Iran is not another Venezuela, Trump has found to great cost

“It’s gonna work very easily. It’s going to work like it did in Venezuela. We have a wonderful leader there. She’s doing a fantastic job. And it’s going to work like in Venezuela.” That was how US President Donald Trump described the Iran operation in a CNN interview roughly a week into the war, invoking what his administration sees as a successful earlier intervention in Venezuela. But as the Iran war enters its second week, the comparison is beginning to look increasingly misplaced.

The US-Israeli campaign did achieve one dramatic objective. A joint strike killed Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei the very first day in a decapitation attack targeting the country’s top leadership. Yet the political and military consequences have not unfolded the way the Trump administration appeared to expect. Iran’s regime remains largely intact, the conflict has widened across the region, and global energy markets have been thrown into turmoil.

With US at risk of suffering heavy casualties and regional energy infrastructure at the mercy of a threatening Iran, the Iran campaign is proving far more complex and dangerous than the lightning operation in Venezuela that Trump hoped to replicate.


Also Read | We’re all trapped in Donald Trump’s 1980s worldview

The “Venezuela model”

The comparison to Venezuela did not emerge only in Trump’s public remarks. Analysts and officials quoted by Reuters recently claimed some in the administration believed the Iran campaign could follow a similar trajectory. In Venezuela earlier in the year, US special forces quickly captured President Nicolás Maduro and facilitated the installation of a US-backed leadership, securing Washington’s influence over the country’s oil resources without a prolonged conflict. Reuters noted that some analysts believed the White House expected Iran’s leadership to collapse in a comparable fashion once the regime’s top figures were removed.

That expectation appears to have shaped early strategic thinking. Trump himself indicated he might play a role in choosing Iran’s next leader after the war, suggesting Washington could influence the country’s political transition. But Iran’s political structure proved far less vulnerable to sudden collapse.

Also Read | Donald Trump has never been a planner, and that’s deadly

Decapitation has failed to break the regime

The US-Israeli strikes were militarily significant. The February 28 operation killed Khamenei and several senior officials in Tehran. Yet the expected political shockwave inside Iran never materialized. Instead of creating a leadership vacuum, the Iranian establishment moved quickly to consolidate power. Mojtaba Khamenei, the slain leader’s hardline son, was elevated to succeed him as supreme leader, ensuring continuity within the regime.

The political system proved more resilient than anticipated. Even after the killing of top leaders and major military damage, Iran has been able to continue coordinating military responses and maintain control over the country.

CNN has reported an intelligence assessment a few days ago which said Iran regime is still intact. According to US officials cited by CNN, the regime’s core structures remain largely intact despite the deaths of several senior figures and heavy strikes on Iranian infrastructure. The anticipated collapse of the ruling system simply has not happened.

In that sense the strategy of decapitation, which was quite effective in Venezuela, has not produced the same political result in Iran.

The uprising that never came

Another assumption that appears to have shaped the strategy was the expectation that ordinary Iranians might rise up against the regime once its leadership was weakened. This had a happened to some extent in Venezuela. That scenario also failed to materialize. Large-scale protests against the government did not erupt in the aftermath of the strikes, contrary to hopes among some policymakers.

The belief that Iran’s leadership might be overthrown through internal rebellion has not been borne out so far. Instead the country’s political institutions and security apparatus have largely held together, allowing the new leadership to maintain authority even under sustained military pressure.

For analysts watching the conflict, this reflects a deeper difference between the two countries. Venezuela’s political system was already fractured when the US intervened, whereas Iran’s security state and ideological institutions have proved far more cohesive.

A regional war instead of a quick victory

The strategic consequences of the conflict have also turned out to be much broader than the administration anticipated. Rather than remaining a contained operation, the war has rapidly expanded into a regional confrontation. Iran has launched missile and drone attacks across the Gulf, including strikes on Bahrain where the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet is based. A Reuters analysis has warned that the conflict now risks becoming a “messy and potentially protracted military campaign” with consequences far beyond Iran itself.

That widening battlefield marks another stark difference with Venezuela, where US forces faced little risk of regional escalation.

The Strait of Hormuz shock

Perhaps the most serious miscalculation involves the global energy system. Iran has disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passage through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil supply normally flows. CNN reported that US officials underestimated the likelihood that Iran would attempt to close the strait in response to the strikes. The move has shaken global markets and forced Washington to scramble for ways to stabilize energy supplies.

The economic consequences have been immediate. Oil prices surged above $100 per barrel and analysts warn the disruption could become the largest supply shock in the history of oil markets if the crisis continues. This global ripple effect again highlights how different the Iran conflict is from Venezuela, where the geopolitical fallout was limited.

A war increasingly beyond Washington’s control

Two weeks into the conflict, another uncomfortable reality is emerging for the White House: the trajectory of the war may no longer be entirely in US hands. Iran’s retaliatory capabilities, including missiles, drones, naval mines and proxy forces across the region, allow it to escalate in ways that Washington cannot easily control. At the same time, diplomatic pressure is mounting as allies worry about the economic and security consequences of a prolonged conflict.

Reuters notes that the widening crisis now threatens regional stability and the global economy, raising the possibility that the war could stretch far longer than initially anticipated. Reportedly, even within US strategic circles, questions are being raised about whether the political and diplomatic endgame was sufficiently thought through before the strikes began.

As per a CNN commentator: "Iran has – within 13 days – turned this into an endurance test that it seems to be surviving. The US can bomb for months, but not without depleting its vital munitions stocks, and facing both greater political damage ahead of November’s mid-term elections and the risk of more US casualties. Iran will continue to lose launchers, drone bases, personnel and infrastructure, but enough will likely survive that its forces never have to stop, and drop to their knees. The IRGC’s leaders have prepared for this moment for years. It is their calling. They may run out of bombs, drones, or even people, but not motivation. This, too, was the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan."

"Yet this is no “Forever War,” for now. It is 13 days old. It is more likely that silent diplomacy, or sheer exhaustion, will see the violence peter out in the coming weeks, in such a way both sides can claim a win."