The Trump administration's foreign policy ventures in Venezuela and Iran have taken starkly contrasting trajectories, with the relative ease of the former emboldening a more complex and protracted engagement in the latter, according to analysis.
On July 13, President Donald Trump declared a renewed focus on military action in Iran, anticipating a conflict that was initially expected to last weeks but has extended significantly. Trump has expressed frustration with Iran's resistance to reopening the Strait of Hormuz, likening the situation to a persistent opponent in a boxing match.
In contrast, the U.S. successfully facilitated a change in leadership in Venezuela in January. The government is now effectively managed by former Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed power after the capture of President Nicolás Maduro in a U.S. raid. The New York Times reported that Secretary of State Marco Rubio acts as a de facto "viceroy," controlling Venezuela's oil revenues and budget from Washington, D.C., a situation that reportedly pleases Trump.
Trump had previously cited Venezuela as a model for his approach to Iran, suggesting a desire to replicate the swift removal of leadership and install a more pliable figure. However, analysts note significant differences between the two nations that made this strategy ill-suited for Iran.
The Venezuela Model
The operation in Venezuela, launched on January 3, involved a swift predawn raid by U.S. Special Forces that captured Maduro within hours, with no U.S. casualties. This outcome, which replaced Maduro with his vice president, Rodríguez, was seen by Trump as a demonstration of U.S. military prowess and a viable blueprint for regime change elsewhere. Trump reportedly stated in early March that the Venezuela operation was the "perfect scenario" for dealing with Iran.
This perceived success, combined with initial airstrikes against Iran's nuclear program in June, reportedly emboldened Trump to pursue further military action against Iran. He also expressed a desire to be involved in appointing Iran's leadership, similar to his role in Venezuela.
However, Iran's Assembly of Experts appointed Mojtaba Khamenei, son of the former supreme leader, as the successor, a choice Trump dismissed. Despite this, Trump maintained that Iran's new leadership was more amenable to U.S. demands. Yet, Iran's continued assertion of state control and regional actions suggest it is not yielding to external influence.
Iran's Distinct Challenges
While both Iran and Venezuela are oil-dependent authoritarian states opposed to the U.S., sponsoring militant groups, and facing U.S. sanctions, their differences are substantial. Iran possesses a significantly larger and better-equipped military, including missile and drone capabilities, and its leaders have extensive experience in regional proxy conflicts. Venezuela's military, by contrast, has not engaged in interstate warfare in modern times.
Geographically, Iran's strategic location on the Strait of Hormuz grants it leverage to disrupt global energy flows, a capability Venezuela lacks despite its vast oil reserves. Iran has also demonstrated its ability to attack U.S. allies and assets through direct missile strikes and supported groups throughout the region.
Historical and ideological factors also differentiate the two nations. Even during periods of strained relations, U.S.-Venezuelan communication persisted on energy issues and prisoner exchanges. Venezuela's ruling elite, characterized by what some describe as "crony capitalism," has shown a greater interest in preserving personal economic interests than in adhering strictly to revolutionary ideology. Reports suggest Rodríguez had prior contact with U.S. officials, potentially framing the transition as a U.S.-enabled coup rather than a hostile invasion.
Iran's regime, conversely, is described as more organized, disciplined, and ideologically committed to the principles of its 1979 revolution. Its leaders reportedly had contingency plans for succession in the event of leadership elimination. Analysts suggest the absence of a clear, pliable alternative leader in Iran, unlike the situation with Rodríguez in Venezuela, made a swift, low-cost regime change impossible.
Lingering Ambitions
Despite the diverging outcomes, the initial success in Venezuela appeared to validate Trump's self-perception as capable of bending nations to his will. His administration has also considered interventions in other countries, including Cuba, which shares some political system characteristics with Iran. While Trump has expressed interest in taking over territories like Greenland and annexing Canada, the experience in Iran may underscore that not all countries are susceptible to the Venezuela model of influence. Analysts suggest that Trump's approach to Iran may have been less informed by historical context and more by the recent, seemingly easy, victory in Venezuela, raising questions about whether this experience will temper his future foreign policy ambitions.