War in Venezuela and Iranian unrest

Clashes first take place as a clash of narratives in the digital space long before they happen on the battleground

Nine-eleven was an objective demonstration of what SP Huntington conceptualised in his phenomenal work: The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order. The clash is not over, but in the digital world that we live in, clashes first take place now as a clash of narratives in the digital space. The battle of narrative is lost or won in digital space long before battles are won or lost on the battleground. It is in this context that I view the ongoing street protests in Iran and how the recent attack by the United States in Venezuela may help Iran construct the narrative of the current American military adventurism in the Caribbean as a living example of what Iran, as a sovereign country, and the people of Iran may face next.

The American attack on Venezuela demonstrates a growing American-led geopolitical trend and a global digital narrative that Washington, through its military actions, continues to undermine the sovereignty of independent states. It reinforces and validates the Iranian claim that the protests in Iranian streets are not happening in a vacuum and that external forces are involved in the ongoing Iranian street protests.

Iran claims that both the United States and Israel want to take advantage of Iran's domestic unrest. After the American attack on Venezuela, Iran is least likely to take the American warning lightly. Even if the Iranian domestic dissent is based on years of economic pain that the people of Iran suffer, the current American attack on Venezuela undermines the legitimacy of the Iranian domestic dissent and projects the street protests in Iran as a tool of external forces' desire to bring about regime change in Iran.

The unfolding of this crisis in the Caribbean must be making the Iranian people think and recalibrate their opinion. This war will only help rally nationalist sentiments in Iran and deflect any blame that people of Iran may be willingly throwing on the doorsteps of the current Iranian regime. They may now cautiously and necessarily consider the factor of external political involvement and not internal policy failures.

The war in Venezuela also opens up a new door and gives leverage to the Iranian regime to justify its security crackdown on the protesters by framing the situation as part of a broader external geopolitical agenda. What the initiation of war in Venezuela has done is to promote an Iranian thinking that the economic pain that they suffer is inseparable from the American-led global geopolitics through which Washington follows a policy of political interference and military intervention to undermine the sovereignty of independent states like Venezuela and Iran.

After the American attack on Venezuela, President Trump's warning to Iran, which came amid widespread protests in Iran, may lose its purpose and the effect it was desired to create. President Trump had warned that "if Iran violently suppresses peaceful protesters, the United States would consider taking action to rescue them and that US forces were locked and ready to respond." This strategic messaging was designed to deter further violence by the Iranian regime and to influence the Iranian state's behaviour. But after the news of the capture of President Maduro of Venezuela by the American military, the people may think about what Washington may plan to do in Iran. What has happened in Venezuela may only create a rally around the flag effect in Iran, and the public debate may shift from the economic pain due to policy failures of the current Iranian regime to national survival.

The American attack on Venezuela helps Iran to justify and sell the validity of its geopolitical posture. Iran's geopolitical posture is not just ideological or reactive but is geographic, spatial, and related to the longstanding history of the Iranian Plateau. Iran, like Russia, considers itself historically as an invaded space. Alexander, the Mongols, Arabs and Saddam Hussein all lived stories of the invasion of the Iranian Plateau. The American bases in the Gulf, its naval fleet in Bahrain, and the recent twelve-day war that was imposed on Iran are a stark reminder to the Iranian people about how deeply vulnerable Iran is to the orchestration of a foreign aggression that is not days but hours away. If Washington can strike Venezuela thousands of miles away, the proximity of the American military's presence only increases Iran's risks.

To offset this lingering threat, Iran has always preferred to maintain deterrence away from its homeland territory. Iran's investment in the allied actors in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (Shia militias), Syria (Al-Baqer Brigade and Quwan al-Ridha) and Yemen (Houthis) is all in line with maintaining a network of deterrence away from home. Surrounded by unstable regions, Iran has long viewed the presence of these networks as a guarantee of its sovereignty and security. American naval dominance in the nearby waters renders Iranian geography a threat, rather than an asset.

The American war in Venezuela proves that a passive geography offers no safety, and the maintenance of Iranian deterrence away from home territory is a strategy to offset the threat that emanates from a passive geography. Unlike Venezuela, Iran maintains a coastal readiness, long-range missile capability and drones that contribute to its denial military strategies. The Venezuela strike by the United States reinforces the Iranian strategic thinking that one cannot rely on geography alone as a weapon. That deterrence rooted away from the homeland may also force aggressors to think twice before initiating military aggression.

Given the kinds of threats it faces today, Iran cannot afford a passive inward-looking military posture that relies on strategic depth. Hence, Iranian military strategy is built on choke point leveraging, as in the case of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, and forward posturing through the presence of Iranian regional networks (proxies). The American attack on Venezuela only helps promote the Iranian narrative that if the United States can attack Venezuela across oceans, then Iran, located in the world's most militarised geographic space, is entitled to do everything that it can to prevent becoming the next American target.