Fresh off its successful operation in Venezuela, the United States is weighing its options: iran’s leadership A violent crackdown on anti-government protesters has raised questions about whether similar military pressure can be exerted on Tehran, Iran.

In Caracas, Venezuela, U.S. special operators move quickly Capture Nicolás Maduro. In Tehran, Iran, any similar action would be against a country with greater military depth and the ability to strike back beyond its borders.

“It would be a mistake to think of this as an operation, as is the case with Venezuela or the nuclear program,” Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital. “This has to be viewed as a movement.”

Iran is a larger and more capable military power than Venezuela, with security forces designed to protect the regime from foreign attacks and internal unrest. Power is distributed among the religious establishment, the security services, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—an institution built to survive the death of individual leaders rather than collapse with them.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei faces massive protests in Iran. (Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Iran plunges into darkness as regime uses force and cyber tools to suppress protests

“A game of musical chairs at the top is unlikely to work in Iran,” Taleblou said.

He pointed to the central role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which he described as “the tip of the spear of the world’s most important state sponsor of terrorism,” and warned that removing one individual left a solid security apparatus intact and potentially more dangerous.

This structure is bolstered by a military capability Venezuela has never had: a resilient missile force that could provide Iran with credible retaliation options if it believed the regime itself was threatened.

Experts say U.S. attack on Venezuela sends deterrent signal to third-tier adversaries

“The Islamic Republic’s retaliatory capabilities are still quite intact, and that’s their missile program,” Taleblou said.

During the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, Iran’s missile force was weakened but not eliminated during heavy Israeli strikes. Despite the destruction of its air defense systems and launch infrastructure, Tehran retains a large inventory of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, as well as the ability to disperse and launch these missiles from mobile launchers.

Analysts say the conflict has reinforced Iran’s reliance on missiles as its primary deterrent, even as it acknowledges that its air defenses can be breached. During the war, Israel weakened Iran’s air defense capabilities, while the United States stepped in to attack its nuclear facilities.

The size of Iran’s armed forces is also much larger than that of Venezuela, with nearly 1 million active and reserve personnel compared with Venezuela’s roughly 120,000 troops, a disparity that highlights the vastly different military environment that U.S. planners will face.

Iran’s hostility to the United States is rooted in the ideology of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which established opposition to Western influence – particularly the United States and Israel – as a core principle of the country. In contrast, Venezuela’s conflict with Washington is driven largely by political power, sanctions and control of oil revenues, rather than revolutionary ideology aimed at opposing Western society itself.

Iranians took to the streets to protest against the regime across the country. (User-generated content via AP)

In Venezuela, Trump administration officials viewed the operation not as regime change but as a limited effort to advance U.S. interests — prosecuting Maduro on drug trafficking charges and securing influence over the country’s oil industry. After Maduro’s arrest, Trump allowed Vice President Delcy Rodriguez to take temporary power and expressed doubts about whether opposition leader Maria Machado had enough internal support to govern.

In Iran, by contrast, any military action is interpreted as a direct challenge to the regime itself.

Unlike Venezuela, where the state machinery remains intact after Maduro’s ouster, the mission against Iran’s leadership is likely to expand from narrow strikes to broader operations targeting the regime’s security forces.

“You can attack leadership, including the supreme leader, but that raises a lot of questions who’s next” Seth Jones, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former Pentagon official, told Fox News Digital.

“Is it Khamenei’s son? Is it Saad Larijani? Is it Hassan Khamenei?” Jones said, referring to figures often discussed as potential successors. “Or are you starting to consider other options?”

Nicolás Maduro was handcuffed and escorted by heavily armed federal agents after landing at a Manhattan helicopter pad. (XNY/Star Max/GC photo from Getty Images)

That uncertainty makes a strike against leadership a broader and riskier proposition, Jones said.

Trump’s boldest intervention yet shows Venezuela still has long road ahead

“It’s not just about toppling a leader but regime change, the more it becomes a broadly targeted issue,” Jones said.

Jones added that the central challenge facing U.S. planners is not whether military force can be used, but what political objectives it will serve.

“Then the big question becomes what are the objectives – not just military objectives, but what are Iran’s political objectives and how that translates into what types of military resources you need?” he said.

Click here to download the Fox News app

Jones warned that such expansion would increase the risk of a long-term, destabilizing conflict in a country as vast and complex as Iran.

“The more you start thinking about regime change and using military force for that, the more chaotic the situation in Iran becomes,” Jones said. “It’s really hard to do social engineering from the outside.”