Will Trump’s threat work — and why Iran is not Venezuela

Dubai: As nationwide protests roil Iran, a new layer of anxiety has spread through Tehran and other cities: Fear over what President Donald Trump might do next after a dramatic US raid in Venezuela.

In early January, US forces conducted airstrikes on Caracas and seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, flying him to the United States to face charges.

That unprecedented operation — and Trump’s comments that Washington stands ready to act should Iranian forces “violently kill peaceful protesters” — has amplified fears that the unrest in Iran could draw foreign intervention, according to an AP report.

The protests, triggered by a collapsing currency, rising inflation and deep economic hardship, have spread across much of the country. Rights groups report more than three dozen deaths and over a thousand arrests as security forces crack down with tear gas and force. The demonstrations have broadened from economic complaints to explicit political slogans calling for major change in Iran’s theocratic system, a Reuters report said.

What sets this moment apart is not just the protests — it is the spectre of US intervention. Trump publicly warned Iran on social media and in press comments that the United States was “locked and loaded” and watching closely, and that Tehran would be “hit very hard” if security forces killed more demonstrators.

Iranian state media and officials have seized on this message, depicting it as an existential threat that could justify foreign action, ABC News reported.

The Venezuelan raid — in which US forces removed a sitting president and transported him out of his country — has become shorthand in Iranian political circles for what might happen elsewhere. That operation drew widespread international controversy, with diplomats and rights experts saying it challenged norms of sovereignty.

Most analysts say a similar US operation in Iran is highly unlikely. Iran is a vastly larger, more complex and more strategically important state than Venezuela.

It has a powerful security apparatus, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, deeply embedded within society and critical to regime survival.

Any military action against Iran’s leadership would carry enormous geopolitical risks and likely trigger wider conflict, especially given Iran’s position in the Middle East and its long coastline along the Arabian Gulf, Al Jazeera quoted an analyst as saying.

Public reactions inside Iran range from unease to outright fear. Some Iranians see the events in Caracas as a warning sign that the US might be emboldened to act beyond its borders. Iranian state media have amplified those narratives, sometimes broadcasting unverified claims that foreign powers — including the US and Israel — have planned to target Iranian leaders, a reflection of deep mistrust, AP said.

This anxiety is heightened by memories of recent conflicts, including last year’s 12-day war with Israel in which Tehran’s allies and security infrastructure were directly targeted, and by domestic fears over regime stability amid the protests.

Yes — and they are significant:

State structures: Iran’s political system is institutionalised across multiple centres of power — clerical leadership, judiciary, elected institutions and security forces — making it far more resilient than Venezuela’s more personalised system centred on a single leader.

Military capability: Iran has a large, experienced military and paramilitary network. Venezuela’s security institutions are weaker, less cohesive and lacked comparable regional influence prior to the US operation.

Regional strategic significance: Iran sits at the heart of Middle Eastern geopolitics and the Arabian Gulf, a critical route for global energy. Any conflict there threatens to disrupt shipping lanes and oil markets in ways that a Venezuela intervention did not.

Nuclear dimension: Iran retains nuclear infrastructure that complicates any external engagement, while Venezuela has no analogous strategic deterrent.

Together, these factors make Iran a fundamentally different and far more formidable environment for foreign intervention than Venezuela.

Experts caution that external threats are unlikely to directly aid Iranian protestors and might even rally nationalist sentiment that strengthens hardliners. The Iranian leadership has long used narratives of foreign interference to delegitimise dissent, and repeated warnings from abroad can feed into that framing rather than weaken it.

History shows that foreign intervention in deeply rooted internal conflicts often fuels further instability rather than orderly political change.

Any escalation involving Iran carries wide implications. Iran’s disputes with Israel, its role in regional proxy networks and concerns over its nuclear programme already contribute to a volatile regional landscape. Added to that is the Arabian Gulf’s significance for global energy flows — a flashpoint in any confrontation could ripple far beyond Iran’s borders.

The Venezuelan incident has sparked debate at the United Nations, with multiple countries condemning the US action as a violation of sovereignty and international law, while others have expressed support or neutrality. Those divisions underscore how interventionist actions can reverberate globally.

Trump’s warnings have clearly rattled Tehran and stirred public apprehension, especially in the wake of the Venezuela raid. But while the rhetoric has political weight, the strategic, military and geopolitical barriers to US intervention in Iran remain high.

The Venezuelan operation may have amplified fears, but it is not a realistic blueprint for action against a country as complex, institutionally entrenched and strategically significant as Iran.

What is more immediate is the symbolic message — that Washington is willing to use force far beyond its borders — and Tehran must balance that message against its internal struggles and regional responsibilities.