The American president is toying with the idea of a “Venezuelan solution” in Tehran. Here’s why
What exactly are Donald Trump’s goals in Iran? This is a crucial question, which, at least for now, is not easy to answer.
In the video in which he announced the attack against the Islamic Republic, the American president kept a double register. The first was based on Realpolitik: Trump has in fact stated that the military operation would be functional to safeguarding American interests. In this sense, he supported the need to destroy the Iranian Navy and missile industry, adding that he wanted to prevent Tehran from acquiring atomic weapons. However, at the end of the video, the American president used more idealistic tones, urging the Iranian people to take control of the government and thus opening up the scenario of regime change. Not only that. Speaking with the Washington PostTrump also said he wanted “freedom for the people.” The confirmation of the killing of Ali Khamenei, a few hours later, confirmed that the path taken is that of regime change.
That said, in an interview given to CBS after the death of the ayatollah, the American president appeared cryptic at times. On the one hand, he said that the military attack could now open the way for diplomacy; on the other, he declared that “there are some good candidates” to lead Iran in the post-Khamenei era, although without naming names. And here the unknowns arise.
Trump is thinking of a regime change classic (a regime change to Bush jr so to speak)? If this were the case, when he thinks of “candidates” he should be referring to some members of the current Iranian opposition. Which would also go hand in hand with the invitation addressed to the Iranian people to take control of the government. On the other hand, the fact that the American president says he is willing to relaunch diplomacy clashes with the idea of establishing a new regime. From this point of view, the war operation would seem more like a way to weaken the current government and push it to negotiate from a position of extreme weakness. Not to mention that a regime change Bush-style is probably unworkable without sending troops on the ground. Which, if it were to ever materialize, would represent a significant political cost for an American president who has always criticized the “endless wars” carried out by his predecessors.
In this sense, while the overall situation still remains fluid, it will be necessary to see whether the current occupant of the White House will lean towards a classic regime change or whether, on the contrary, he will try to implement a “Venezuelan solution”. If this were to be the scenario, Trump, after having beheaded the Islamic Republic, could choose as an interlocutor a piece of the old system of power, after having adequately toothless and tamed it. He could, in other words, turn to an Iranian-style Delcy Rodriguez: which would allow him to bring Tehran into line with Washington’s wishes, without however sending American soldiers on the ground. Coincidentally, on Sunday, the American president said he would speak with Iranian leaders. “They want to talk, and I agreed, so I’ll talk to them. They should have done it sooner,” he said.
It is not currently known whether this is the American president’s intention or whether, if so, Benjamin Netanyahu would approve it. Of course, the Jewish state would seem more intent on a regime change classic. However, the Israeli prime minister also keeps one fact in mind: namely that, in 2024, the collapse of Bashar al Assad in Syria brought Damascus under a pro-Turkish regime that was not too friendly towards Jerusalem. If, as is likely, Trump pushes for a “Venezuelan solution”, he will leverage this element to convince Netaynahu to follow him. Furthermore, the American president has two interconnected needs: to avoid a prolonged conflict and, above all, to avoid the scenario of a Middle East that descends into chaos. In addition to the massive military attack, Trump can also count on the weight of US sanctions and the fact that Iranian retaliation against Arab countries could push the Saudis to get closer to both the Emirates and the Israelis. It is therefore along these fine lines that the American president is moving. And it is in this sense that he could attempt a “Venezuelan solution” in Tehran.
