When President Trump mentioned in January that a U.S. “armada” was heading to Iran, he drew comparisons to the rapid and decisive force used in the military’s recent swift action in Venezuela. He emphasized its ability to quickly achieve its objectives with speed and impact.
However, as Mr. Trump continues to explore various strategies against the Iranian government, including potential limited strikes, experts strongly caution that any offensive against Iran would be far more complex than the Venezuelan operation. Such an action could easily drag the United States into a prolonged and difficult conflict.
Iran’s leadership commands substantial military power and a vast network of regional proxy forces, which would be crucial in sustaining a prolonged resistance.
Unlike the quick operation in Caracas, Venezuela’s capital, Mr. Trump appears to be considering more extensive military engagement without clearly stating his ultimate goals. He has, however, expressed a desire to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and believes that a change in regime would be the most favorable outcome.
Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group, an organization dedicated to conflict resolution, stated, “There is no simple, low-cost, or easy military solution for Iran.”
Mr. Vaez further emphasized the “real risk that American lives will be lost,” suggesting this factor would heavily influence Mr. Trump’s decisions, “especially in an election year.”
Iran possesses significant retaliatory capabilities.
(An accompanying graphic illustrates Iran’s missile ranges, showing their reach across the region.)
In contrast to Venezuela’s largely unprotected airspace before the January U.S. attack, Iran boasts one of the largest and most diverse missile arsenals in the Middle East, according to regional analysts. Its weaponry includes advanced drones and anti-ship systems, though the exact size of its current missile stock remains uncertain following its 12-day conflict with Israel in June.
Iran’s medium-range ballistic missiles can travel over 1,200 miles, placing American bases in areas like western Turkey, and throughout the broader Middle East, including Israel and the Gulf States, within their striking distance.
Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House, a policy institute, explained Tehran’s strategy: “to quickly escalate and export instability in multiple theaters so that the cost is spread, the pain is spread.”
The Gulf States, which host numerous American military installations, are deeply concerned that any U.S. military strike could provoke severe repercussions against them.
In January, both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, key U.S. allies, publicly stated they would not allow the United States to use their airspace for attacks. Experts believe this stance might not ultimately safeguard them from Iranian retaliation.
An Iranian counterattack could target major cities in Israel. While the Israeli military successfully intercepted most of Iran’s missiles during the June war, intelligence officials report that their supply of interceptors is dwindling after more than two years of defending against attacks from Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Ms. Vakil suggested that Iranian officials likely rely on the “fear factor” of a wider regional war to deter Mr. Trump from initiating an attack.
Iran’s proxy networks pose a widespread threat to U.S. forces and allies.
(A map highlights Iran’s various proxy forces operating throughout the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq, and Houthis in Yemen.)
Iran maintains an “axis of resistance” by supporting proxy forces across the Middle East, including the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon. These groups have been established and armed to extend Iran’s influence and challenge its regional adversaries.
Despite many of these proxies being significantly weakened, they retain the capacity to retaliate against American forces and their allies. This could open multiple fronts and expand the conflict far beyond Iran’s borders.
At least one Iran-aligned group in Iraq has pledged unwavering support for Tehran should the U.S. attack, with its leaders warning of potential “martyrdom operations” as part of a larger conflict. Experts also suggest the Houthis might resume targeting commercial shipping in the Red Sea, as they did in late 2023 during the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Mr. Vaez of the International Crisis Group noted that Iran-backed groups “know it would be better off hanging together rather than hanging separately.” He added, “If the mother ship sinks, then they are all alone.”
Iran’s leadership structure is deeply rooted.
(A detailed chart outlines Iran’s complex leadership hierarchy, emphasizing the Supreme Leader’s central role and various advisory bodies.)
The Iranian government functions as a theocracy, with the Supreme Leader holding ultimate authority. This power is upheld by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), a formidable and influential branch of the armed forces, estimated to comprise about 150,000 personnel, dedicated to safeguarding and advancing the regime’s authoritarian agenda.
In Venezuela, the U.S. successfully apprehended President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in a precisely executed raid that concluded in just over two hours. However, in Iran, dismantling the government is not as straightforward as removing the Supreme Leader. Iran’s true power is fueled by deeply held ideology, reinforced by staunch political hard-liners, and sustained by a complex power structure that has been solidified over nearly half a century.
Ms. Vakil commented that “a copy-paste operation of Venezuela might be harder to achieve if the goal is decapitation.”
Furthermore, Tehran is situated approximately 400 miles inland from the Persian Gulf. This geographical distance would make it considerably more challenging for American forces to directly access and seize Iranian leaders compared to the operation in Caracas, which is only about 10 miles from the Caribbean Sea, according to experts.
The economic repercussions would be far-reaching.
(A map illustrates the critical Strait of Hormuz, highlighting key shipping lanes and oil export terminals, along with daily tanker positions.)
Iran has previously issued threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, a move that would effectively choke off one of the world’s most vital energy shipping routes. Roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas traverses this narrow channel.
Any disruption in the Strait would inevitably cause energy prices to skyrocket, warned Claire Jungman, director of maritime risk and intelligence at Vortexa, a firm specializing in tracking global oil and energy trade.
Iranian forces have recently conducted live military drills in the Strait, which some analysts interpret as a deliberate signal of their potential to close the 90-mile-long waterway if a conflict were to erupt. However, such a closure would also inflict significant damage on Iran itself, severely limiting its capacity to export oil to major international buyers like China.
“It will be like bringing down the roof on its head,” Mr. Vaez remarked.
Additional insights were provided by Lazaro Gamio.