By JOHN T. BRADY

It’s no mystery why Donald J. Trump attacked another nation, kidnapped its president, endangered the lives of American troops, and killed 60 people. J.D. Vance made the reason clear, stating that this intrusion was aimed at recovering “stolen oil.” The president has echoed these words, and explained that the United States will “run” Venezuela, and “indefinitely” control its oil sales for “much longer” than a year.

This action is objectionable on many levels, but let’s just look at the stated purpose of access to and control of the country’s oil supplies.

Venezuela is the most oil-rich country in Latin America, having the largest proven oil reserves on the planet — about a fifth of global reserves. So, capturing this huge amount of oil could be a real strategic benefit to the U.S. … or maybe not.

It will be years and years before oil from Venezuela’s refineries will flow into American drivers’ gas tanks. And to get to that point when this oil comes flowing to America’s shores, Trump admits American oil companies will need to “… spend billions of dollars (and) fix the badly broken oil infrastructure …” The economics may be against that ever happening.

America’s major oil companies currently appear unwilling to make the investment that Trump admits will be necessary. Exxon’s CEO has said that Venezuela is “uninvestable” in the country’s current state.

Such an investment likely doesn’t make any economic sense. According to experts, it will cost about $80.00/barrel to extract and refine a barrel of Venezuelan oil. In January, oil was selling for about $60.00/barrel. Even if the oil could be extracted and refined at a cost much lower than predictions, that oil may not be needed.

Since 2019, the United States has been a net exporter of energy. Monthly U.S. crude-oil production climbed to a record high of 13.794 million barrels per day in August. And forecasters predict that 2026 will witness the biggest global surplus of fossil fuel supply on record.

While Trump has been committing the United States to the development of fossil fuels, the rest of the world has been running in the opposite direction. In 2025, about 25% of new vehicles sold worldwide were electric. Those vehicles aren’t going to be pulling into America’s gas stations anytime soon.

The entire world is going to need increasing amounts of energy in the years to come. But burning fossil fuels is the most expensive way to create that energy. Scientists have predicted that, if the world converted to using solely renewable energy sources, by 2050 the world would need about 56% less total energy. That won’t happen instantaneously, but it shows that using renewable sources of energy can drastically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

So, ignore the fact that what the United Stated did was an illegal act of war under both U.S. and international law, and all the other reasons why it was wrong. For purely economic reasons, it was a drastic mistake.

— John T. Brady is a semi-retired Peoria attorney and resident of the city since 1959 with degrees from Bradley University and the University of Illinois College of Law.