U.S. President Donald Trump's foreign policy decisions have drawn comparisons to the George W. Bush administration, particularly regarding military interventionism, according to Christopher Rhodes, a lecturer in Government at Harvard University and lecturer in Social Sciences at Boston University. Rhodes argues that Trump's intervention in Venezuela mirrors the lead-up to the Iraq War, despite Trump's earlier criticisms of the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq.

Rhodes stated that Trump ordered a military intervention to remove an antagonistic foreign leader, based on a flimsy argument of national security, with the goal of accessing that country's oil. He added that, in both the Iraq and Venezuela interventions, there was a naive confidence that the United States could simply achieve its goals through regime change.

The intervention in Venezuela, according to Rhodes, echoes the hubris surrounding the Iraq invasion two decades prior. The stated justification for the intervention centered on alleged threats to U.S. national security and the need to restore democracy in Venezuela, claims that have been met with skepticism from international observers.

The situation in Venezuela has been deteriorating for years, marked by economic collapse, political instability, and a humanitarian crisis. The country possesses the world's largest proven oil reserves, making it a strategic asset in global energy markets. The U.S. has historically been a major importer of Venezuelan oil, but relations between the two countries have soured in recent years due to political differences and accusations of corruption and human rights abuses.

International reaction to the U.S. intervention in Venezuela has been mixed. Some countries, primarily in the Americas, have expressed support for the U.S. position, while others, including Russia and China, have condemned the intervention as a violation of international law and an infringement on Venezuelan sovereignty. The United Nations has called for a peaceful resolution to the crisis through dialogue and diplomacy.

The intervention has further destabilized the region, leading to increased tensions between the U.S. and its adversaries. The long-term consequences of the intervention remain uncertain, but analysts warn of the potential for a protracted conflict and a further deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Venezuela.