Egypt offered a different variation. Popular revolt briefly opened political space, only for the security services to reassert control with greater force and legitimacy. The lesson drawn was not to liberalize, but to ensure no future opening could threaten dominance. The result was a more entrenched security order than the one it replaced.
In each case, American influence mattered. It simply did not operate as intended. Pressure concentrated resistance. It taught armed institutions that compromise invited extinction.
Venezuela now sits at a comparable inflection point. The risk is not stagnation. It is mutation, a shift toward deeper militarization, hardened militias, and narrower civilian space.
Iran’s Uncertain Moment
Half a world away, Iran is entering its own unstable phase. Protests that began around specific grievances have expanded into broader expressions of defiance. Economic collapse has intersected with long-standing anger over repression, corruption, and clerical rule. The bazaars have stirred. The streets have followed.
American instincts, once again, tilt toward optimism. Many assume that if the Islamic Republic falls, Iran will transition smoothly into a pro-Western democracy eager to reintegrate globally. That belief rests on hope more than history.
Iran is not an empty shell awaiting replacement. It is a densely securitized state with overlapping centers of armed power. The Revolutionary Guard is not simply a military institution. It is an economic empire, an intelligence apparatus, and a political actor built for self-preservation. The Basij and internal security services exist precisely to manage moments like this.
If clerical authority collapses, these institutions do not dissolve. They choose.
Some may fracture. Others may attempt to impose order through force. Regional and ethnic fault lines could widen, particularly in Kurdish and Baluch areas where long-standing grievances intersect with smuggling routes and Guard-linked economic interests. These dynamics do not reliably produce liberal democracy. They produce bargaining among armed actors, localized control, and prolonged uncertainty.
Here too, external pressure risks narrowing the field. When sanctions and rhetoric frame compromise as surrender, security elites interpret transition as prosecution. Civilian reformers are sidelined. Politics contracts into contests among men with guns.
What Is Actually at Stake
In both Venezuela and Iran, the stakes are not whether leaders fall. That spectacle is easy to dramatize. The real question is whether coercive systems are dismantled or merely rebranded. Whether oil and sanctions stabilize institutions or ignite internal conflict. Whether security services are folded into accountable structures or entrench themselves before the window closes.
Washington often treats regime change as a punctuation mark, an event complete in itself. Reality renders it a process, shaped by fear, institutional memory, and incomplete information. Impatience does not shorten that process. It distorts it.
Opposing brutal systems requires no apology. Assuming their removal delivers order invites delusion.
The fall of a strongman lifts the lid. What follows depends less on declarations or pressure campaigns than on institutions, armed networks, and the slow, contested work of rebuilding legitimacy. Foreign policy, stripped of illusion, begins where the drama fades, in the aftermath, where power reveals its true shape and order must be constructed rather than announced.
When Strongmen Fall, Power Rarely Follows Cleanly
The fall of a strongman does not end a regime so much as expose the machinery beneath it, where armed institutions, fear, and habit decide whether power reforms itself or hardens into something more dangerous.
Advertisement
