By: Roby Rushandie (Research and Knowledge Manager of The PRAKARSA)
Beginning in 2026, the world was shocked by the United States military operation in Venezuela that successfully captured President Nicolás Maduro. Although the US government framed the operation as a law enforcement action based on narcoterrorism charges, President Donald Trump, in his latest statement, claimed to have reached an agreement to import US$2 billion worth of oil from Venezuela.
As a result, it's interesting to examine this event from the perspective of the fate of the energy transition and climate commitments. This is because it signals that oil remains strategically important, especially in the US, amidst the strengthening narrative of the clean energy transition on the global stage.
Why is the US targeting Venezuelan oil?
Several indicators point to the US energy paradox: record domestic production, while imports and consumption remain substantial. Thanks to shale oil, the United States is the world's largest oil producer, accounting for one-fifth of global oil production (Energy Institute, 2024). Meanwhile, the United States is the second-largest crude oil importer after China.
If the US is already the world's largest oil producer, why is Venezuelan oil still attractive? There are at least two main reasons why: first, many refineries on the US Gulf Coast were built to process heavy oil (heavy crude oil density). Meanwhile, shale oil (shale) The US tends to be lighter (light crude oil density). This creates a mixed need (blending) and the supply of heavy oil from abroad to be optimal.
Second, increasing geopolitical influence. The Guardian revealed that controlling Venezuelan oil also means curbing the influence of US rivals like China. The US embargo has so far kept Venezuelan oil sold cheaply to China. By diverting Venezuelan oil to the US, China will have to find alternative supplies at higher prices.
US Climate Commitments Rebound Over Political Cycles
The US's actions in Venezuela remind many of the pattern of US intervention in energy resources. For decades, US foreign policy has been intertwined with oil interests. The 1991 Gulf War, for example, although triggered by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, was clearly linked to the prospect of oil dominance in the Gulf.
Likewise, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, of which former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan bluntly wrote: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to admit what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
So what do these events, including Maduro's arrest, have to do with the fate of the energy transition? It will be interesting to observe how US climate commitments fluctuate according to the regime's cycle.
The zigzag nature of clean energy versus fossil fuel policy in the US is evident. Democrats tend to favor the energy transition, emphasizing climate mitigation and support for renewable energy. Republicans, on the other hand, tend to favor fossil fuels and emphasize deregulation and affordable energy.
In terms of climate commitments, President Obama signed the Paris Agreement in 2016 but withdrew during Trump's first term. Biden then brought the US back into the climate commitments in 2021. In 2025, Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement again. This situation emphasizes that climate commitments can change with regime changes.
On the other hand, the US also recorded a surge in clean energy investment. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provided a large, often-referenced incentive package of approximately US$369 billion for climate and energy. Net investment in the US reached a record in 2025, specifically US$67,3 billion in the first quarter of 2025. However, at the same time, US crude oil production continued to climb and set a record. This combination demonstrates that structural dependence on oil has not disappeared, and therefore oil remains considered strategic in geopolitics.
Globally, if Venezuelan oil supplies increase US oil supplies, the excess could depress oil prices, reducing the economic appeal of renewable energy. Meanwhile, for Indonesia, uncertainty about US climate commitments also impacts funding, reflected in the changing US position on the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP).
The United States withdrew from JETP and stopped grants of approximately US$60 million, although at the same time, project-based clean energy investments from the US continued, for example US$126 million of US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) for a geothermal project in East Java. This means that US-Indonesia clean energy cooperation is shifting from diplomacy-based to more selective and project-based.
The Need for Redefinition of Energy Security and Funding Diversification
The US intervention in Venezuela offers a crucial lesson: as long as oil remains a geopolitical instrument, the global climate agenda will continue to be threatened, increasing the risk of disaster for the most vulnerable. Therefore, the definition of energy security must be expanded beyond simply access to oil to include climate resilience and social protection.
Indonesia must respond to this by accelerating electrification and energy efficiency to break away from structural dependence on oil volatility, and institutionalize standards. just transition to protect workers and indigenous communities from the impacts of the climate crisis.
Indonesia must immediately shift its energy diplomacy from passive reliance on Western schemes like JETP to funding diversification, such as through the South-South axis, including optimizing the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB). Indonesia's position as the largest nickel reserve holder must be capitalized on as a strategic bargaining chip, with green downstream investment becoming a prerequisite for any country.
The energy transition narrative needs to be urgently redefined, no longer merely as a global decarbonization agenda, but as an instrument of economic sovereignty to reduce oil imports and improve the current account deficit. The government must protect renewable energy investments from the flood of cheap oil.
Ultimately, the US intervention in Venezuela is a reminder that the energy transition is not only a technological issue, but also a political and global governance one. As long as oil remains the dominant energy source and geopolitical instrument, the risks of the climate crisis to civil society remain high. Therefore, the transition agenda needs to be accelerated with a fair, transparent, and community-oriented approach.
***
This article was previously published katadata.co.id with the same title. Read more here: katadata.co.id