Iranian people want.
Additional reporting by BBC Persian’s Ghoncheh Habibiazad, and BBC Verify’s Richard Irvine-Brown and Shayan Sardarizadeh.
‘National security is non-negotiable’: Parliamentary secretary on Afghanistan strikes
What’s the best way to learn a new language?
Armed man killed after entering secure perimeter of Trump’s residence, Secret Service says
-
Europe News12 months agoChaos and unproven theories surround Tates’ release from Romania
-
American News12 months agoTrump Expels Zelensky from the White House
-
American News12 months agoTrump expands exemptions from Canada and Mexico tariffs
-
American News12 months agoZelensky bruised but upbeat after diplomatic whirlwind
-
Art & Culture12 months agoThe Indian film showing the bride’s ‘humiliation’ in arranged marriage
-
Pakistan News8 months agoComprehensive Analysis Report-The Faranian National Conference on Maritime Affairs-By Kashif Firaz Ahmed
-
Art & Culture12 months agoInternational Agriculture Exhibition held in Paris
-
Politics12 months agoUS cuts send South Africa’s HIV treatment ‘off a cliff’