Trump now stands closer than ever to military confrontation with Iran. Following widespread Iranian protests and the threat of Tehran’s nuclear programme, we’re back in another tense ‘will-they-won’t-they’ situation. And if Trump’s capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro is anything to go on, the fear is that he certainly will. But such a comparison is counterproductive as it misses the crucial point that Iran is not Venezuela, and an attack on Iran would fundamentally be more consequential.
Iran once again was thrust into the global spotlight in late December when protests spread to 180 cities and towns in all 31 provinces. As demonstrations grew, Trump’s beady gaze never broke eye contact. He initially vowed to take “very strong action”, topped by his post stating “HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA!!!”
“Make Iran Great Again” may be an Iranian opposition slogan, but in Trump’s hands it was laced with American branding and hegemony. The familiar path of US driver’s seat politics is sidelining the Iranian cast members in their own play.
While reports indicated that killings of protestors had stopped, the retraction of military intervention plans don’t feel like a permanent cool-off; in fact, it appears to be more like a temporary pause.
Trump is currently pressuring a deal with Iran to limit its nuclear programme and recently warned that “time is running out.” Iran continues to violate the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement, negotiated in 2015. It has stockpiled 30 times the level of uranium permitted in the deal, claiming that it is doing so due to signatories not delivering sanctions relief.
Yet Iran is not ignorant of American limits. The US operation “Midnight Hammer” from June 2025 targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities, demonstrating the immense capabilities of US air power and the risk of accelerating confrontation.
An attack on Iran today, however, is not analogous to Trump’s Venezuelan operation. While US intervention in Venezuela was framed around the capture of Maduro and pursuing US oil interests, military action in Iran would be a direct attack on the regime itself. And these clashes hark back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The historical weight makes intervention in Iran far more consequential than the hostility between Venezuela and the US which are comparatively newer, having erupted after the election of Hugo Chavez in 1999.
The US can’t play its usual cards here. Military options such as symbolic strikes, decapitation, or sustained campaigns are all losing hands. Iran has far greater military power than Venezuela, making any strike attempts at risk of retaliation. A targeted strike is a highly optimistic scenario as democracy was not brought effectively to either Iraq or Libya in this way. Assassination of the Supreme Leader doesn’t guarantee regime collapse, as it did in Venezuela, as the Islamic Republic leadership has remained resistant for the past 47 years. And methodical strikes risk completely destabilising the country, resulting in a humanitarian and refugee crisis.
The fear is that Trump wants to get his foot in the door as the West’s global policeman, especially in the Middle East. His itch for global military intervention may have been temporarily placated by operations in Venezuela, but the urge has unsurprisingly resurfaced once more. However, the potential for escalation in Iran represents a much larger gamble with far more regional and global implications.
“Largest Iran Flag – panoramio (1)” by Ali Safdarian is licensed under CC BY 3.0.
Related
“Make Iran Great Again”: The Prospect of US Military Action in the Islamic Republic
Trump now stands closer than ever to military confrontation with Iran. Following widespread Iranian protests and the threat of Tehran’s nuclear programme, we’re back in another tense ‘will-they-won’t-they’ situation. And if Trump’s capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro is anything to go on, the fear is that he certainly will. But such a comparison is counterproductive as it misses the crucial point that Iran is not Venezuela, and an attack on Iran would fundamentally be more consequential.
Iran once again was thrust into the global spotlight in late December when protests spread to 180 cities and towns in all 31 provinces. As demonstrations grew, Trump’s beady gaze never broke eye contact. He initially vowed to take “very strong action”, topped by his post stating “HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA!!!”
“Make Iran Great Again” may be an Iranian opposition slogan, but in Trump’s hands it was laced with American branding and hegemony. The familiar path of US driver’s seat politics is sidelining the Iranian cast members in their own play.
While reports indicated that killings of protestors had stopped, the retraction of military intervention plans don’t feel like a permanent cool-off; in fact, it appears to be more like a temporary pause.
Trump is currently pressuring a deal with Iran to limit its nuclear programme and recently warned that “time is running out.” Iran continues to violate the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement, negotiated in 2015. It has stockpiled 30 times the level of uranium permitted in the deal, claiming that it is doing so due to signatories not delivering sanctions relief.
Yet Iran is not ignorant of American limits. The US operation “Midnight Hammer” from June 2025 targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities, demonstrating the immense capabilities of US air power and the risk of accelerating confrontation.
An attack on Iran today, however, is not analogous to Trump’s Venezuelan operation. While US intervention in Venezuela was framed around the capture of Maduro and pursuing US oil interests, military action in Iran would be a direct attack on the regime itself. And these clashes hark back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The historical weight makes intervention in Iran far more consequential than the hostility between Venezuela and the US which are comparatively newer, having erupted after the election of Hugo Chavez in 1999.
The US can’t play its usual cards here. Military options such as symbolic strikes, decapitation, or sustained campaigns are all losing hands. Iran has far greater military power than Venezuela, making any strike attempts at risk of retaliation. A targeted strike is a highly optimistic scenario as democracy was not brought effectively to either Iraq or Libya in this way. Assassination of the Supreme Leader doesn’t guarantee regime collapse, as it did in Venezuela, as the Islamic Republic leadership has remained resistant for the past 47 years. And methodical strikes risk completely destabilising the country, resulting in a humanitarian and refugee crisis.
The fear is that Trump wants to get his foot in the door as the West’s global policeman, especially in the Middle East. His itch for global military intervention may have been temporarily placated by operations in Venezuela, but the urge has unsurprisingly resurfaced once more. However, the potential for escalation in Iran represents a much larger gamble with far more regional and global implications.
“Largest Iran Flag – panoramio (1)” by Ali Safdarian is licensed under CC BY 3.0.
Share this:
Like this:
Related