Pressure Without Protection: What Iran and Venezuela Reveal About U.S. Strategy

Gabriella Molina

Over the last decade, U.S. foreign policy has increasingly relied on military action, economic sanctions, and efforts to weaken authoritarian governments. While these approaches are often framed as necessary for national security and global stability, they also set concerning precedents for international norms and multilateral cooperation. In this op-ed, I compare U.S. actions toward Iran and Venezuela, revealing a consistent pattern of pressure aimed at weakening governments. In doing so, I highlight the often-overlooked humanitarian consequences of such strategies.

At face value, U.S. involvement in Iran and Venezuela presents similar patterns. Iran has long been viewed as a regional power with nuclear ambitions and an authoritarian government structure. Similarly, Venezuela, once a wealthy petrostate due to its oil boom in the 1970s, has fallen into economic collapse, authoritarian rule, and hyperinflation under the Chávez and Maduro regimes. Despite their differences, U.S. policy toward both countries reveal striking similarities.

First, Iran has historically been viewed as a strategic adversary due to its nuclear program and regional influence. As a result, the United States has consistently monitored and attempted to contain Iran’s capabilities. When pressed for justification of military actions and heightened tensions, leaders such as Donald Trump have framed these decisions as necessary to prevent nuclear escalation and protect U.S. interests. In addition to military deterrence, the United States has relied heavily on economic sanctions and international monitoring. Institutions like the International Atomic Energy Agency play a central role in tracking Iran’s nuclear development, even during periods of political instability.

Similarly, U.S.–Venezuela relations have fluctuated significantly since the rise of socialist leadership under Hugo Chávez. Following this period, Nicolás Maduro’s government oversaw severe economic decline, widespread human rights violations, political repression, and allegations of narcotrafficking. In recent years, these conditions have contributed to a mass migration crisis, with nearly 7 million Venezuelans leaving the country in search of stability. These developments have often been used to justify increased U.S. pressure, including sanctions and diplomatic isolation, in the name of restoring democracy. Across both cases, the same logic applies. Increased political and economic pressure is expected to produce political change. However, this outcome is far from guaranteed.

In both Iran and Venezuela, economic sanctions have contributed to rising inflation, shortages of essential goods such as food and medicine, and declining access to healthcare and stable employment. Data from institutions like the World Bank and analyses from the Brookings Institution suggest that while sanctions are intended to influence state behavior, their effects are disproportionately felt by civilians rather than political elites.

International organizations such as Human Rights Watch have emphasized the significant toll these policies take on civilian populations. This raises important legal and ethical concerns. For instance, the United Nations Charter states that all members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Yet U.S. policy has often operated in gray areas, justifying intervention through counterterrorism, counter-narcotics, or national security concerns. This creates tensions not only between nations but also within the broader international system, setting precedents for future interventions.

Supporters of U.S. foreign policy argue that such pressure is necessary. Without it, authoritarian regimes may consolidate power, expand destabilizing activities, and evade accountability. However, critics point to a growing paradox: policies designed to promote stability may, over time, contribute to instability on the ground by deepening economic hardship and strengthening hardline elements within targeted states.

Supporters of these policies argue that pressure is essential to maintaining global order. This pressure is argued to be essential to maintaining global order. Without it, authoritarian governments may continue harmful practices unchecked. However, U.S. policymakers must also confront the unintended consequences of their actions. The cases of Iran and Venezuela suggest that many interventions are part of long-term strategic planning, yet their humanitarian impacts are often insufficiently addressed.

By emphasizing pressure without equal attention to humanitarian relief, the United States risks undermining its own commitment to human rights. In extreme cases, it may even invite scrutiny from organizations like Human Rights Watch itself. A more sustainable approach would balance security objectives with a clear commitment to minimizing civilian harm and supporting humanitarian outcomes.