Venezuela aligns with the strategy’s explicit Western Hemisphere priority. The National Security Strategy emphasizes preventing rival powers from gaining durable influence in the Americas, protecting nearby energy supply chains, and using limited, decisive actions to restore U.S. leverage rather than prolonged intervention. Venezuela’s location, oil infrastructure, and growing ties with China and Russia placed it squarely within that scope. The U.S. approach — leadership removal paired with maritime enforcement and sanctions control — reflects the strategy’s preference for contained operations that reassert control over strategic assets and shipping routes, not nation-building.
‍

Iran fits the strategy’s Middle East posture, which prioritizes deterrence, energy stability, and non-proliferation, while avoiding large-scale occupation. The document does not call for regime change as a standing objective, but it does frame internal instability in adversarial states as a risk that must be managed to prevent nuclear escalation, regional conflict, or disruption of global energy flows. U.S. signaling around Iran — emphasizing consequences for violent repression and nuclear expansion — is consistent with a strategy focused on pressure, signaling, and containment, rather than direct governance of outcomes.
‍

At the same time, Cuba is emerging as a consequential secondary pressure point in the hemisphere. Following the U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro and a strict oil blockade, President Donald Trump declared that no more Venezuelan oil or money will go to Cuba, urging Havana to strike a deal with Washington and underscoring the island’s deep reliance on Venezuelan fuel. Cuban leaders have rejected these overtures, emphasizing sovereignty and signaling resistance, but the cutoff of subsidized Venezuelan crude is expected to intensify economic hardship on the island. This escalation reflects the same hemispheric strategic logic: by severing Cuba’s energy lifeline, the U.S. increases pressure on a key ally of Venezuela and tests the resilience of regional allies against adversarial influence. It also dovetails with longstanding U.S. policy frameworks aimed at limiting external support to regimes viewed as unfriendly — reinforcing that energy leverage and geopolitical positioning in the Americas remain central to strategic objectives.
‍

Taken together, these cases reflect a common pattern outlined in the strategy:
‍

• Geographic prioritization (Americas first, then critical theaters),
• Targeted force or pressure instead of open-ended war, and
• Leverage over outcomes (energy access, shipping security, deterrence credibility) rather than ideological transformation.

‍

How to Position

‍

Greenland / Arctic / Critical Minerals
‍

• Critical Metals Corp. (CRML) — Controls the Tanbreez rare-earth project in Greenland, positioning it to benefit from U.S. and allied efforts to secure non-China sources of rare earths for defense, EV, and clean-energy supply chains.
• MP Materials (MP) — Transitioning from mining into integrated rare-earth processing and magnet production, benefiting from policy and Pentagon support aimed at reducing dependence on Chinese supply.
• Energy Fuels (UUUU) — A major U.S. uranium producer that has expanded into rare-earth oxides, aligning with efforts to secure domestic nuclear fuel and strategic mineral supply chains critical to energy and defense.
• Trilogy Metals (TMQ) — Developing copper and zinc projects in Alaska with U.S. backing; copper is a strategic input for electrification, grid reliability, and defense manufacturing.
  ‍

Venezuela / Hemispheric Energy Security
‍

• Chevron (CVX) — The only U.S. oil major operating under license in Venezuela, positioned to benefit if sanctions ease and Venezuelan heavy-crude exports resume to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.
• Valero Energy (VLO) — Gulf Coast refiner configured for heavy sour crude, benefiting from increased nearby supply if Venezuelan exports normalize.
• Marathon Petroleum (MPC) — With extensive Gulf Coast capacity, renewed Venezuelan crude flows could improve utilization rates and refining margins.
  ‍

Iran Risk / Defense & Deterrence
‍

• Lockheed Martin (LMT) — Leading supplier of missiles, radar, and air-defense systems, benefiting from heightened deterrence and allied defense readiness.
• Northrop Grumman (NOC) — Provider of strategic systems and intelligence capabilities essential for surveillance and deterrence in contested regions.
• Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) — Builder of naval vessels and surface combatants, supported by increased maritime readiness and enforcement priorities.
• General Dynamics (GD) — Supplier of submarines, armored vehicles, and C4ISR systems, benefiting from defense budgets tied to regional risk and great-power competition.