Trump is finding out Iran won't fall as easily as Venezuela did

President Donald Trump's push to force regime change in Iran is hitting tougher resistance than expected, and some foreign policy veterans say he may have been misled by the swift fall of Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro last year. John Feeley, a former U.S. ambassador, said Trump appears to be "reaping the bitter fruit" of assuming that what worked in Caracas would easily translate to Tehran. Maduro's dramatic capture during a botched escape attempt had given the administration a jolt of confidence, but Iran's leadership has shown no signs of fracturing under similar pressure.

Unlike Venezuela, Iran has a deeply entrenched security apparatus, regional allies, and a population that, while frustrated, hasn't seen the same level of economic freefall. Feeley argued that Trump's team may have oversimplified the Maduro operation as a model for broader intervention, ignoring the vastly different political and military landscape in the Middle East. "One success doesn't rewrite geopolitics," he said in a recent interview. "Iran isn't waiting to be surprised. They've watched what happened in Venezuela and have tightened their defenses accordingly."

Still, the administration hasn't backed off. Senior officials point to tightened sanctions, cyber disruptions, and covert support for dissident groups as signs of sustained pressure. But so far, these moves haven't triggered the kind of internal collapse some in Washington hoped for. Instead, Iranian state media has used the U.S. actions to rally nationalist sentiment, and hardliners have cracked down on opposition figures under the banner of national unity.

On the right, some longtime critics of Trump are now urging him to stay the course. A widely shared op-ed in the Washington Examiner, written by a conservative foreign policy analyst, warned against "going wobbly" on Iran. The author, who said they've often disagreed with Trump's tone and tactics, argued that pulling back now would signal weakness to adversaries from Pyongyang to Moscow. "The cost of hesitation," they wrote, "could be measured in future conflicts, not avoided ones."

Yet even supporters acknowledge the situation is more complex than in Venezuela. Iran's Revolutionary Guard, its network of proxies across the region, and its nuclear infrastructure make it a far more formidable target. There are also growing concerns about unintended escalation, especially with U.S. troops still stationed across the Gulf.

Back in Washington, the debate is shifting from whether Iran can be pressured to how long the U.S. can sustain that pressure without a clear exit strategy. Diplomats and defense planners are quietly discussing fallback options, including renewed negotiations or targeted strikes on nuclear facilities - though each carries its own risks.

For now, the White House remains publicly defiant. But the early optimism that once surrounded the Venezuela operation has given way to a more cautious tone. The lesson, it seems, is that regime change isn't a one-size-fits-all playbook - and miscalculating that could come at a steep cost.