President Donald Trump has frequently used pressure, speed, and spectacle to showcase American dominance overseas. However, Washington might be misjudging the difficulty of the situation if it thinks Iran can be handled the same way it handled the Venezuelan leadership. Washington had to deal with a Venezuela that had been eroded by years of political isolation, economic catastrophe, and sanctions. Its institutions were fragile, its international affiliations were few, and its armed forces were underfunded. The United States estimated that pressure—diplomatic, economic, and covert—would probably produce results without starting a regional conflict, even during the height of tensions with Caracas.

Iran poses a distinct set of difficulties. Even though Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, its supreme leader, is no longer alive, the structure that the ruling class has built over the years will not fall apart easy.
Let's examine the reasons why Iran is weakened but not completely vanquished, given that its power is already at one of its lowest points. In the first place, the Islamic Republic is not as isolated. Iran refers to this group as "the Axis of Resistance" because it has spent decades establishing a network of regional friends and proxies that stretches from Yemen (Houthis) to Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Iraq. Tehran-aligned groups are capable of attacking US partners and interests throughout the Middle East and have experience in the battlefield. Any action against Iran has the potential of a multifaceted reaction rather than a confined conflict.

Second, Iran has more powerful military capabilities. It has made significant investments in asymmetric warfare, including ballistic missiles, drones, naval mines, and cyber operations, even if it is unable to match US conventional power. It has power that Venezuela never had because of its capacity to impede shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which is where a sizable portion of the world's oil passes.
Third, location is important. More than 85 million people live in the huge, mountainous country of Iran. Operations in smaller, more economically vulnerable states would be far simpler than any attempt at occupation or regime change. There would be significant political and civilian costs associated with urban combat in places like Tehran.

The ideological dimension is another. Iran's government has made opposition to the US a key component of its character since the 1979 revolution. Hardliners are frequently strengthened rather than weakened by outside pressure. Even those who criticize the government may become more patriotic in response to an attack from abroad.
Lastly, the stakes are bigger globally. It would not be a bilateral conflict with Iran. China and Russia continue to have relations with Tehran. After decades of violence in the Middle East, European nations would be hesitant to support escalation. The energy markets would respond immediately. Iran has also maintained an active nuclear program, in contrast to Venezuela.

According to a New York Times article, Trump is anticipating that Iranians would topple their own "unpopular" administration. However, there are a number of possible outcomes. As one writer put it, "They have unleashed forces here that they cannot control."
Trump's takeaway is unmistakable: What failed a struggling Venezuelan government cannot be easily repeated in Iran. The battlefield is more complicated, the risks are greater, and the outcomes are far less certain.