The United States of America: Piracy with Double Standards

NYN | Reports and Analyses 

In a striking paradox that exposes the depth of contradiction in U.S. rhetoric, Washington has moved from accusing the Sana’a government in the Red Sea of “piracy and threatening international navigation” to carrying out a direct military seizure of an oil tanker off the Venezuelan coast—an act Caracas described as “blatant theft” and a flagrant violation of national sovereignty.

This event cannot be understood outside the broader context of the United States’ warfare in open waters—whether in the Red Sea under the pretext of protecting global trade, or in the Caribbean under the cover of sanctions.

In both cases, military force emerges as the tool of execution, while international law disappears the moment it no longer serves American interests.

From the Red Sea to the Caribbean: Who Defines Piracy?

Since the beginning of Yemeni operations in the Red Sea, Washington has sought to frame events as “piracy” and a “threat to maritime security,” building on this label to form a military coalition and carry out extensive strikes.

But the forcible seizure of a Venezuelan oil tanker—via an armed helicopter descent in the open sea—raises a fundamental question:
Where does “law enforcement” end, and where does piracy begin when practiced by a superpower?

In the Venezuelan case, there was no UN authorization for interception, no declared state of war—only a direct military operation against a commercial vessel in international waters.

This behavior echoes Yemen’s repeated assertions that what Washington and its allies are doing amounts to the militarization of seas and a selective application of international law.

The Largest Tanker Ever Seized… and a Political Show of Force

U.S. President Donald Trump’s declaration that his forces had seized “the largest tanker ever” was not a passing remark but a political message on multiple fronts.

The operation targeting the tanker Skipper, linked to oil transport networks under sanctions, was executed in an overtly military manner involving multiple security agencies—an image closely resembling the coercive ship-boarding actions that Washington itself often labels “hostile acts” when carried out by its adversaries.

According to tracking data, the tanker was operating outside commercial navigation systems—a detail the United States routinely uses to justify its operations.

Yet this very justification is rejected when applied to vessels linked to Yemen or Iran, where any countermeasure is immediately labeled a “threat to global navigation.”

Oil as a Weapon… One War with Multiple Fronts

Strikingly, the tanker seizure occurred at a sensitive moment of rising tension in global energy markets due to the Gaza war, Red Sea instability, and sanctions on Russia, Iran, and Venezuela.

With oil prices rising immediately after the operation, it is increasingly clear that the militarization of seas is no longer an exception but a primary pressure tool in international conflict.

Here emerges the clearest resemblance to the Red Sea situation: Sana’a views its targeting of ships linked to the Israeli occupation as a political-military response to an open war, while Washington insists on separating economics from politics.

Yet the interception of a Venezuelan tanker proves that the economy itself has become a battlefield when American interests are at stake.

Caracas Accuses Washington of Piracy… Yemen’s Narrative Resurfaces

The Venezuelan government’s description of the operation as “piracy” is not new in political discourse, but it takes on special meaning amid the media war Washington is waging against the Sana’a government.

The very label the United States rejects when directed at itself is the one it imposes without hesitation on its rivals.

Caracas’ pledge to resort to international bodies reflects a growing realization that the balance of power is not determined only at sea, but also in the narrative.

This mirrors the approach taken by Sana’a, which has sought to frame its Red Sea operations as part of a broader political and moral struggle—not isolated acts of “piracy.”

International Law at the Edge of a Warship

Legally, Washington does possess tools to seize vessels under sanctions, but it rarely resorts to direct military enforcement.

The return of this method—more than a decade after the last similar operation—signals a shift in maritime rules of engagement, where force is used first and the legal cover is sought afterward.

This shift reinforces the argument that the international system is no longer based on stable rules but on a fluid balance of power.

This is the same premise underlying the Yemeni position: if the law is used selectively, then acting outside that framework becomes, from the actor’s perspective, legitimate.

One Message… Multiple Theaters

From the Red Sea to the Caribbean, a single picture emerges:
The United States wages an open war on energy and trade routes whenever it perceives its interests to be threatened—whether it labels this “protecting navigation” or “enforcing sanctions.”

Meanwhile, any other force applying the same logic is branded as piracy or terrorism.

The seizure of the Venezuelan tanker does not appear to be an isolated incident but part of an ongoing trend of maritime militarization—one that deepens doubts about double standards and provides Washington’s adversaries with additional political and moral ammunition.

And in a world of multiplying crises, the definition of “piracy” no longer seems legal as much as it is political—granted to some, withdrawn from others, and ultimately determined by power.