Filenews 12 February 2026
By Melik Kaylan
The great conundrum of foreign policy is the next steps of the US in its relations with Venezuela and Iran. Not only because these are important geostrategic hubs, but because Trump's actions towards these states reflect his general mindset and, therefore, what he can do elsewhere: his next steps in Ukraine, China, Syria, ISIS, and so on. So far, Trump has overthrown Maduro, but left the Caracas regime in place. And he bombed Iran to leave the Tehran regime in place as well.
What can these two countries expect next? What are the criteria for the next US actions, if any, and with what ultimate goal?
The principles that primarily shape Trump's foreign policy decisions are not to send troops to be involved in conflict and not to involve the US in state-building: in essence, he wants not to repeat what US presidents did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump has done it before. He was the one who concluded the initial agreement with the Taliban for the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. He understood that public opinion in the US was tired of the continued US military presence in foreign states. The disadvantage of this policy is the humanitarian crisis experienced by the population of a country under the rule of an oppressive and authoritarian leadership, when the US does not intervene.
During my time reporting on Iraq for the Wall Street Journal before and after 2007-8, I spoke with Ahmad Chalabi many times and even published an interview with him. Chalabi was the exiled Iraqi professor at MIT who persuaded the U.S. to invade Iraq where he returned to live after Saddam was overthrown. However, he was angry about the "American occupation" of Iraq. He considered that a transitional Iraqi regime was ready to take over and lead the country to elections. The US bypassed him and essentially destroyed everything with the occupation regime they imposed. This is what Chalabi argued.
I'm reporting this story for a reason. The overthrow of a regime does not automatically mean that the US must take power. After all, the Turks effectively drove Assad out of Syria and put forward their own candidate without occupying the country. Both Iran and Venezuela have a recognized opposition leader waiting in exile to replace the regime in power. They are Reza Pahlavi and Maria Corina Machado, the son of the former Shah and the Venezuelan politician who was awarded the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize. In the case of Iran, it is estimated that the regime has killed at least 40,000 protesters, imprisoned many more, and carried out indiscriminate executions.
This tragedy of historic proportions has not pushed the US government to overthrow the Iranian regime: the people are now ready to "embrace" the West, Israel, anti-Islamism, Western fashion, consumer goods, and so on. Nor are the ayatollahs renouncing their nuclear ambitions. Similarly, as of the beginning of 2026, about 8 million. refugees have left Venezuela, mainly to countries south of the US. Any U.S. government that cares so much about immigrants should logically plan a regime change in Caracas to stem this flow northward. Moreover, the regime in Caracas has not changed its (anti-American) political stance at all. So what prevents Washington from taking action against these two governments?
The question is not rhetorical. What are the obstacles? First, the world will blame the US for the flaws of any government that Washington installs. Bloody civil conflicts in both countries are not excluded. Mass trials of former regime officials will surely follow – as they should be. You can imagine the media outcry about any mistake. Do not forget the criticism levelled at the Shah in the 1970s by the American and other media for his cruel practices towards dissidents. The result? He was ousted and the ayatollahs took power, holding the staff of the American embassy hostage for 444 days. No media outlet has claimed responsibility for the Shah's removal – the same may happen to his son or Maria Corina Macado in Venezuela, with the US blaming any apparent human rights violation.
Shakespeare has Polonius say of Hamlet: "There is a method in his madness." Can the same be said of Trump's approach to Venezuela and Iran? At first glance, the American president's strategy seems incoherent or contradictory. As the lives of many people are at stake, no official will openly talk about harsh but realistic calculations. However, leaving regimes in place requires courage and... purpose. Even if no one gives explanations. What is the purpose? At the moment it is better to intimidate weakened regimes, threaten them with hostilities and force them to make concessions, with the ultimate goal of a democratic outcome, which will minimize the chances of civil war breaking out
In the meantime, regimes can take responsibility for any evil or mistake that occurs, justifying the further degradation of their power and resources. This may be the way for Pahlavi or Machado to come to power – when the regime's resistance is almost annihilated. Again, none of those responsible for such policies will admit to the subtle calculations: how many Iranians should die first, who will get the oil contracts, how long will any deal be with the US elections looming? Because, for the time being, the tormented peoples of Venezuela and Iran do not see a reward for their struggles.
