"

In January, the United States carried out a military operation in Venezuela and politely escorted its president to New York in handcuffs. Oil production is now being “encouraged” with the kind of enthusiasm usually reserved for Black Friday sales. Meanwhile, Greenland has gone from “large icy landmass” to “must-have real estate listing,” with serious conversations about acquiring it for national security, or perhaps just because it looks great on a map next to Alaska. And over in Iran, tensions have escalated into open conflict, disrupting global oil supply and reminding everyone that nothing says stability like a region on fire sitting on top of vast energy reserves. On March 16, President Trump said he will have the “honor” of taking Cuba, saying, “I think I could do anything I want with it.” If you’re sensing a theme here, congratulations. You’re ready for advanced placement foreign policy.

Yes, the common thread tying together Venezuela, Greenland, Iran and Cuba is not democracy, freedom, or even vibes. It’s the sweet, sticky, geopolitically irresistible substance known as natural resources. More specifically: oil. Because nothing says “strategic interest” like something you can pump out of the ground and turn into gasoline. So the real question isn’t why these places matter. It’s: where should the U.S. go next?

Let’s workshop a few options.

Norway is everything America loves. It has massive oil reserves, a stable government and an alarming lack of chaos. Frankly, it’s suspicious. Why should Norway get to enjoy both wealth and functioning public services? That feels like hoarding. Sure, Norway is a close ally. But as history has shown, alliances are really just prequels to awkward negotiations later. Think of it as a friendly takeover. A “liberation” from excessive happiness.

As the great explorer Christopher Columbus definitely could have said if he had found oil, “Where there is wealth, there is opportunity.” And by opportunity, we mean a fleet.

The next best option is Canada … which if you think about it, Canada is basically ours already. Canada has oil. Canada has minerals. Canada even has water, which will become trendy once we finish boiling the planet. More importantly, Canada has proximity. Why invade across oceans when you can just… keep walking north? There would be minimal cultural adjustment. Americans already understand Canadian English (we can colonize Quebec), and the infrastructure is conveniently located right next door.

Also, imagine the branding: The United States of America Plus. Of course, critics will say Canada is a sovereign nation. But as any committed 19th-century expansionist might remind us, sovereignty is more of a suggestion.

Now we arrive at the obvious choice, the one that makes executives lean forward in their chairs and whisper, “synergyyyy.” Saudi Arabia isn’t just an oil-rich country. It’s the oil country. This is not a reserve; it’s a lifestyle. Entire global economies wake up, check oil prices, and then decide how their day is going to go. For decades, the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia has been a masterclass in mutual understanding. You have oil, we have… a deep interest in your oil. It’s worked beautifully.

But at some point, you have to ask: why keep doing this as a subscription service when you could just own the platform? Think of it less as a takeover and more as vertical integration. Cut out the middleman. Streamline the process. Turn geopolitics into a well-oiled supply chain, literally. And the logistics? Already halfway done. Military cooperation, economic ties, years of diplomatic groundwork. This is what in business they call a “warm lead.”

As an updated take on empire logic might put it: why explore new frontiers when the most valuable one has already been mapped, drilled, and itemized?

At the end of the day, selecting the next country isn’t just about resources. It’s about vision.

Do you go for stability, like Norway? Convenience, like Canada? Or maximum return on investment, like Saudi Arabia? These are the kinds of questions that define nations. Or at least their energy policies.

Of course, whichever option gets picked will come wrapped in the usual language. Words like “security,” “partnership” and “global responsibility” will do a lot of heavy lifting, as they always do.

And somewhere, in a quiet office with a large map and a very small coffee, someone will circle a country, lean back and say, “This just makes sense.”