Oil focus behind US moves in Iran and Venezuela, Lavrov claims — doctrine of dominance
Russian FM Sergey Lavrov says US military involvement in Iran and Venezuela is driven by oil, warning it signals erosion of international law as fresh US-Iran talks are set to continue via Pakistan.
MOSCOW — Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, has renewed accusations that US military involvement across the Middle East and beyond is tied to energy interests, pointing specifically to Iran and Venezuela.
Lavrov made the claim as Washington and Tehran prepare for another round of talks, with the US confirming that envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are scheduled to travel to Pakistan for in-person discussions with Iranian officials.. The Russian remarks sharpen a long-running dispute over motives behind US actions, and they arrive as the diplomatic channel between Washington and Tehran shows signs of restarting again.
In an interview aired by Russian state-linked media, Lavrov argued that the United States has openly acknowledged it cannot be “dictated to” and that, in his view, its priorities are narrowly focused on what he described as its own well-being—namely oil.. He said Washington does not hide that in countries such as Venezuela and Iran, American interests are connected to energy resources.. He added that the US is willing to use “extreme measures,” framing them as options ranging from “coups” to kidnappings or violence against leaders when governments are seen as standing in the way.
Lavrov’s core allegation was not only about specific targets, but about a broader policy approach.. He described what he called a “doctrine of dominance in the world’s energy markets,” arguing that this mindset weakens respect for international law.. In his account, global decisions no longer follow legal constraints, but instead reflect a “might is right” logic.
The comments are part of a wider Russian messaging push that has questioned Washington’s diplomacy as much as its security posture.. Lavrov previously criticized the US approach in mid-April, suggesting that dialogue should come before confrontation, and he repeated that theme in Russian Foreign Ministry messaging on X—urging the United States to begin engaging a government it dislikes through talks.
Several elements in the current timeline underscore how tightly diplomacy and security concerns are being portrayed as linked.. On one track, the Russian Security Council issued a warning that the US and Israel could use the “peace negotiations process” as a cover for a future “ground attack” on Iran, while adding that Iran has sufficient weapons to respond.. On another track, US officials are preparing to meet Iranian representatives in person, with the White House describing the next step as a continuation of efforts to reach an arrangement.
That diplomatic movement is complicated by who is—and who is not—at the table.. The US has said Witkoff and Kushner will be in Pakistan for a new round of talks, and the stated impetus for the meeting came from Tehran, after the US president urged direct engagement.. Still, top-level absences are notable in this second round, including Vice President JD Vance and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who led Iran’s negotiating team in an earlier phase.
For ordinary observers, the practical impact is straightforward: every time negotiations restart while threats and counter-threats circulate, the risk of miscalculation tends to increase.. Oil-linked accusations also carry weight beyond diplomacy, because energy security concerns are rarely confined to policy documents—they can influence market expectations, regional posture, and how quickly economic disruptions could spread if tension rises.
From an analytical standpoint, Lavrov’s “oil” framing is designed to put the motive debate at the center of the narrative.. By connecting military involvement to energy interests, Moscow is making it harder for Washington to separate security policy from economic calculations in the public mind.. At the same time, the Russian emphasis on “erosion of international law” signals a more strategic argument: that dominance-based methods, even when justified as national interest, erode the norms that smaller states often rely on for predictability.
The next phase may turn on how both sides describe the purpose and boundaries of the talks.. The Pentagon’s line, according to remarks attributed to US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, suggests Washington is not under pressure to conclude quickly, while still leaving room for what it calls a “good deal.” If negotiations progress without visible agreement, Russia’s warnings and framing could gain additional traction, especially given the parallel messaging about security threats and the emphasis on bargaining leverage.
Meanwhile, Iranian diplomacy is also pointing outward, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stating he plans a “timely tour” to Islamabad, Muscat, and Moscow to coordinate closely with partners.. Even if Iranian and American delegations are expected to be in the same location, there has been no official confirmation that Araghchi will meet the US delegation directly.. That uncertainty—who meets whom, and on what terms—may be one of the defining factors in whether the renewed dialogue reduces tension or simply delays the next round of confrontation.