Iran Is Not Venezuela: Moscow’s Stinging Warning to Washington

A Limited Range of Options

Donald Trump confirmed that the U.S. military is “very seriously” considering several options to respond to the situation in Iran. According to reports in the U.S. media, these options would include cyberattacks against Iranian military and civilian infrastructure, drone and missile strikes from the sea and the air, as well as targeted sabotage operations. The administration is also reportedly considering restoring internet access in Iran, likely by coordinating with SpaceX to circumvent the blackout imposed by Tehran.

Trump’s advisors are set to brief him on Tuesday, January 13, on the various possible options. The U.S. approach appears to favor unconventional actions rather than a massive deployment of ground troops. Politico reported that the president is not expected to send U.S. forces into the country, and that there has been no major movement of U.S. military assets toward the region so far.

What exactly do they plan to do? A few cyberattacks, a few symbolic strikes, and everything will be fine? That’s a simplistic view of a complex situation. In my region, we’ve seen powers arrive with their sophisticated technologies and plans that looked perfect on paper, only to come up against the reality on the ground. Iran is not a testing ground for U.S. strategies.

The Risks of Uncontrollable Escalation

Experts warn that even a “symbolic” strike by the United States could trigger a much broader escalation. Danny Citrinowicz, a senior fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, highlights the dilemma facing the Trump administration: a heavy strike could potentially undermine efforts to crack down on the regime, but it could also lead to greater cohesion within the regime and a broader escalation.

Iran has threatened to directly target U.S. interests in the region in the event of an attack. Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian parliament, warned that Israel and “all U.S. military centers, bases, and ships in the region” would become legitimate targets. Iran could also threaten energy flows in the Persian Gulf, with potentially catastrophic economic consequences for the global economy.

That’s what terrifies me: escalation. A strike here, a retaliation there, and suddenly we find ourselves in a conflict that no one wanted but that no one knows how to stop. Washington seems to think it can control the situation, that it can calibrate its response. But in war, control is an illusion. Once the first missile is launched, the dynamics are beyond anyone’s control.

A Clear Strategic Position

Konstantin Kosachev’s intervention in this debate is significant. As vice chairman of the Russian Federation Council and an influential figure in Russian foreign policy, his warning sends a clear message: Moscow will firmly oppose any U.S. intervention in Iran. This stance is in line with traditional Russian foreign policy, which views Iran as an important strategic partner in the region.

Russia has already harshly criticized the U.S. military operation in Venezuela, calling it a violation of international law. The Russian ambassador to Caracas, Sergey Melik-Bagdasarov, recently suggested that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro may have been betrayed by the country’s political elites, implying that U.S. success in Venezuela was based on internal divisions rather than military superiority.

When Moscow speaks, people listen. Not because they are always right, but because they have this ability to see beyond the immediate situation and anticipate long-term consequences. Kosachev does not merely condemn a potential intervention; he lays out its mechanisms, risks, and likely consequences. It is a cool, rational analysis that is often lacking in Western discourse.

The Geopolitical Implications of a Conflict

A conflict between the United States and Iran would have considerable geopolitical ramifications. Russia, China, and other regional powers would be forced to take sides, with the risk of even greater polarization within the international system. Iran might seek to expand the conflict by mobilizing its regional allies, including armed groups in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.

For Russia, Iran is an important trading partner, particularly in the energy and defense sectors. Moscow also has strategic interests in the region, including maintaining access to the Mediterranean and preserving its influence in the Middle East. A successful U.S. intervention in Iran would be perceived as a direct threat to Russian interests in the region.

We often forget that geopolitics isn’t just about two countries clashing; it’s an entire system in flux. If the United States attacks Iran, it won’t just be Tehran that reacts—it will be the entire region, Russia, China, and all the actors with interests there. Washington seems to think it can isolate Iran, but that country is at the center of a network of alliances and interests that cannot be unraveled so easily.

Deep-rooted economic causes

The current protests in Iran began in late December 2025, triggered by the dramatic collapse of the Iranian rial’s value. On December 29, merchants in Tehran began protesting the currency’s sharp decline, which had lost half its value over the past year to reach historic lows of about 1 million rials to the U.S. dollar, according to LSEG data.

On December 30, university students joined the movement, which quickly spread to most of the country’s major cities. The protests reached their peak on the night of January 8, when at least 13 civilians, including a three-year-old child, were killed as a result of the rioters’ actions. Authorities also reported the deaths of 38 law enforcement officers.

What strikes me is the economic suffering. Beyond geopolitical calculations, there are ordinary people who can no longer make ends meet, whose savings have vanished, and whose futures are crumbling. When you understand that, you also understand why these protests run so deep and are so difficult to contain. This is not just a political issue; it is a matter of survival for millions of people.

The Iranian Regime’s Response

The Iranian regime has responded with a combination of severe repression and partial concessions. The authorities have labeled the rioters as terrorists and blamed Israel and the United States for the unrest. Tehran announced the arrest of two protest organizers affiliated with the Mossad, accusing them of playing “a key role in organizing the massive unrest in the country.”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian stated that the authorities were ready to listen to the people’s demands and implement reforms, while warning young people not to get involved in terrorism. The government organized pro-regime rallies across the country, claiming that millions of people participated to show their support for the government in the face of what Tehran calls foreign interference.

The regime’s dilemma is fascinating. It must crack down to maintain control, but it must also make concessions to appease popular anger. It is a perilous dance, and every step could be fatal. The irony is that the more the regime cracks down, the more it gives ammunition to those calling for foreign intervention. And the more it concedes, the more it exposes its weaknesses. Washington is well aware of this, and that may be why it is waiting, observing, and calculating.

Why Venezuela Is Not a Viable Model

Konstantin Kosachev rightly points out that the comparison between Iran and Venezuela is fundamentally flawed. The special operation in Venezuela succeeded in part because the country was plagued by deep internal divisions, a completely ruined economy, and absolute dependence on oil. The Venezuelan political elites were themselves divided, with some factions willing to collaborate with the United States.

Iran presents a radically different picture. Despite its economic difficulties, the country has a more diversified economy, a significant industrial base, and a political class that is more united in the face of external threats. Iran’s history is marked by centuries of resistance to foreign powers, from the Persian Empire to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, forging a national identity that often grows stronger in the face of external adversity.

Washington loves simple analogies—models that can be applied everywhere like recipes. Did it work in Venezuela? Then let’s try the same thing in Iran! But the world doesn’t work that way. Every country has its own history, culture, and internal dynamics. Applying the same model to different contexts is not only foolish—it’s dangerous.

The Lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq

Recent history is rife with examples of U.S. military interventions that have gone awry. Afghanistan, where the United States spent twenty years before withdrawing and allowing the Taliban to retake power, remains the most obvious case. Iraq, where the 2003 invasion destabilized the entire region and created the vacuum that allowed the Islamic State to emerge, is another.

Kosachev warned that a large-scale invasion of Iran would be “an even greater failure for the United States than Afghanistan.” Iran is a larger, more populous country with a more challenging geography and military capabilities far superior to those of Afghanistan. A ground intervention would face fierce resistance and could turn the country into another Afghanistan—but with even more catastrophic regional consequences.

Forgetfulness is a curse. We forget Afghanistan, we forget Iraq, we forget all the lessons of the past. Washington seems to think that this time will be different, that this time they’ve learned their lesson, that this time they’ll be smarter. But that’s exactly what arrogance is: believing that we’re smarter than those who failed before us, even as we repeat exactly the same mistakes.

The War on Communications and Information

A crucial aspect of the current conflict is the battle for control over information and communications. The Iranian regime has imposed a near-total internet blackout, cutting off access to social media and communication platforms that could be used to coordinate protests. Tehran has also succeeded in neutralizing 80% of Starlink terminals, the satellite internet system developed by SpaceX.

Washington, for its part, is considering using Starlink and other technologies to circumvent this blackout and provide protesters with internet access. Donald Trump stated that he might “talk to Elon Musk” to restore internet access in Iran, asserting that “we could get the internet working” if possible.

This information war fascinates me. On one side, a regime that cuts off communications to maintain control. On the other, a foreign power seeking to restore them to support change. But in all of this, where are the Iranian voices? Where is the truth on the ground? We often forget that in these communication conflicts, the real victims are those whose voices are drowned out by the clamor of conflicting propaganda.

Iran’s Cyber Capabilities

Iran is not only a potential target for U.S. cyberattacks; it is also an actor capable of conducting sophisticated offensive cyber operations. The country has developed considerable cyber capabilities over the past decade, with groups such as Unit 121 of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force carrying out attacks against targets around the world.

In the event of a conflict, Iran could target critical U.S. infrastructure, including financial systems, power grids, and defense facilities. Experts warn that a cyber conflict between the United States and Iran could spread far beyond the region, with potential consequences for the global economy.

Cyberwarfare is modern warfare—but without rules, without borders, and without limits. You can sit in an office in Washington or Tehran and strike infrastructure thousands of kilometers away. It’s terrifying because it’s so easy, so tempting. But it’s also dangerous because once you start, you never know how it will end.

Oil as a Weapon and a Victim

The global economy would be the first victim of a conflict between the United States and Iran. Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-third of the world’s seaborne oil passes. In the event of a conflict, Tehran could threaten to close the strait, causing oil prices to skyrocket and leading to catastrophic consequences for the global economy.

Matt Gertken, chief geopolitical strategist at BCA Research, notes that Iran is “far more capable of retaliating against the United States, particularly by attacking regional energy infrastructure.” Such an attack could destabilize not only the global economy but also the economies of U.S. allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Oil, always oil. It seems we can’t escape this dependence. A war in Iran, and the whole world would pay the price at the pump. It’s a form of indirect but terribly effective blackmail: by threatening the Strait of Hormuz, Iran threatens the global economy—and thus the political stability of the governments that depend on it. Washington knows this well, and that should give it pause.

Sanctions as an Alternative to War

In addition to military options, Washington is also considering tightening economic sanctions against Iran. The European Union is already working on new sanctions against Iranian officials for their role in the crackdown on protests. The United States could also impose secondary sanctions on companies that continue to do business with Iran.

However, experts note that Iran has already developed mechanisms to circumvent existing sanctions, notably by strengthening its relations with Russia and China. Additional sanctions could therefore have a limited impact, while contributing to the suffering of ordinary Iranians.

Sanctions are war by other means. People say they’re more humane, that they avoid bombings, but in reality, they just kill more slowly. The economy is collapsing, hospitals are running out of medicine, and children are suffering from malnutrition. And the regime? It often manages quite well, finding ways around the sanctions, allies, and solutions. It’s always the people who pay the price.

Divisions Within NATO

U.S. allies in Europe and the Middle East are expressing growing reservations about a possible intervention in Iran. The European Union has adopted a more cautious stance, calling for restraint and prioritizing diplomatic efforts. Some European countries fear that U.S. intervention could further destabilize the region and trigger a refugee crisis.

The United States’ regional allies, including Israel and Saudi Arabia—though hostile toward Iran—are also concerned about the consequences of an open conflict. Israel fears that Iran might respond by directly attacking Israeli territory, while Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates fear retaliation against their oil infrastructure.

What surprises me is the silence of America’s allies. Usually, Washington doesn’t act without having at least a few countries ready to follow suit. But in this case, the hesitation is evident. No one wants to get dragged into a conflict that could escalate. This may be a sign that even Washington’s closest allies realize the risks of intervening in Iran.

The Position of the Gulf States

The Gulf states, although officially allies of the United States, are taking a complex stance on the Iranian crisis. On the one hand, they fear Iranian influence in the region and have historically supported a hard line against Tehran. On the other hand, they are aware of the consequences a conflict would have on their own economies and internal stability.

Some Gulf countries, including Oman and Qatar, have maintained channels of communication with Tehran and advocated for a diplomatic solution. Others, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, remain more wary but are also concerned about the risks of escalation. This division within the Gulf Cooperation Council further complicates the U.S. position.

The Gulf countries are in an impossible position. They are caught between their alliance with the United States and their geographical proximity to Iran, between their hostility toward Tehran and their fear of a conflict that could sweep everything away. It is a dangerous dance, and every miscalculated step could be fatal. Washington understands this well, and that may be why it is hesitating.

A Bleak Outlook for Diplomacy

The prospects for a diplomatic resolution to the crisis between the United States and Iran seem increasingly remote. The 2015 nuclear deal, which had temporarily eased tensions between the two countries, has been on hold since the U.S. withdrawal in 2018. Efforts to revive it have failed, and both sides appear to be preparing for a protracted confrontation rather than reconciliation.

The current protests in Iran have added a new dimension to this conflict. For Washington, they represent a potential opportunity to destabilize the Iranian regime without direct intervention. For Tehran, they are an existential threat that justifies severe repression and the strengthening of national defense.

What fills me with despair is the lack of dialogue. When both sides stop talking to each other, when every action is interpreted as a threat, when trust disappears completely, war becomes almost inevitable. And yet, we have seen time and again that diplomacy—even when difficult, even when frustrating—is always preferable to the alternative.

Possible Scenarios for the Coming Months

Several scenarios are possible for how the crisis might unfold in the coming months. The most optimistic scenario would see a gradual easing of tensions, with a reduction in bellicose rhetoric and a return to diplomacy. An intermediate scenario would involve a continuation of the status quo, with increased U.S. sanctions, sustained Iranian repression, and reciprocal cyberattacks without major escalation.

The most pessimistic scenario—and, unfortunately, the most plausible according to many experts—would be an escalation into open conflict. A U.S. strike, whether cyber or conventional, would provoke an Iranian retaliation, which in turn would trigger a U.S. counterattack, rapidly transforming the regional crisis into an international conflict.

When I look to the future, I can’t help but think that the worst-case scenario is the most likely. Not because I’m a pessimist by nature, but because the current dynamics are inexorably pushing us toward confrontation. Washington wants to demonstrate its strength, Tehran wants to challenge America, and no one seems willing to back down. It’s a perfect recipe for disaster.

A warning that goes beyond the Iranian case

Konstantin Kosachev’s warning is not limited to Iran; it is directed at the entire international community. By asserting that “the United States cannot do in Iran what it did in Venezuela,” the Russian senator challenges the right of Western powers to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries under the pretext of defending democracy or human rights.

This message resonates particularly strongly in the countries of the Global South, which have long been the targets of Western interventions. For many of these countries, Iran represents a test: if the United States can intervene in Iran with impunity, no country will be safe from a similar intervention in the future.

This may be Moscow’s true message: the multipolar world is very much a reality, and Western powers can no longer impose their will without resistance. Iran is not an isolated case; it is a symptom of a deeper shift in the international order. Washington does not yet seem to have grasped this new reality, and that could cost it dearly.

Implications for the International Order

A U.S. intervention in Iran would have profound consequences for the international order. It would mark a return to an era when great powers could intervene with impunity in the affairs of weaker countries, undermining the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention that have underpinned the international order since 1945.

Russia and China, in particular, would interpret such an intervention as a direct threat to their interests and security. This could accelerate the formation of an alternative bloc, with its own institutions, rules, and security mechanisms, further fragmenting an international system that is already deeply divided.

We are witnessing the end of an era—one in which the West dictated the rules of the international game. Iran may be the final battle of this old order, or the first act of the new one. In either case, the world will never be the same again. Washington can choose to adapt to this new reality, or it can attempt to overturn it. But history teaches us that those who refuse to adapt are ultimately swept away by change.

The Need for a Thoughtful Approach

Konstantin Kosachev’s stern warning should be taken seriously by Washington and its allies. Iran is not Venezuela, and U.S. military intervention would have far more serious and unpredictable consequences. The options on the table—from cyberattacks to conventional strikes—all risk triggering an uncontrollable escalation.

It is time for the international community to prioritize diplomacy and dialogue over military confrontation. The suffering of the Iranian people is real, and their demands for change are legitimate, but a military course of action will only exacerbate an already catastrophic situation. Only sincere negotiations and a commitment to respecting sovereignty can offer a lasting solution to this crisis.

I watch all this with deep sadness. It seems as though we never learn, that history repeats itself tirelessly with minor variations but the same tragic outcome. The Iranian people are suffering, the region is reeling, and the major powers are calculating their interests as if human lives were nothing more than pawns on a chessboard. But perhaps—just perhaps—this time will be different. Perhaps the voice of reason will finally be heard before it is too late.

Sources

Primary Sources

TASS, “US Can’t Do in Iran What It Did in Venezuela, Says Russian Senator,” January 12, 2026

CNBC, “What a U.S. intervention in Iran could look like as Trump weighs options,” January 12, 2026

Politico, “Trump briefed on options for Iran as protests continue,” January 11, 2026

Secondary sources

Reuters, “Trump says he will talk to Musk about restoring internet in Iran,” January 12, 2026

The Wall Street Journal, “Major Trump briefing on Iran options planned for Tuesday,” January 11, 2026

Institute for the Study of War, “Iran Update, January 10, 2026,” January 10, 2026