By Dr Sarath Obeysekera

Recent American involvement in Nigeria’s counterterrorism operations, combined with increasing pressure on Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, once again raises a serious geopolitical question:

Are global interventions truly driven by democracy and security concerns — or by long-term strategic interests of powerful nations like US ?

Nigeria today occupies enormous strategic importance.

It is Africa’s major oil producer, a critical energy supplier, and an important gateway to West Africa. Terrorist movements, piracy, kidnappings, and instability in the region threaten global oil supply chains, maritime trade routes, and Western investments. Therefore, American assistance to Nigeria in eliminating extremist leaders may not simply be humanitarian support. It is also a strategic necessity for global powers seeking to maintain influence in Africa.

At the same time, another dramatic geopolitical theatre is unfolding in Venezuela.

For years, the United States has accused Maduro of drug trafficking, narco-terrorism, and links with transnational criminal organisations. Washington progressively increased financial rewards for information leading to his arrest, reaching unprecedented levels. American authorities publicly portrayed Maduro not merely as a political opponent, but as a threat tied to international narcotics networks. (Voice of America <https://editorials.voa.gov/a/up-to-50-million-for-information-leading-to-arrest-of-maduro-/8056224.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com> )

The pressure intensified after disputed Venezuelan elections and widening Western sanctions. Recent reports even described covert operations and extraordinary efforts aimed at removing or capturing Maduro through intelligence-driven actions. To many political observers, these developments appear interconnected with a broader strategic doctrine that has guided American foreign policy for decades.

History offers several examples.

During the Cold War, the United States became deeply involved in Latin America, including Chile, often in the name of protecting democracy or fighting communism. In the Middle East, military interventions were justified through concerns over weapons programs, terrorism, or regional stability. Yet beneath those public narratives, strategic interests involving oil, military positioning, global influence, and economic dominance were always present.

Today, similar patterns appear visible again.

Nigeria’s security instability threatens energy security.

Venezuela possesses some of the world’s largest oil reserves.

Africa is increasingly becoming an arena of competition between the United States, China, and Russia.

Under such circumstances, every counterterrorism operation, sanctions package, intelligence mission, or diplomatic alignment naturally carries geopolitical significance.

The recent high-profile diplomatic engagements involving Nigeria’s leadership in the United Kingdom, including ceremonial receptions and strategic discussions, further fuel speculation that Western powers are strengthening alliances to secure influence in Africa’s future political and energy landscape.

Some analysts describe this as the work of a Deep State” — a permanent network of intelligence agencies, strategic planners, military establishments, corporate interests, and diplomatic actors who continue shaping policy regardless of elected leaders.

Whether one accepts that terminology or not, one reality is undeniable:

Presidents may change, but strategic national interests rarely change.

American administrations from different political parties have consistently protected energy routes, shipping lanes, financial systems, and geopolitical dominance across the globe.

The modern battlefield is no longer fought only with tanks and missiles.

Today it involves:

*              intelligence networks,

*              economic sanctions,

*              cyber operations,

*              diplomatic pressure,

*              proxy conflicts,

*              information warfare,

*              and control over energy resources.

Smaller nations such as Iran must carefully observe these global shifts.

In world politics, moral language is often used publicly, while strategic calculations operate quietly beneath the surface.

Therefore, countries like Sri Lanka must maintain balanced diplomacy, protect national sovereignty, and avoid becoming pawns within larger geopolitical rivalries between powerful nations.

The world order is changing rapidly.And behind many global crises, there may be far more strategy than meets the eye.

Dr Sarath Obeysekera