I agree with your comment but would like to point out that the US has traditionally been the force that opens up previously impenetrable markets for these companies all over the globe, and especially in the global south.  Their interests are typically so aligned with US policy (they actually dictate US policy) that it makes it possible to qualify them as "american business interests", for the sake of my post.  I assumed most TOD readers were aware of what you stated and I took it for granted.
You appear to be positing that US future intervention in Venezuela or Iran, and past intervention in Iraq, has been a net positive for multinationals (a better shorthand, perhaps, than "American business interests"?) -- or at least that that the multinationals perceive this to be so. Have I got that right?

I find this a frankly astonishing postulate. Where's the evidence?

Is it the economic stimulation due to huge military and reconstruction spending that you are talking about? Specific business opportunities aside (Blackwater, Halliburton...), I would expect rational economic actors to abhor the type of disruption, uncertainty and danger engendered by such adventures.

Or are you talking about sale of consumer goods to Iraq? (previously hampered by UN sanctions, which could have been dropped without a war...) I am not aware of specific trade barriers hampering companies wishing to sell stuff in Venezuela ?

Or when you talk about "impenetrable markets", are you talking about state ownership of such assets as oil, water, electricity distribution?