After Venezuela, Buyer Beware on Iran Regime Change War
Trump’s move to abduct Maduro looks a lot more like neocolonialism than neoconservativism.
The Trump administration’s abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro massively violated both U.S. and international law and rocked the geopolitical chessboard. In the heady aftermath, the Trump administration has already entertained interventions in multiple other countries - from Colombia, to Cuba, to Mexico, to Panama and Greenland. This resurgent enthusiasm for regime change also has implications for U.S. policy toward Iran. Yet, Trump’s version of regime change looks far different from the regime change scenarios envisioned by neoconservatives and diaspora interventionists in recent months and years.
Trump Did Leader Change without Regime Change for Colonial Aims
Trump has not pretended to be motivated by altruistic aims of spreading human rights and democracy in Venezuela. Rather, what he appears to be pursuing is a colonial appropriation similar to the raw deal that allowed the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company to exploit Iran’s oil reserves in the first half of the 20th century. Former Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq rallied the Iranian people against the appropriation of the nation’s wealth and nationalized Iran’s oil industry. However, Mossadeq was then ousted in a 1953 CIA coup that replaced a budding democracy with the autocratic rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Now, the son of the Shah, Reza Pahlavi, has been seeking to position himself as the leader of the Iranian opposition from exile in the United States, either to oversee a “transition” process to form a new government or to head a restored monarchy. Pahlavi has welcomed the ouster of Maduro and, like his father, undoubtedly hopes for American intervention to depose the current Iranian government.
Many Venezuelan opposition leaders both in and outside the country hoped for military intervention to depose not just Nicolas Maduro but the entire ruling structure underneath him, allowing for a complete transition to democracy. That’s not what has happened. The Maduro regime is still there, just without Maduro. While details remain unclear, it seems quite possible that an agreement was struck with figures underneath him to hand over Maduro to save the rest of the government. Venezuelan air defenses appeared largely inactive in the surprise raid, allowing for U.S. forces to enter the country largely unopposed, despite the American military buildup over recent months and threats of war which should have ensured a high state of alert.
Many expected Trump to anoint a leader from the opposition after the raid, though this did not happen. María Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize winner in December who fled the country and lauded President Trump and his pressure campaign on the country - and who has connected with Iranian diaspora figures like Pahlavi who are pro-intervention in Iran - was pointedly dismissed as a contender. “I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader,” Trump said Saturday. “She doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country. She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect to be the leader.”
Instead, Trump has insisted that the U.S. will “run” the country and that U.S. oil companies will be given unfettered access to Venezuelan oil, under the threat of further military force. Maduro’s former Vice President, acting President Delcy Rodriguez, is now the subject of Trump’s overt colonial demands. Trump is asking for “total access” for U.S. oil companies to go in and rebuild infrastructure allowing for exploitation of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. If Rodriguez doesn’t submit, it appears that the Trump administration is willing to bombard the country and its leaders until it gets what it wants: the right to total exploitation.
The plan is still half baked and it is unclear what the full consequences Trump has set in motion will be. Yet it smacks far more of neocolonialism than neoconservativism. If it is a plan that could be replicated toward Iran, buyer beware.
Spheres of Influence and Who Runs the Middle East
President Trump was triumphant in his press conference following the capture of Maduro, and even touted the revival and supercharging of the old “Monroe Doctrine,” which viewed external intervention in the Western Hemisphere from other powers as a hostile act against core U.S. interests. The doctrine’s interpretation led to numerous interventions in Central and South America, including to topple various leaders deemed against American interests. Trump dubbed the apparent revival and intensification of this doctrine under his watch as the “Donroe” Doctrine.
Along with this new interventionist streak in Latin America came a plethora of potential targets for who should be on notice, largely confined to the Western Hemisphere. Speculation has been rife that Trump will not mind similar interventions from other great powers, like Russia and China, dictating terms and choosing leaders in countries near their own borders that have been sovereign in recent memory.
But with this possible shift to Latin America, it is not entirely clear that President Trump is ready to abandon the Middle East. Instead, Trump appears to have acted in lockstep to prop up Israel as a regional hegemon of the Middle East. Here, his recent suggestions that the U.S. could intervene with Israel to knock out Iran’s missile program or retaliate if protesters are killed are instructive. Trump appears to be following Netanyahu’s lead, open to striking Iran down again to ensure it can never be a threat to Israel.
This is inauspicious for anyone who thinks the governments of the Middle East should move toward peace and stability, or wants Iran to transform into a stable and secure democracy. Israeli hegemony, propped up and backed by the U.S., will mean the elimination of any potential rival. Under such a system, Iran - with its population of more than 90 million, significant resources and human capital and indigenous military capabilities - will not be allowed to transition from an isolated authoritarian government to a stable and capable regional power. Iran would be bombed and fractured so long as is necessary to ensure no rival can reemerge – and that, like Venezuela, its resources can be plundered.
Iran is not Venezuela. There are many Iranian opposition, mainly the diaspora, but there are many more in Iran that supports the regime. Besides the Iranians have have proven that when the country is attacked from outside they rally against the invader. So hands off Iran!