“All the countries Trump Targeting Only Oil-rich Countries with Threat of War, Cites Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria
A social media post that has been widely shared accusing US President, Donald Trump of targeting only oil-rich countries naming Iran, Venezuela and now Nigeria and sparked fresh debate about whether strategic energy interests are driving Washington’s hawkish rhetoric.
The claim gained traction after Trump’s recent public warnings about possible military action over what he called threats to Christians in Nigeria, following similar escalatory language towards Venezuela and Iran.
Trump’s statements have moved fast from words to tangible policy steps: on Oct. 31–Nov. 1, the U.S. added Nigeria to a religious-freedom “watch list” and the President warned of possible military responses unless Abuja tackled attacks on Christians language that Nigerian authorities and analysts say oversimplifies complex security dynamics inside the country.
Nigeria’s president and foreign ministry have pushed back, insisting the government protects all faiths and that the violent incidents cited have mixed drivers, including militant Islamist groups, communal clashes and criminal violence.
Nigeria remains one of Africa’s largest hydrocarbon holders: official data published in 2025 put the country’s proven crude oil and condensate reserves at about 37.28 billion barrels, keeping Nigeria among the world’s top reserve holders and the second largest on the continent after Libya.
That figure and Nigeria’s importance as a major oil producer and exporter has been widely cited in reporting and industry releases this year.
Critics say the pattern is unmistakable: Trump’s most bellicose public threats in 2025 have focused on countries that either possess sizable energy resources (Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria) or occupy geostrategic positions affecting global energy flows. Supporters of the administration counter that the actions reflect concerns about human-rights abuses, drug trafficking or nuclear proliferation not oil and point to recent U.S. operations and diplomatic moves presented as responses to direct threats.
Independent analysts caution that motivations are likely mixed, blending security, domestic politics and economic interests.
Experts also note an important distinction between rhetoric and reality. Military intervention carries profound legal and diplomatic risks, and several recent U.S. actions including strikes in the Caribbean tied to operations against drug trafficking and pointed threats toward Tehran have drawn criticism from the United Nations and human-rights bodies.
Observers warn that framing complicated local conflicts primarily in religious terms risks misdiagnosis and can make diplomatic resolution harder.
The Twitter post that revived the discussion which suggested it was “suspicious” that all countries Trump “wants us to go to war with are oil rich” has amplified long-standing anxieties about natural resources as a driver of foreign policy.
Whether those anxieties are confirmed or not will depend on how U.S. policy moves from threats to action, how Washington justifies any steps it takes, and how international partners and institutions react.
For now, the overlap between the President’s targets and energy-rich states is fueling debate and scrutiny in capitals from Washington to Abuja and Caracas.
