TEHRAN – Could a U.S. attack on Venezuela serve as a prelude to a future strike against Iran? This is one of the most frequently asked questions in Iranian circles today regarding the fate of Caracas and the Maduro government. 

Although at first glance, geographical distance, the absence of serious economic or military ties, and differing ideologies between the two countries should make such a scenario unlikely, this question nevertheless stems from a mindset and experience grounded in realism.

In a world where great power rivalries have been reignited, every local crisis becomes part of a broader global competition. Thus, Iran’s view of developments in Venezuela is not limited to one specific country but is part of its broader understanding of shifts in the global order.

Over the past two decades, relations between Iran and Venezuela have been shaped more by shared experiences than by economic interests. Both countries have faced sanctions, political pressure, and external attempts at regime change. This common experience has created a sense of mutual understanding. The roots of this shared destiny go back to decades before the victory of Iran’s Islamic Revolution. When Iranians observed Venezuela’s model of oil nationalization, they were inspired to pursue a similar path at home—an endeavor that ultimately led to the first major confrontation between Tehran and Washington.

The historical experience of nations shows that an attack or intervention anywhere in the world can later become a template for applying pressure on other countries—especially when those countries share many similarities. Iran and Venezuela both represent major anti-American governments in their respective regions; both possess significant shares of the world’s oil resources; both have sizable populations and territories that grant them geopolitical advantages; and both have the capacity to inspire neighboring regions—so that their success might encourage others to replicate their path.

From this perspective, Iran’s defense of Venezuela is not about defending Maduro personally but about defending the principle of national sovereignty itself. Having recently endured a 12-day war, Iran is acutely aware of the consequences that follow when violations of this principle go unpunished—and how such impunity can undermine the international order.

The timing of this conflict cannot be separated from the broader transformations underway in the global system and the emergence of new blocs. The United States still seeks to preserve its role as arbiter and guarantor of the international order, while other powers such as China and Russia are expanding their influence. Iran, though on a smaller scale, views itself as part of this process of redefinition. In such a context, every regional crisis becomes a testing ground for measuring the boundaries of power.

Given these circumstances, Iran’s concern about Venezuela’s future is rooted in realism. However, it cannot be claimed that an invasion of Venezuelan territory would necessarily lead to war between Washington and Tehran, since Iran’s regional position and defensive capabilities differ significantly from Venezuela’s. Yet from a behavioral standpoint, Venezuela’s experience can serve as a warning to Iran. If the United States can carry out a military action in another country without paying a high political price, it would make similar forms of pressure and intervention elsewhere appear more legitimate—even if such actions are not military in nature.

Another question being raised these days is: how would Iran respond to a U.S. military attack on Venezuela? The answer must be understood within the limits of Iran’s capacity and position. Tehran lacks substantial practical means for military or economic support to a country on the other side of the world. Therefore, if conflict breaks out, Iran’s backing would likely remain political and diplomatic—condemning the intervention, coordinating within international organizations, and perhaps offering limited technical or humanitarian cooperation.

For Iran, Venezuela is more a field for reflection than for action. The crisis there is a reminder that in an interconnected world, the destinies of nations are more intertwined than ever before. Iran’s reaction to these events will stem less from ideology or hostility toward the United States and more from an effort to understand global transformations and find a balanced position within them—a position between caution and solidarity, between realism and empathy with nations that share the experience of resisting great-power pressure.

Political systems do not possess fixed perceptual models of the world; much of their understanding is shaped by observing surrounding events and the experiences of other nations. From this perspective, if one seeks to predict Iran’s response to a U.S. attack on Venezuela, the real answer would be found less in the midst of war and more in its aftermath and in the change in the strategies.