US Intervention Abroad Driven by Oil Interests, Critics Say

Readers argue US military actions are motivated by access to fossil fuel resources, not democratic ideals

Mar. 4, 2026 at 11:05am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

In a series of letters to the editor, readers criticize the US government's recent military actions and interventions abroad, arguing they are driven primarily by a desire to control oil and fossil fuel resources rather than promote democracy or stability. The letters point to US involvement in conflicts in Iran, Venezuela, and elsewhere, and call for a shift towards renewable energy sources that cannot be weaponized in the same way.

Why it matters

The letters highlight a growing sentiment among the public that US foreign policy is overly influenced by corporate and fossil fuel interests, rather than principled concerns about human rights or global security. This debate over the true motivations behind US military interventions is important as it shapes public opinion and could influence future policymaking.

The details

The letters cite several examples of US military actions and interventions that the authors believe are motivated by oil interests rather than democratic ideals. These include the Trump administration's confrontation with Iran, which the authors argue was driven by a desire to control Iran's large oil reserves, as well as ongoing US efforts to undermine the government of Venezuela, which has the world's largest proven oil reserves. The letters also criticize the US government's general tendency to "bomb and invade" other countries in pursuit of fossil fuel resources, rather than pursuing diplomatic solutions or investing in renewable energy.

  • In March 2026, the House was expected to vote on an Iran War Powers Resolution that could have limited the President's ability to take military action against Iran.
  • The letters were published on March 4, 2026, just days before the expected House vote on the Iran resolution.

The players

Roberta Mundschau

A reader from Waukesha, Wisconsin who wrote a letter criticizing US military interventionism and the profit motives behind it.

Barbara Markoff

A reader from Shorewood, Wisconsin who wrote a letter arguing the Trump administration's confrontation with Iran was driven by a desire to control the country's oil resources.

Nathan Dombeck

A reader from Janesville, Wisconsin who wrote a letter calling for the US to embrace renewable energy sources instead of relying on fossil fuels that can be used as "weapons" in global conflicts.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Does bombing citizens of other countries make one feel proud to be an American? It makes me ashamed.”

— Roberta Mundschau, Reader

“Doing the hard work of diplomacy is the answer, not war.”

— Sen. Tammy Baldwin, U.S. Senator

“Fossil fuels are no longer being used to improve our quality of life — they are now actively being wielded as a weapon by hostile governments, ours included.”

— Nathan Dombeck, Reader

What’s next

The House is expected to vote on an Iran War Powers Resolution in the coming days, which could limit the President's ability to take military action against Iran without Congressional approval.

The takeaway

This debate over the true motivations behind US military interventions abroad highlights a growing public sentiment that US foreign policy is overly influenced by corporate and fossil fuel interests, rather than principled concerns about human rights or global security. As the world transitions towards renewable energy, there are calls for the US to embrace a more peaceful, sustainable approach to international relations.