US President Donald Trump is sincerely convinced that he deserves to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. He has been repeating since the summer that he has resolved eight armed conflicts since he entered the Oval Office more or less a year ago. So, within a few months he has resolved the disputes between Israel and Hamas, between Israel and Iran, between Pakistan and India, between Armenia and Azerbaijan (it took a while to stop confusing Armenia with Albania), just as he has reconciled the Thais with the Cambodians, the Rwandans with the Congolese, the Egyptians with the Ethiopians and… the Kosovars with the Serbs! Be as surprised as you like, when Donald Trump says it, it is a fact. Or rather, it is an “alternative fact”, as he likes to call his truths. Meanwhile, many others see this parade of imaginary successes as a small compensation for the frustration caused in Washington by the half-resolved conflict in Gaza and the three-year war in Ukraine, which Trump promised to end within 24 hours of entering the White House.

In this context, Donald Trump has also found his own epithet; he likes to call himself the “President of Peace”. To prove this, he often mentions that he has been against wars for a long time, starting with Iraq, North Africa and everything that followed later, up to the Syrian conflict.

So far, everything sounds logical and consistent with what Trump has actually defended in public positions over the past 25 years, starting from the distant September 11, 2001. Trump has been a strong preacher of American non-intervention in wars and conflicts, just as he has been, and still is, a supporter of economic nationalism and the closure of America within its walls.

The problem is that in the first year of his second presidency, Trump has already left his fingerprints on two acts of US military intervention in Iran and Venezuela in the last few hours. Although he tried to package his attack as an air raid that brought peace between Israel and Iran, the bombing of Tehran’s nuclear tunnels by the US was a classic violation of the rules and principles that underpin relations between states in today’s world.

As for Venezuela, a story that is being written in these hours, the issue seems even more strained from the point of view of narrative and diplomatic justification. Since September, Trump has continued to increase the dose of threats against Venezuela, due to what the US considers to be a directed flow of drugs and fentanyl originating from the country in question, with the aim of promoting drug use among the American public. Maduro is accused of having initiated a drug trade towards the US, causing thousands of deaths in American cities. This is certainly a strained reason to attack a sovereign country, because with this logic it would be fitting for Albania to be attacked by half of the countries of the continent where it is located, since Albanian mafias today transit tons of drugs from Latin America to Europe and beyond!

Oil currently lies at the heart of one of the most repeated accusations that Trump’s opponents make regarding his military intervention in this part of Latin America. Venezuela is known as the country with the world’s largest proven oil reserves and, as such, it has signed energy agreements with China, Russia and Iran. This circumstance, combined with Maduro’s apparent rapprochement with Beijing and President Xi, is seen as unacceptable by Washington within its strategic plan.

According to the American concept, China cannot and should not be allowed to approach the Caribbean Sea and the Latin American continent, which is considered a primary area of US influence. This has led to the fact that in recent weeks, before today’s attack, US military forces have not only attacked ships suspected of bringing drugs to the US coast, but have also blocked and confiscated oil tankers owned by third countries, loaded with Venezuelan oil.

China’s advance in Latin America, especially in Brazil, is seen as a threatening circumstance for US interests on the continent. The rare mineral resources possessed by China in Bolivia and neighboring countries, the massive investments in ports and road networks, and the strong entry into sectors such as renewable energy and electric cars have long raised American suspicions that this Chinese economic offensive could overturn strategic balances in this part of the world. The attack on Venezuela seems precisely designed to delay and possibly intimidate this Chinese advance in South America.

On the other hand, as the attack on Venezuela unfolds, many are reminded of the old axiom of American politics, which says that every time American presidents have a problem at home, a new military conflict arises somewhere in the world. The US has just entered an election year, and the Republicans and President Trump are in an unsatisfactory position vis-à-vis the approval of the American public.

According to the latest polls, there is an 80% chance that in the midterm elections in November this year, the Republicans will lose their majority in Congress and perhaps even in the Senate. Meanwhile, the same polls show that Trump is today the least popular president in US history at this point in his presidential term. According to The Economist, after 348 days in office, Trump is liked by 39% of Americans, while another 56% are dissatisfied with him.

The unfulfilled promises of price cuts and the failure of the trade-tariff strategy towards third countries, on which Trump had built his entire economic policy, are the cause of this dissatisfaction among American voters. This is pushing the head of the White House to seek alternative ways to increase his popularity. Foreign policy has traditionally been a platform used for this purpose by American presidents, and the attack on Venezuela seems precisely designed to heal, at least partially, the gray mood of the average American over the price of eggs or the cost of health insurance. How much this latest military incursion into the dangerous Latin American jungle will be able to raise Donald Trump’s image remains to be seen, especially after the warnings that many security experts have issued against sending troops to Venezuelan soil, due to the complexity and surprises that such a step could hold in the long term.