Perhaps no one outside Venezuela or Cuba should be more concerned about the capture of Nicolás Maduro, nominal president of the United States, than the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ali Khamenei.
Khamenei and his regime are in trouble, and it is unclear how they could survive if the Trump administration decided to support the millions who want a new system of government without Khamenei and his like.
Iran has no state allies willing to intervene militarily on its behalf. Furthermore, its once-powerful network of partner and proxy militias—Lebanese Hezbollah, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and other members of the Axis of Resistance—was left unable or unwilling to get involved. And the Iranian economy is in ruins amid an ongoing water crisis with no relief in sight.
Additionally, the Iranian people have once again taken to the streets to voice their complaints against harsh economic conditions, as well as government corruption, mismanagement and hypocrisy, reflecting conditions similar to those in Venezuela in recent years.
Finally, President Donald Trump turned his attention back to Iran. On January 2, Trump warned Khamenei that if his forces violently crack down on protesters, Iran would be “hit very hard” by the United States.
Trump’s warning and show of solidarity will likely embolden protesters, almost certainly prompting a harsher crackdown from Iran’s internal security, as has happened in the past. Such American intervention could lead to the overthrow of the ayatollah, whether intended or not. Furthermore, Maduro’s fate demonstrates that the Trump administration is willing to use military force for that purpose if it deems it necessary.
As an analyst of Middle East affairs with a focus on Iran, I believe these conditions put the Khamenei regime under greater threat today than perhaps at any other time in its 46-year history.
Find out: Trump calls himself ‘Don Tariff’ and trusts that the Supreme Court will not annul the taxes
Growing threats, internal and external
If Khamenei hopes to survive politically or physically, I think he has three options.
First, it could capitulate to US demands to halt Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. Second, Iran could accelerate toward the nuclear bomb. Finally, he could run away.
Hoping to restore deterrence, Khamenei could also continue to rebuild his country’s military capabilities, which were significantly degraded during the June 2025 12-day war, in which Israel and the US attempted to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability.
Israel is eager to stifle Iran’s reconstruction plans, protests are spreading and becoming more intense, and Trump—through hostile rhetoric and offensive military action—has put Khamenei on notice.
Khamenei’s problems are not his alone. The revolutionary theocratic government system he leads is in danger of falling. And its military and internal security apparatus may not have the time or capacity to simultaneously address its growing interrelated internal and external threats.
There are two fundamental factors that analysts like me consider when evaluating enemy threats: the offensive capability to inflict damage and the hostile intent to use those capabilities to harm enemies.
Determining offensive capability involves assessing the quality of a country or organization’s entire arsenal—air, land, sea, cyber, and space capabilities—and how trained, disciplined, integrated, and lethal its forces might be. Determining intentions involves assessing if, when, and under what conditions offensive capabilities will be used to achieve their objectives.
If states hope to survive under such pressure, their defensive strategy must take into account the differences between their own military capabilities and that of the enemy, especially if the enemies intend to attack. Or states need to convince enemies to be less hostile, if possible.
Maduro’s mistake was his inability to defend himself against vastly superior US military capabilities while believing that US leaders would not remove him. Maduro bet and lost.
You may be interested: Venezuelan opponent González Urrutia considers it ‘revenge’ that his son-in-law has been detained for a year
bad decisions
Iran’s supreme leader faces a similar dilemma: First, there is no foreseeable path that will allow Tehran to produce or acquire the military capabilities necessary to deter Israel or defeat the United States, unless Iran develops a nuclear weapon.
And decades of mutual hostility, the memory of Iran’s once-clandestine nuclear weapons program and recent calls by Iranian lawmakers to develop nuclear bombs minimize the possibility that American leaders will view Khamenei’s intentions as anything other than hostile.
But, as the clearly weaker party, it is in Tehran’s interest to change Trump’s mind about its hostile intent. The way to do it would be to abandon nuclear enrichment.
In terms of threat analysis, the regime’s repeated chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” have perhaps sent an easily misinterpreted message: that Iran’s hostile leaders are intent on destroying the US and Israel. But they simply lack the capacity, for now.
President Theodore Roosevelt famously said, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far.” Today, Khamenei is arguably reckless to speak with such vitriol considering the size of his cudgel. The United States and Israel possess military capabilities far superior to those of Iran—as demonstrated by the 12-day war—but at the time they did not share the same intention. Although Israeli and US operations had the common goal of neutralizing Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Israel’s objectives were broader and included attacking Iranian leaders and destabilizing the regime.
To Khamenei’s momentary fortune, Trump immediately called for a ceasefire following the US B-2 attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, outlining the US’s more limited objectives, which at the time did not include regime change in Iran.
But that was before U.S. forces removed Maduro from Caracas and before protests erupted in Iran, both coinciding with Israel signaling “Round 2” against Iran.
Will they go without Khamenei?
During the December 29 press conference at Mar-a-Lago with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump warned that the US could “take down Iran” if the country rebuilds its nuclear facilities.
This is apart from the ominous warning that the US could intervene on behalf of the Iranian protesters; it would almost certainly be on a different scale.
However, a possible US intervention could embolden the protesters and further undermine the Islamic Republic regime. Khamenei, predictably, has mocked and dismissed Trump’s warning.
I think this is a serious mistake.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on January 3, 2025 that Khamenei should not “play games” as Maduro did. Khamenei, Rubio said, should take Trump’s warnings seriously. I agree.
You may like: Pro-life organizations criticize Trump for comments on federal abortion funding before possible vote on subsidy
If Iran refrains from violent retaliation against protesters, there is a possibility that anti-government protesters could overthrow the government. But the supreme leader’s chances of surviving a popular uprising are probably greater than surviving an uncontrolled military intent by the US or Israel to establish a new Iran—post-Islamic Republic.
Otherwise, Khamenei must confront the superior military capabilities of the US and Israel, quickly. But Iran is bankrupt, and even if sanctions weren’t continually strangling the country’s economy, it would probably never be able to buy military parity with the US or Israel.
Alternatively, Iran could decide that it must move quickly to develop a nuclear weapon to mitigate US and Israeli military capabilities and deter future aggression. However, it is extremely unlikely that Iran could do so without US and Israeli intelligence discovering the project, which would immediately trigger an overwhelming military campaign that would likely accelerate regime change in Iran.
And, like Maduro, the supreme leader is completely alone. None of Maduro’s closest partners — China, Russia, Cuba and even Iran — were willing to fight in his defense, despite weeks of warning and US military deployment near Venezuela.
Under these circumstances, it may be impossible for Khamenei to confront the overwhelming military capabilities of the US and Israel. However, he could reduce the threat by doing what is necessary to ensure that American objectives for Iran remain limited and focused on the nuclear program, which could also keep Israel in line.
However, Khamenei would have to demonstrate unprecedented restraint by refraining from violently repressing protesters and a willingness to renounce nuclear enrichment. Due to historical animosity and distrust toward the US, both are unlikely, increasing, I believe, the likelihood of a next Iran without Khamenei.
This article was originally published by The Conversation
Follow information about the world in our international section
