Trump’s sixth strike revives an old fear: Is Venezuela the new Iraq?

New Delhi: President Donald Trump’s Venezuela operation, the sixth military intervention of his current term so far, has set off a second battle outside Caracas: a narrative war over why the US moved against Nicolas Maduro, and what Washington wants next.

The sequence of interventions this term spans Somalia (February 1, 2025), Yemen (March 15, 2025), Iran (June 22, 2025), Syria (December 19, 2025), Nigeria (December 25, 2025) and now Venezuela (January 3, 2026). 

But it is Venezuela that has detonated the strongest political symbolism, with social media quickly pushing an “Iraq vs Venezuela” comparison, oil rigs, war, and a familiar argument about pretexts.

Why “Iraq vs Venezuela” is trending

The comparison doing the rounds draws a straight line between two claims: Iraq was sold on “weapons of mass destruction”; Venezuela is being sold on “drugs.” 

The imagery leans heavily on oilfields and rigs, suggesting that beneath stated reasons lies a real prize, natural resources.

That shorthand is powerful because it taps into a memory that still shapes global perceptions: Iraq’s invasion-era justification and the later fallout over whether the case was overstated. People are now using that template to ask whether “narco-terrorism” is being positioned as the new all-purpose rationale for hard power.

Why the comparison may not hold, and why it still sticks

The Iraq analogy is not a neat fit in terms of context. Iraq involved a full-scale war, occupation and regime-change campaign. Venezuela, as described by the US, was a rapid strike and seizure operation centred on Maduro’s capture and criminal prosecution.

But the comparison sticks for a simpler reason: Trump himself widened the frame. After the operation, he said the US is “going to run” Venezuela until a “safe transition” takes place.

He also said Washington would tap Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and sell “large amounts” to other countries. That is the line that turns a raid into a larger story about control, extraction and who benefits.

Once oil is mentioned alongside “we will run the country,” the conversation shifts. It stops being only about a criminal case and becomes about who controls Venezuelan territory, institutions and resources in the interim, even if Washington insists this is temporary.

“Drugs” as the stated peg, oil as the accelerant

The US has linked the operation to narco-terrorism allegations and said Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, will face prosecution in New York. US Attorney General Pam Bondi said the couple would face criminal charges following an indictment in New York.

That is the formal peg. But Trump’s own comments about oil have added a separate layer: if the US plans to “run” Venezuela and “tap” its reserves, the operation starts to look like more than a courtroom story. It starts to resemble a strategic project with a revenue stream.

That is also where the Iraq shadow grows longer. The public argument is not that Venezuela equals Iraq in military scale, it is that the language of justification can change, but the suspected underlying motives remain the same: power projection, leverage and resources.

Trump’s stated ambition raises the next question: who owns Venezuela’s oil?

Trump’s remarks have also pushed a basic question into the open: if the US starts selling Venezuelan oil, on what authority, and under whose ownership?

In a normal state, those reserves belong to Venezuela, managed by its institutions. But when a foreign power says it will run the country and monetise its reserves, critics immediately read it as a sovereignty breach.

Supporters argue it is a transitional arrangement to stabilise Venezuela and fund reconstruction. Critics call it extraction dressed up as a security mission. Either way, it puts oil at the centre of the story, even though the stated justification is narcotics and criminal charges.