The U.S. has, since the start of the new year, conducted military strikes and operations in both Venezuela and Iran, capturing President Nicolás Maduro and killing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This marks a surprising militant turn in U.S. foreign policy in recent decades, which is now focusing on military rather than diplomatic operations to topple foreign leaders. This, however, presents a larger issue regarding the role and image of the United States across the world and for other pro-Western democratization movements’ survival.
It is undeniable that both people were ruthless dictators who oppressed their people, very often by violent means. Maduro, facing legitimate defeat by democratically elected opposition leader Edmundo González Urrutia, cracked down on what he claimed as voter fraud and declared himself the winner, arresting over 2000 protestors and sending them to hard labor and ‘‘re-education’‘ camps. Khamenei has had an even more brutal track record, having repeatedly used lethal force to suppress multiple protests that killed thousands of Iranians, arresting and imprisoning even more.
Given their track record, many people within both Venezuela and Iran and in Venezuelan and Iranian diaspora communities overseas have taken to the streets or privately celebrated the end of leaders who were undeniably oppressive. However, in terms of the future for these states, this jubilation may prove short-lived.
In Venezuela, Maduro’s deputy official and vice president Delcy Rodríguez succeeded him in leadership. Despite her conciliatory, diplomatic words to the U.S. and the Trump administration’s support of her, she still has a strong hand in dishing out arbitrary arrests and conducting surveillance operations in the country against anti-regime dissidents. Now, with possible plans to arrest or oust Rodríguez supposedly in the works by the United States, it will continue to leave Venezuelans facing uncertainty and fear regarding their future.
In Iran, the strikes have opened up a power vacuum, with no telling who could succeed Khamenei and what level of repression they could employ. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that Iran will be anywhere near as peaceful or conciliatory as Venezuela. With the current protests against the regime, it is most likely that hard-liner elements are stronger than ever inside the Iranian government and could take more draconic, brutal methods that will further harm the Iranian people. Trump has even acknowledged this, although he has admitted it is the worst imaginable outcome.
For the United States, it is also an image issue. For decades, authoritarian countries opposed to the U.S. have used the specter of U.S. imperialism and influence as a method to prop up their regimes, normalize authoritarianism and garner public support. However, with a decrease in interventions over the past two decades, these messages have fallen moot, and many do not see the looming threat of such Western imperialism as a legitimate reason for authoritarian regimes’ survival. We have seen popular opposition to both Maduro’s and Khamenei’s rule in their countries in the absence of a present and looming enemy that the regime can call upon to ignite populism. Domestic opposition in the West is also prevalent — people in the U.S. and various European states, typically from the far-left, have criticized serious democratization movements simply due to the fact it coincides with a possible expansion of U.S. or Western influence and interests. This is not to say that these critiques have no merit, as both are oil-rich states, but that military interventions taint the scope and rhetoric of such genuine movements for democracy.
Trump, among other goals, has clearly taken on a rhetoric of regime change for Venezuela, Iran and even Cuba. Even without any speculations of possible benefits and interests for the U.S., this is still a poor choice for the U.S. and people living under such regimes. History tells us over and over again that foreign-led violent regime change is difficult and scarcely succeeds. The results such interventions will bring have historically been detrimental to democratization efforts and to the quality of life for people suffering under authoritarian regimes.
It is undeniable that toppling dictators, especially violent oppressive regimes such as in Venezuela and Iran, is a symbolic and moral victory. But that is just one battle in a greater war, where the aftermath of such a victory may prove more troublesome than the initial jubilation, and even in the short-term may bring harsh consequences for those living through it. Uncertainty and fear pervade through those still under these regimes, and would likely continue even after a regime change has occurred. Even in the U.S., the fallout from the strike on Iran has tragically left hundreds to thousands killed across the region, including 13 U.S. military personnel.
If the Trump administration wants to build real, sustainable democratic change that will not only benefit the U.S. internationally but also actually improve the lives of people under authoritarian regimes, it should stop giving these regimes a public scapegoat through military strikes to divert blame and work on supporting incremental change and popular movements without subverting them.
As President Macron rightfully remarked that “History will never shed tears over those who massacred their own people. They will not be missed,” it is also sensible to accept the reality that there are better and more sustainable paths to truly make these regimes a legacy of the past.
Chris Zhang is a freshman from Atlanta, Ga. studying International Studies.
