Following a successful mission in Venezuela, the United States is contemplating its next steps as Iranian authorities crack down violently on anti-government protests. This situation raises the question of whether similar military action could be directed at Tehran.
In Caracas, U.S. special forces acted swiftly to detain President Nicolas Maduro. However, any comparable effort in Iran would be complicated by the country’s more extensive military capabilities and its willingness to retaliate beyond its borders.
“It’s not accurate to frame this as just an isolated operation, like in Venezuela,” said Benam Ben Taleburu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “It should be viewed as part of a broader campaign.”
Iran possesses a significantly larger military force than Venezuela, with security personnel focused on shielding the regime from both external threats and internal dissent. The power is shared between the executive branch, security forces, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is designed to endure beyond the loss of any single leader.
Taleburu emphasized that merely changing leaders in Iran isn’t likely to make a substantial difference. He described the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as “the spearhead of the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism,” warning that ousting one person might leave a more dangerous security structure intact.
Iran has military capabilities far superior to what Venezuela can muster, particularly a missile force that provides credible options for retaliation if they perceive their regime is under threat.
Despite facing attacks, Iran’s missile program remains largely intact. The conflict has reinforced Tehran’s reliance on its missile arsenal as the primary deterrent, even as its air defenses have taken hits. While Israel has targeted Iranian defenses, the country still holds a substantial stockpile of ballistic missiles and can launch them from mobile platforms.
Inevitably, the scale of Iran’s military far exceeds that of Venezuela, with around 1 million active and reserve personnel compared to Venezuela’s roughly 120,000. This disparity presents a significant challenge for U.S. strategists.
Iran’s enmity towards the United States stems from the ideology of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which positioned opposition to Western influence—especially from the U.S. and Israel—as a fundamental state principle. In contrast, tensions between Venezuela and the U.S. largely revolve around political power, sanctions, and control over oil resources.
Previously, Trump administration officials characterized the operations in Venezuela not as a regime change but as a way to advance U.S. interests regarding Maduro’s drug trafficking charges and control over oil assets. Post-Maduro’s arrest, Trump installed Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as an interim leader, doubtful that opposition figure María Machado had sufficient domestic backing.
Any military action in Iran, however, would signal a direct confrontation with the regime.
In contrast to Venezuela, where governmental structures remained intact following Maduro’s removal, targeting leadership in Iran could escalate the situation from a specific attack to a broader military engagement against regime forces.
Seth Jones from the Center for Strategic and International Studies apprehensively noted, “Attacking leadership raises many questions about succession and what comes next.” He pointed out figures who might be considered as potential successors, complicating the landscape further.
Jones remarked that this uncertainty transforms a straightforward strike against leaders into a far riskier plan. “If it appears to be a regime change rather than just the removal of a person, that brings additional complications,” he explained.
Ultimately, the critical question for U.S. strategists is not if military force can be employed, but for what political purposes.
He cautioned that escalating the conflict could lead to a protracted and unstable situation in a complex nation like Iran. “The further we lean towards regime change and military intervention, the more chaotic the situation could become,” he added. “Social engineering from the outside is challenging.”
