In the international arena, there is discussion about what a new dose of foreign-policy toughness associated with Trump has brought back to the center: the theme of Iran, security, and how the United States signals its willingness to apply pressure. Headlines emphasize the logic of “control through force”: according to the article’s authors, Washington links security issues with broader levers of influence and is increasing pressure on Tehran, prompting both retaliatory reactions and arguments over whether escalation is underway or a fundamentally different strategy is taking shape.
This article is based on materials from DW (Venezuela), CNN en Español (Venezuela), and YouTube (Venezuela).
A Venezuelan Perspective: Trump, the Strait of Hormuz, and U.S. Pressure
Reports that Donald Trump said the United States has “full control” over the Strait of Hormuz, as well as a new line of pressure from Washington on Iran—and even on internal electoral rules within the United States itself—are read in Venezuela not as separate episodes, but as parts of the same story: a story of American strength, sanctions, and political coercion. The local perception of the DW material on tensions around Hormuz feels especially pointed, because for Venezuela any dispute about oil routes immediately evokes the country’s own vulnerability to external pressure, blockades, and decisions made in Washington.
From a Venezuelan standpoint, it is not only about Iran. The Strait of Hormuz is a symbol of control over energy—and therefore over the global economy. In a country where oil has historically shaped both politics and social stability, news about a possible escalation in the Persian Gulf is instantly tied to commodity prices, access to currency, and the prospect of a new wave of instability in the world oil market. That is why Trump’s statement that the United States supposedly can fully control this strategic passage is understood as a demonstration of geopolitical power—power that could be directed not only against Iran, but, in the memory of Venezuelans, against any state that ends up within the orbit of American pressure.
That is precisely why, in Caracas, such news is often interpreted through the lens of anti-interventionism. There, it is seen not just as diplomatic rhetoric, but as a style of foreign policy based on coercion. The Iran theme draws parallels with Venezuela’s own experience: a country that has lived for many years under sanctions, financial restrictions, and constant disputes over how far the United States may go in trying to influence the internal course of other countries. In this reading, the formula “control of Hormuz” becomes not only a military or maritime issue, but a reminder of how energy is turned into a tool of pressure.
This logic is especially visible in another piece of news as well—this time from CNN en Español—which says that the Trump administration threatens to hold back tens of millions of dollars from federal national security funds if states do not make changes to electoral procedures. In Venezuela, it is easy to read such news as yet another example of how Washington uses money, security, and administrative levers as a means of political control. For local audiences, it fits a familiar narrative: the United States does not just protect its interests—it links funding to political conditions and uses state resources to compel.
From a Venezuelan perspective, the principle itself is particularly important: if in the United States it is possible to tie national security to voting rules, then it is perceived as confirmation that American democracy is also not free from pressure and political calculation. This reduces the moral authority of American criticism toward other countries, including Venezuela, where any external demands regarding elections, political reforms, or the distribution of resources have long been viewed through a prism of mistrust. In local political debate, such cases are often used as an argument that Washington acts selectively: domestically through harsh administrative measures, and abroad through sanctions and conditions.
Even more direct and emotional reactions in Venezuela are triggered by Trump’s rhetoric regarding Iran. In the available material, his phrase is heard: “Now we are leaving Iran without an armada, without an air force, without anti-aircraft defense, without missile capability, and without a nuclear program.” In the Venezuelan context, this is seen as a demonstration of ultimate toughness—an indication of the extent to which the United States is prepared to break down the defense capabilities of the country it considers an adversary. In Caracas, such wording almost inevitably gets linked to the history of pressure on governments that do not please Washington—along with sanctions—and to how, according to local observers, the United States seeks to “strangle” the opponent economically and politically.
So, in Venezuela, statements like these are rarely discussed solely as Middle East news. They are more often seen as a warning addressed to all states that challenge American influence. Most often, this brings not only anxiety but also stronger domestic rhetoric about sovereignty, national defense, and the need to resist external interference. In that sense, the Iran storyline becomes a mirror in which Venezuelans see their own history: dependence on oil, the pressure of sanctions, and negotiations with Washington—usually perceived as tactical and reversible, not as a final solution.
Thus, all three stories—Hormuz, pressure on U.S. states through federal funding, and Trump’s hard rhetoric toward Iran—come together into a single picture in the Venezuelan reading. It is a worldview in which energy, security, and elections turn out to be interconnected instruments of power. For Venezuela, such news matters not only in itself, but also because it confirms a persistent belief about the United States as a power that knows how to use resources, pressure, and military might to advance its interests. And that is why, in Caracas, they are read not as separate information items, but as part of a broader policy of influence that potentially affects both Venezuela and the entire region.
threatens to withhold tens of millions of dollars from federal national security funding for states unless they adopt a series of changes to the electoral system, as reported by several sources and internal documents obtained by CNN. Marlon Sorto explains which areas will be hit hardest if the measure takes effect.">
❮
❯