The removal of Nicolás Maduro in early 2026 by the United States has prompted a wave of strategic comparisons, particularly among those seeking a decisive solution to the crisis involving Iran. The apparent success of a swift, targeted intervention in Venezuela has encouraged some policymakers to believe that a similar approach could yield comparable results in Tehran.

This assumption, however, is deeply flawed. It overlooks the fundamental structural and ideological differences between the two regimes—differences that are not merely academic but decisive in determining how each system responds to external pressure and internal disruption.

Venezuela: A System Driven by Survival and Patronage

The collapse of Maduro’s rule exposed the true nature of the Venezuelan Regime. Despite decades of revolutionary rhetoric tied to Hugo Chávez, the state had evolved into a fragmented patronage network. Power was distributed among military elites, political intermediaries, and economic actors whose primary objective was access to oil wealth and state resources.

Once Maduro was removed, these groups did not resist in the name of ideology. Instead, they adapted. Cooperation with Washington became a rational survival strategy. This rapid realignment enabled the United States to secure commitments on oil production, economic reforms, and political concessions. Venezuela’s oil sector—centered in the Orinoco Belt—began a gradual recovery as external actors re-entered........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)