

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The current fraught détente with Washington is a window of opportunity to recover an economy operating at roughly 30% of its pre-sanctions level.
Although progressives are rightly concerned about US-coerced compromises and concessions, it is equally important to understand the resilience and continuing successes of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution. Focusing only on the half-empty aspect of the proverbial glass obscures the strength of the resistance and conceals the vulnerabilities of the imperial juggernaut.
On a delegation to Venezuela, the constant refrain from both high-ranking government officials and grassroots Chavistas—supporters of the movement led by former President Hugo Chávez—was that they were urgently “buying time.”
A quarter-century of US hybrid war on Venezuela, especially the unilateral coercive measures (sanctions), has had a corrosive effect. The current fraught détente with Washington is a window of opportunity to recover an economy operating at roughly 30% of its pre-sanctions level.
The kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores by US special forces on January 3 was “the one scenario we didn’t expect,” according to former Venezuelan Deputy Foreign minister Carlos Ron.
The kidnapping was a military success for the US. But politically Washington had no viable alternative to the Chavistas retaining power.
Abducting a lawful head of state—an egregious violation of international law—is not, however, unprecedented. In 2004, the US flew Haiti’s Jean-Bertrand Aristide to the Central African Republic in what Washington claimed was a voluntary decision, but which Aristide called a kidnapping. In 1990, following a bloody invasion, the US extradited Panama’s Manuel Noriega.
Leading up to January 3, Washington had incrementally tightened its stranglehold over Venezuela. Initial sanctions imposed in 2015 evolved from targeted measures to broad sectoral restrictions, especially on oil and finance. “Secondary sanctions” followed, penalizing non-US actors engaged with Venezuela. By December an outright military “total and complete blockade” piratically seized oil tankers.
US President Donald Trump also designated the so-called Cartel de los Soles as a terrorist organization, allegedly headed by Maduro. A $25-million bounty on Maduro under former US President Joe Biden was doubled in August. The following month, the US commenced extrajudicial murders of alleged drug runners in small boats in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific. By October, Trump suspended all communication with the Maduro government.
Despite post-kidnapping concessions, it is instructive to consider what hasn’t happened. The political leadership did not splinter, and the country did not descend into chaos. The US-directed fate of Libya in 2011 was not to be repeated in Venezuela.
Venezuela maintained constitutional continuity. Shortly after the strike, then Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was sworn in as acting president. Other top leaders—National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López—remained in place and unified. The civic-military unity held fast.
Under intense US pressure, high-ranking militants have been replaced. Padrino, who was swapped for Gustavo González López, another committed Chavista, remains influential in his new cabinet position heading the critical agricultural ministry. In this whack-a-mole scenario, the major exception to the government’s strategy of yielding in form to US pressure but maintaining a Chavista essence is the new Vice Foreign Minister for North America and Europe, Oliver Blanco, who is from the opposition.
Another triumph is that a highly divided population did not erupt into civil conflict. Instead, the attack produced a rally-around-the-flag effect, with some moderate opposition figures showing a new openness to the ruling party.
Nor was Noble Prize winner and far-rightist María Corina Machado imposed as president. She had signaled that if she took power there would be a retaliatory bloodbath against Chavistas. Meanwhile, the US effectively abandoned the bogus claim that Maduro headed the Cartel de los Soles.
On March 7, Washington formally recognized the Venezuelan government led by Rodríguez, marking a reversal of its policy since 2019. Trump even informally referred to her as “president-elect,” though the return of Maduro from US imprisonment as the rightful chief remains Venezuela’s national priority. On April 27, the US modified sanctions to allow the Venezuelan government to pay Maduro’s defense lawyers.
Financial easing is proceeding. In the late 1990s-early 2000s, the US bought more than half of Venezuela’s oil exports. Oil sales have again resumed under a highly restructured and controlled system, while the US has also taken steps to shield Venezuelan state assets from creditor seizure. The Rodríguez government is in the process of regaining control of Citgo Petroleum, the “crown jewel” of Venezuela's foreign assets, which the US had seized.
What has been achieved is not a lifting of sanctions, but a controlled reentry into international finance under US licensing and oversight.
Washington has authorized transactions with Venezuela’s central bank and major state banks, reversing the 2019 measures that had effectively cut them off from the global financial system. This policy change allows dollar-denominated transactions and access to US financial channels.
For the first time in years, Venezuela’s core financial institutions can operate in international banking channels. What makes this significant is that it allows oil revenues from US transactions to enter the domestic economy. That in turn helps stabilize liquidity, reducing the need for monetary expansion that had fueled inflation.
On April 16, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) resumed engagement with Venezuela. Previously, the US-dominated IMF had cut Venezuela off from its $5-million “special drawing rights” (SDR). Rodríguez said she will only access its rightful SDR account to be used for social programs and not apply for loans.
Still, the core US sanctions framework remains in place, with most transactions subject to case-by-case authorization. Full unrestricted access to global capital markets has not been restored. What has been achieved is not a lifting of sanctions, but a controlled reentry into international finance under US licensing and oversight.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) continues its consecutive 20-quarter expansion. New and long-considered legislative reforms for hydrocarbons and minerals encourage needed foreign investment vital for economic recovery. Although the changes involved some bitter pills, the rationale is that it is better to compromise than to keep these resources in the ground where they generate no income.
Rodríguez lauded a new amnesty law, creating a “new historical moment… of national reunification.” The long-polarized Venezuelan people yearn for domestic tranquility, according to Jesús Rodríguez-Espinoza, editor of the Caracas-based Orinoco Tribune.
Venezuela has so far escaped the severity of the economic strangulation that Cuba is now suffering or the military pummeling on the scale of Iran. The US-Israeli war in the Middle East may even be creating a temporary opening for Venezuela, as Trump needs the prospect of freely available Venezuelan oil to help calm jittery oil markets.
Trump may have also calculated that engagement with the Chavistas offered greater strategic benefits than assassination or a large-scale invasion, while using the kidnapping to placate domestic hawks pushing for full regime change. Significantly for US imperial objectives, Venezuela’s connections with other counter-hegemonic countries were curtailed.
Washington’s strategy since January 3 has focused on Venezuela’s stabilization and economic recovery. Their deferred third phase, “political transition,” is another word for regime change. Rodríguez has made clear that “free and fair” elections can be held only if the blackmail of US sanctions is removed. Thousands marched in a national “Pilgrimage for a Venezuela Without Sanctions and Peace.”
The kidnapping was a military success for the US. But politically Washington had no viable alternative to the Chavistas retaining power, given their strength, according to former Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Areaza. The only other option for the invader was to face a Vietnam-style guerilla war. The Bolivarian Revolution has persisted and is still fighting. On balance, the glass is decisively more than half full.
The voting booth is where private belief becomes public direction. Where individual dignity translates into collective decision-making. Where democracy is not debated, but practiced.
When asked to name America’s most sacred place, what comes to mind?
Perhaps the 9/11 Memorial, where grief and resilience coexist in quiet reflection. Or Arlington National Cemetery’s Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, honoring sacrifice beyond name or rank. For some, sacredness is rooted in heritage. The Black Hills of South Dakota, revered by the Sioux Nation. Seattle's Sakya Monastery. Newport's Touro Synagogue (the nation's first). The Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington, DC, or perhaps a bar in New York City called Stonewall, where a marginalized group refused to remain invisible.
All are worthy answers.
But for me, the most sacred place in America is far less grand, far less visible, and far more powerful.
This moment is not simply about policy differences. It is about how, and how well, our democratic system functions at its core.
It is the voting booth.
I came to understand this not through theory, but through experience.
In 1971, just two weeks after my 18th birthday, the 26th Amendment was ratified, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote. My generation had watched young men drafted into the Vietnam War, sent to fight and die, without having a voice in the democracy they were asked to defend.
That changed overnight.
I was among the first to step into that new reality.
My first voting booth was simple, a small curtained space with metal levers and switches. As I pulled the close-curtain lever, it made a unique sound, punctuating a sense of autonomy, privacy, freedom, personal power, and my passage into responsible adulthood.
That moment has stayed with me ever since.
Today, as we approach another pivotal election, that sacred space feels more important, and more fragile, than ever.
The six-month countdown to the midterms has begun.
This election carries a different kind of weight. In recent years, the balance of power that defines our system of government has shown visible strain. A legislative branch often mired in gridlock has struggled to provide consistent oversight of the executive. At the same time, a Supreme Court reshaped by a series of deeply consequential appointments has issued rulings that revisit and, in some cases, reverse long-settled precedents, altering the landscape of rights and federal authority. Layer onto that ongoing disputes over election integrity and the certification of results, and it becomes clear that this moment is not simply about policy differences. It is about how, and how well, our democratic system functions at its core.
Across the country, we are witnessing debates and decisions that directly affect who can vote, how they vote, and whether those votes are counted without interference. In some states, new legislation has shortened early voting periods, limited the use of ballot drop boxes, or imposed stricter identification requirements that can make participation more difficult. Court decisions have reshaped long-standing protections related to privacy and bodily autonomy, raising broader questions about how constitutional rights are interpreted and applied. We have also seen documented efforts to challenge certified election results and pressure officials to overturn outcomes, actions that test the durability of norms once considered settled.
This is not about party. It is about participation.
The voting booth remains one of the last places where power is perfectly equal. No wealth, status, or platform can amplify one person’s vote over another’s. Inside that space, each voice carries the same weight.
The voting booth.
A place where a mother of six in Jackson, Wyoming can vote her conscience without fearing a husband who prefers her silent and pregnant.
A place where a senior in a Florida group home can vote his mind despite the cable news chatter and groupthink that dominate the evening dining table.
A place where a devout Christian can still feel safe, without judgment, following her beliefs by supporting a woman’s right to choose.
A place where an assembly line worker from West Virginia can go against the grain and cast a vote that supports his gay nephew, a kid he knows deserves basic human rights just as much as any guy on his bowling team.
The voting booth is where private belief becomes public direction. Where individual dignity translates into collective decision-making. Where democracy is not debated, but practiced.
And yet, participation is not guaranteed.
Even in recent high-turnout elections, tens of millions of eligible Americans chose not to vote. Some out of frustration. Some out of disillusionment. Some out of the belief that their voice does not matter.
But absence has consequences.
A sacred place means nothing if it stands empty.
The voting booth does not defend itself. It does not speak unless we do. It does not protect rights, norms, or institutions on its own. It simply offers the opportunity.
What we do with that opportunity is everything.
This election, like many before it, will shape policies, priorities, and the direction of the country. Reasonable people will disagree on outcomes, candidates, and solutions. That is not a weakness of democracy. It is its design.
But participation is not optional if democracy is to endure.
The most sacred place in America is still there, waiting, quiet, unassuming, and powerful as ever.
The question is whether we will show up.
Vote.
Given that oil is a depleting, polluting, non-renewable resource, industrial society is due for a reckoning at some point. Will Trump's Iran War finally force us to look down?
Pop culture has long memorialized the Warner Brothers cartoon gag in which Wile E. Coyote, lured by his nemesis the Roadrunner, races off a cliff. Instead of immediately falling, Coyote keeps running, then looks down and realizes there’s nothing beneath him but empty space. His expression turns from anger to panic, whereupon he plummets. Coyote’s belated moment of realization is a trendy metaphor for our response to inevitable, though not yet fully realized, consequences of foolish behavior.
For the past couple of decades, we at Post Carbon Institute have been pointing out that energy is the basis of the economy, that oil is our foremost energy source, and that a transition to alternative energy sources will necessarily be slow and incomplete. Given that oil is a depleting, polluting, non-renewable resource, industrial society is due for a reckoning at some point. We are all in an extended Wile E. Coyote moment.
But now, as the United States’ war on Iran has set off a global energy crisis, humanity has arrived at a more immediate and critical Coyote moment. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has issued a report suggesting that continued oil shortages could reduce global economic growth by 2% and raise inflation by 2.3%. Some analysts say the IMF warning is far too weak and that the crisis could trigger a global recession or worse.
Oil is a key ingredient in most consumer products and their packaging; expensive oil therefore translates to price hikes for toys, car parts, electronics, clothing, and more. It powers or is a critical input into essential elements of industrial society, including the food system. And oil moves everything: Global supply chains depend on transportation by truck, rail, ship, and air, and over 90% of transport energy is oil based. That means an extended crisis would likely lead to stagflation, in which the economy is hobbled simultaneously by inflation and slow growth or economic contraction. When prices for food and medicines are eventually impacted, no one will remain unaffected.
America’s status as oil-production king and its cushion of reserves have indeed helped it weather the early stages of the crisis. But the nation won’t be insulated from serious economic damage for long.
However, for the moment, the stock market is hardly signaling imminent economic peril; instead, the Dow Jones is near peak levels. Further, the US, which started the war, seems somewhat spared from its consequences, when compared with many other countries. And oil prices, while higher than before the hostilities, are nowhere near inflation-adjusted historic peaks.
What’s keeping Coyote airborne?
Myanmar, Bangladesh, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, and Vietnam are rationing or restricting the purchasing of fuel. Germany’s Lufthansa airline has cut 20,000 summer flights due to rising fuel costs. The examples could be multiplied: Countries in Asia, Europe, and Africa are already experiencing symptoms of energy scarcity, while Australia faces dire impacts to its agriculture.
But in America, the worst fallout so far is expensive gasoline. Before the first attacks on Tehran in late February, the average price of gas in the US was $2.98 a gallon. It’s now above $4—a political worry for the president and other Republicans, but a price that’s not quite as high as ones motorists faced in the 1970s. US airlines have raised their checked baggage fees in response to higher fuel costs. Yet, otherwise, business hums along more or less as usual. Why have Americans seen so few repercussions?
Two reasons are widely cited. The first is that the US is currently the world’s biggest oil producer and is therefore far less vulnerable to shortages than nations that import most, or all, of their fuel. The second is that the US has the world’s second-largest strategic petroleum reserve (after China), which, in an emergency, can be brought to market to lower prices and avert scarcity.
However, these two pillars of US energy resilience are shaky. First: Even though the United States produces over 13 million barrels of oil per day, it uses almost 20 million barrels. Further, the kinds of oil extracted from American wells are not always the kinds that the nation’s refineries are set up to use. So, oil companies export light crude and import heavier crude to produce the blends of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that the US market demands. The result: America is the world’s second-largest oil importer, even though its politicians love to brag about “energy independence.”
Second: Strategic petroleum reserves are only meant to last a relatively brief time. Currently, the US has about 400 million barrels of oil stored in four underground salt caverns along the Gulf of Mexico. That’s 20 days’ worth of total American consumption at current rates. Therefore, the government has limited ability to influence oil prices during a months-long supply crunch.
America’s status as oil-production king and its cushion of reserves have indeed helped it weather the early stages of the crisis. But the nation won’t be insulated from serious economic damage for long.
Oil has been trading at roughly $100 a barrel since the start of hostilities, a price somewhat lower than ones seen in June and July 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz would intuitively seem a much graver threat to world oil supplies. Given that a fifth of the world’s petroleum flow is now unavailable, why haven’t prices shot even higher?

One factor is the so-called TACO trade. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly shown the tendency to make threats and then back away; hence the meme “Trump Always Chickens Out” (TACO). The term “TACO trade” gained currency during 2025, when the president announced steep tariffs, then canceled or moderated them, ostensibly to leave time for negotiations but also perhaps in response to negative impacts those announcements had on stock prices (stock market activity appears to influence Donald Trump’s behavior more than most other factors). Savvy stock traders learned that if, instead of taking Trump’s most belligerent threats seriously, they bet against price dips, they could make more money.
We’re all dancing somewhere off the end of history’s biggest cliff, sensing that something isn’t quite right but blaming that sensation on people whose politics we disagree with.
The TACO trade has also followed Trump’s recent statements about the Iran War. When he said, in a late-night Truth Social post, that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again” if a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz was not immediately reached, many oil traders sat tight, assuming Trump would renege on his threat. He did. If Trump’s backdowns happen on a Tuesday, as on April 21, the internet explodes with “TACO Tuesday” comments.
However, the longer the crisis drags on, the harder real shortages will bite oil-importing economies worldwide. And there are reasons to expect the impasse between the US and Iran to continue. Trump’s instinct is to bully and bluster, but every time he attacks Iran or threatens to do so, oil prices rise (despite the muting effect of the TACO trade) and the stock market dips. Both trends are political kryptonite. However, it would be even worse politically for Trump if he were to accede to a long-term Iranian peace deal that looks like a defeat for America. So, the standoff persists, with the Strait of Hormuz blocked, 20% of world oil supplies offline, and the global economy held hostage.
The strait has been closed for over two months. Analysts say that if it remains shut to tanker traffic for months longer, oil prices could soar to $200, which would almost surely send the global economy into contraction.
An acute Wile E. Coyote moment is also happening in global stock markets. Many people (including most investors) tend to think of stock prices as a barometer of the overall soundness of the economy. Others disagree, pointing out that stock prices just measure future profit expectations of listed companies, not current employment or wages, much less the health of the biosphere. Further, stock ownership is highly concentrated, so market booms often benefit only the wealthy. Nevertheless, the opinions of the rich tend to be amplified throughout society, so even many non-investors watch the Dow Jones and S&P 500. And, despite the Iran war and resulting higher oil prices, and despite warnings from experts about rising fertilizer costs and the possibility of global food shortages, the Dow seems to be doing just fine. The major market indexes dipped significantly between late February and late March but have recovered since then and are once again near record highs.
The market’s resilience is puzzling for another reason as well. Most investment action during the past couple of years has centered on artificial intelligence (AI). Nvidia, which makes computer chips for AI, is now the world’s most valuable company by market capitalization, even though the AI industry is struggling to be profitable. Many analysts say that AI is a classic financial bubble—and a historically big one.
So, are investors stupid, or what? A more nuanced take might be that they exhibit herd mentality, and that they tend to chase short-term profits, hoping to sell shares just before prices plunge.
Here’s another factor. According to some analysts, the markets are simply high on cash. Governments created enormous amounts of money to stanch problems created by the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 and the Covid-19 epidemic, and much of that money eventually found its way to investors. When the US federal government racks up giant fiscal deficits, it is creating new money, much of which winds up inflating bubbles.
In short, the market runs on investor sentiment, which is now detached from both consumer sentiment and business prospects—as well as from long-term biophysical reality.
But sooner or later, reality imposes itself.

In the cartoon, it’s not until Coyote looks down that he realizes his predicament. This sudden awareness triggers his fall.
Of course, in the real world, temporary ignorance can’t cancel gravity. Actual coyotes don’t hover until they glance groundward. However, the human economy can do something like that—because it’s a hybrid of a real-world component comprised of energy and material flows (which ultimately depend on nature), and an imaginary-world component comprised of money, prices, hype, and speculation. This hybrid semi-reality can run up ecological deficits and undermine the conditions of life for future generations while still maintaining affluence and entertainment for hundreds of millions of mostly clueless people. For now.
It’s our bigger, longer-playing Coyote moments to which we should be paying most attention—climate change, resource depletion, chemical pollution, and the disappearance of wild nature. Markets and prices are of little help in shifting our awareness in that direction: Cutting down an old-growth forest for timber can result in corporate profits and a bump in GDP, but the human and environmental impacts that will linger for generations don’t figure into this quarter’s P&L reports. We’re all dancing somewhere off the end of history’s biggest cliff, sensing that something isn’t quite right but blaming that sensation on people whose politics we disagree with. We do anything we can to avoid looking down.
Returning to the main subject of this article: Will oil prices skyrocket? Will Trump continue to TACO? Will the economy crater? Or will the US and Iran reach a deal and open the strait, so that normalcy can resume? Your guess is as good as anyone’s. But if you’re starting to have nagging worries, you’re not crazy and you’re not alone. Do something. Plant a vegetable garden. Talk to your neighbors about sharing tools and skills. Examine your oil dependency and see how you can reduce it. Imagine how your life might look if the economy were smaller, not bigger, and start making adjustments. Most of all, focus on building community with those around you.
"Your dignity stands taller than the place you stood, and it will live forever in our memory."
Explosive Media, one of the independent outfits generating the viral videos about the war in Iran, created a short piece on Saturday to honor the American father of two who climbed atop a bridge in the Washington, DC this weekend to demand an end to the conflict.
"In honor of Guido Reichstadter, the man who climbed the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge to make his voice of protest heard," the group said in a post alongside the video short. "Your dignity stands taller than the place you stood, and it will live forever in our memory."
As Common Dreams reported, Reichstadter climbed the bridge wearing a t-shirt that simply read "End War" beginning on Friday afternoon, remained in protest overnight, and told one reporter he intends to remain "for a few days at least."
In honor of Guido Reichstadter,
the man who climbed the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge to make his voice of protest heard.
Your dignity stands taller than the place you stood,
and it will live forever in our memory. 🫡🏔️ pic.twitter.com/WANYzS7kIh
— Explosive Media (@ExplosiveMediaa) May 2, 2026
Reichstadter said he climbed the 168-foot-tall bridge “because the government of the United States is engaged in acts of mass murder in my name. And I refuse to be complicit in that.”
"The world is proud of you, Guido," Explosive Media said in a separate post on social media. "Soon, side by side, we will celebrate peace and victory together."