Aymun Moosavi
The campaign against Venezuela is not disconnected from Washington’s larger imperialist project – it is a critical part of it. Beyond the direct attempt to dismantle the Bolivarian revolution, the war on Venezuela serves two key external purposes: to strangle resisting nations allied to the state, and to reduce the costs – political, economic, and strategic – of a future war with Iran.
Change in tactics, not objectives
The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS) is clear in its intent: revive a colonial doctrine that divides the world into two, ensuring that the Western Hemisphere remains firmly under US control.
Many read this to mean that the updated strategy signalled a retreat from West Asia and a de-prioritisation of China, both of which featured less prominently than in previous strategies. In reality, this was simply a change in tactics, not objectives.
The pivot marked different means to the same ends. The United States had failed to weaken Russia through NATO expansion and all-out war, and also was unable to contain China through tariff wars and Taiwan brinkmanship. This failure signalled the need to operate in more manageable theatres – smaller nations that could more easily be destabilised and thus be exploited by regional instability. Venezuela became the testing ground.
Washington, therefore, designed a renewed focus on the Western Hemisphere to accumulate easier victories, consolidate leverage, and create a stronger position from which to confront Global South adversaries as well as powers it deems threats to its waning unipolarity.
From Caracas to Tehran
Less than a month after publishing the NSS, Trump publicly threatened to strike Iran if it continued its ballistic program, and then brazenly kidnapped Venezuela’s elected head of state in the most severe act of aggression against the Bolivarian state.
A few days prior, Israeli regime’s Prime Minister Netanyahu made an explicit link between Venezuela and Iran:
“They were throwing their weight all over the place, exporting terrorism not only to every part of the Middle East, but to Venezuela. They’re in cahoots with the Maduro regime.” – Benjamin Netanyahu.
The stage was being set for further escalations to legitimise future aggression against both. For the US-Israeli alliance, Iran and Venezuela present a connected threat to imperialist interests: political and resource sovereignty and a resistance movement to defend it. Trump’s strategy seems to focus on accumulating smaller wins to lay the groundwork for larger wars. This time, the sights are set firmly on the Islamic Republic of Iran.
By Will or by Force
Largely cut off from the West, alliances with Venezuela have provided states like Cuba with breathing room to take principled stances that protect autonomy, while ensuring continued access to vital resources. For more than two decades, Venezuela has been Cuba’s primary supplier of crude oil and fuel. Though this has ebbed under the pressure of US sanctions, the underlying reality remains.
These networks of alliances led Washington to develop a twofold strategy:
Approving sanctions as a slow, prolonged economic attack which undercuts state capacity, limits their ability to export, and cultivates public apathy to fracture domestic legitimacy.
Material destruction aimed at complete destabilisation, serving to isolate further the network of countries that resist operating under Washington’s direct influence.
“Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall. I don’t know how, if they can hold up. But Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela… they’re not getting any of it. Cuba is literally ready to fall.” – Trump’s comments came less than 48 hours after the attack on Venezuela, alongside threats to Colombia and Mexico.
Though the remarks from Trump were hasty, as the Maduro government remains in power with ample popular support, they speak to the interconnected logic of destabilisation, in which empires seek to trigger a domino effect, weakening one state to pressure the next. They also expose a familiar tactic – the deliberate attempt to break public morale. This is a strategy Cuba has already confronted head-on:
“The act of state terrorism that has just occurred in Venezuela is a scandalous violation of international law… There can be no silence or acceptance of this act of state terrorism, comparable only to the crimes against humanity committed by Israeli Zionism in the Gaza Strip.…
…For Venezuela and, of course, also for Cuba, we are prepared to give even our own blood, even our own lives… These are not times for half measures, these are times for defining our stance and taking a stand against fascism and imperial barbarism.”
– Segment of statement from Cuban President, Miguel Diaz-Canel.
There has already been an attempt to apply the first stage to Iran, contributing to the swift hijacking of recent economic protests by violent anti-Republic rioters. The second stage, direct material destabilisation, is what the US has always sought to implement when conditions appear favourable. So far, the will of the people remains the primary obstacle.
Escalations in Venezuela, therefore, serve as a warning to resisting nations that US threats are not rhetorical nor isolated. Each threat posed against states which mirror a collective rejection of US dominance is an admission that it is the wider resistance, not any single state, that is under attack.
Illusions of Grandeur
The Trump administration thrives on performance. Incendiary statements, abrupt strikes, and theatrical operations. Yet these fail to mask an apparent lack of coherent strategic planning. Commentators have rightfully pointed out the absence of a clear day-after plan following the aggression in Venezuela. Maduro’s government remains in power with substantial popular support, and there is still no defined plan for how American corporations will actually seize control of Venezuela’s resources. This task cannot happen overnight.
Opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, initially touted as Maduro’s likely successor, has been publicly dismissed by Trump. During a recent press conference, he stated that she lacks sufficient support or respect among the Venezuelan people to assume a leadership role. Meanwhile, mass demonstrations in support of Maduro continue to fill the streets, highlighting the limits of US influence.
If Trump finds himself struggling to engineer a favourable environment that brings Venezuela under US influence, he will likely encounter an even greater challenge with Iran. The Islamic Republic’s defence capabilities are far more institutionalised, with a deeply integrated military structure, stronger technological capacity, and significant regional influence. These realities make it far less susceptible to the kinds of coercive strategies applied in Venezuela.
The US has even begun imitating some aspects of Iran’s defence strategy. In early December 2025, the US Navy test-launched a new suicide drone unit equipped with LUCAS drones, directly inspired by Iran’s Shahed-136 models. The growing need for cheap, expendable drones that can be sustained in combat has led the US to learn strategic lessons from its own rivals.
While the US may aim to gain leverage over Iran by first weakening Venezuela, this remains hypothetical. Venezuela, so far, resists falling under US control, and Iran remains beyond Washington’s reach. The impact of these threats ultimately depends on how they are managed and on the strength of the people’s will to oppose them.
Risks and Pre-emption
Though Iran is not materially dependent on Venezuela, its alliance complicates Washington’s war calculus. Together, Iran and Venezuela hold almost 29% of the world’s proven oil reserves, and Iran is proximate to the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas trade flows. For the US, this is a source of anxiety, as war with Iran could trigger energy shocks which ripple across Europe and Asia, straining alliances and destabilising markets.
To make such a war feasible, Washington needs buffers. If Venezuela and its resources were brought under US control, which has been posed by Trump as the short-term solution, this self-inflicted disruption would be minimised.
Lessons from the Past
The lesson here is simple: a direct threat to one resisting nation is a direct threat to all. Syria offers the clearest example.
It was long understood by the American-Israeli axis that destabilising Syria would bring them closer to weakening the Lebanese resistance and ultimately confronting Iran. American media outlets echoed this logic. At the height of the war, the New York Times ran the headline: ‘To Weaken Iran, Start with Syria,’ which sought to legitimise regime change amongst the public. The title has since been changed.
Geographically positioned at the heart of regional resistance, Syria enabled supply routes to Palestine and connected the Lebanese and Iraqi forces. It provided on-ground synergy, exemplified during the 2008 Gaza war that was coordinated from Damascus with the support of Qassem Soleimani, who led the Quds Force. This network was effectively severed following the HTS takeover, redirecting strategic lines towards Israeli interests.
For the US and Israel, each case of destabilisation is not an isolated case, but a removed obstacle.
A Warning to Iran
Every act of aggression over recent years – the Gaza genocide, the 12-day war, the strikes on Venezuela, and the illegal kidnapping of its head of state – tests the limits of American adventurism in the international system. What has become clear is that limits scarcely exist. The rules-based order functions not as a constraint, but as a framework engineered by and for the US to preserve and project its dominance. This reality has created the space for Trump to continue pushing the envelope with little to no consequences.
Though US aggressions in Venezuela prove that this adventurism can push boundaries, it ultimately faces limits set by the resilience of the people and years of deep strategic preparation by states like Iran.
They also reinforce the longstanding lesson that the US cannot be negotiated with in good faith. This should serve as a reminder for the Islamic Republic that imperial objectives do not change with administrations. They are structural, too deeply embedded within the American political psyche to be erased by any one leader.
Iran now possesses the added advantage of experience – first-hand during the 12-day war launched amid the promise of negotiations, and second-hand through Venezuela’s ordeal.
The main goal behind Trump’s actions in Venezuela was to try to weaken the spirit of the people. This is all it can do when it lacks substantial on-ground influence. Yet, as in Venezuela, Iran’s greatest strength lies in its people. Mass pro-government mobilisations in both countries continue to disrupt the soft war campaign designed to manufacture consent for regime change and project the illusion of complete fragility.
Empires advance not because resistance is inherently weak, but because the threat they pose is left unchallenged. Despite plans to dismantle the Bolivarian state, the central obstacle confronting the US is the will of the people and the lengths to which they will go to resist subjugation. Venezuela demonstrates why Iran must treat this moment not as distant, but instructive of what lies ahead.
Aymun Moosavi is a geopolitical analyst with a background in international conflict studies and history, focussed on deconstructing current political narratives and social issues projected in the mainstream.
From Vox Ummah via This RSS Feed.