BOBBY CIPUTRA | Regime change without invasion

What if a regime wasn’t toppled through a long war, but rather in a matter of hours?

January 3 2026. Nicolas Maduro, president of Venezuela, was kidnapped from his palace in a matter of hours. A month later, on February 28, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, “Supreme Leader” of Iran, was killed in an airstrike that lasted just two days.

Was this a military strategy advancement or a new threat to global stability? Was it the end of the Bush doctrine, and the birth of the Trump doctrine?

For the past two decades US strategy has been synonymous with major wars. The US under George W Bush’s leadership endured two wars that drained its resources. Afghanistan and Iraq today are a bitter reflection of what some US academics call “nation-building”.

On October 7 2001 the US invaded Afghanistan. The war lasted nearly 20 years, and the cost was enormous. Almost 2,500 US soldiers were killed. Yet the outcome was not exactly stability.

The same thing happened in Iraq. The invasion took place on March 20 2003, with 150,000 troops deployed. The country was then occupied for years. The result was more than 7,000 US soldiers killed, $2-trillion lost and a tarnished global reputation.

Then, Donald Trump ascended to power, bringing with him a belief that transformed Washington’s thinking — replacing a regime without invasion, starting by precisely eliminating its political obstacles. A new doctrine that’s colder, more precise, and in many ways more effective. The world now knows what I call the Trump doctrine: Hit, remove, stabilise.

The key to Trump doctrine operations is betrayal from within. In Venezuela, Operation Absolute Resolve was launched in January 2026, but a CIA team had been embedded in Caracas for the previous five months. When the order came, electronic warfare disabled defence radars within minutes. Six hours later Maduro was on a plane bound for New York to face drug charges in a Brooklyn court.

In Iran, Operation Grand Fury was swifter and more brutal. The attack was carried out through a combination of satellite intelligence and precision operations. Palantir’s AI system guided the precision strike based on months of intelligence gathered. The Americans used EA-18 Growler “Discombobulator” electronic warfare to blind enemy radars.

Khamenei and senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders were killed within two days. The Americans did not send in any ground troops. They did not occupy Tehran. State institutions remained operational. The new government was then encouraged to implement reforms. The US simply beheaded Iran and left.

Years of economic pressure through sanctions are not simply punishment. They are ground preparation, creating a desperate citizenry and elite ready to betray for the promise of a different future.

No precision operation can operate without eyes and ears inside the target country. The most surprising fact of these two operations was not the technology but how many insiders opened the doors.

In Venezuela, the intelligence network recruited mid-level military officers disillusioned with the economic situation. In Iran, dissatisfaction with the decades-old regime created a gap the CIA exploited with meticulous planning. This taught us one lesson more important than any military technology: a country usually collapses from within before being brought down from the outside.

Years of economic pressure through sanctions are not simply punishment. They are ground preparation, creating a desperate citizenry and elite ready to betray for the promise of a different future.

Why are Russia and China silent? This is the question most frequently asked by geopolitical analysts. Venezuela and Iran are strategic partners. Russia has a military base in Venezuela. China has invested billions of dollars in Iran.

Russia has called Venezuela’s operation an act of aggression. China condemns all hegemonic actions that violate international law. Yet neither of them has sent a single warship.

There are three interrelated reasons:

• First, speed. With Maduro already in a Brooklyn jail before Moscow could convene an emergency meeting, there was no one left to defend. Defending a corpse or an already ousted leader is a poor political investment.
• Second, a calculation of interests. Venezuela and Iran are not formal allies of Russia or China. There is no Article 5 requiring them to act. China is more concerned with the sustainability of oil contracts under the new regime than with ideological loyalty. Russia is expending its energy in Ukraine.
• Third, and this is the most interesting, silence may be the language of negotiation. There is a strong possibility of a behind-the-scenes deal. The US is allowing Russia to consolidate a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and China in the South China Sea in exchange for their silence on Venezuela and Iran.

War as a political tool

There’s a famous quote often attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte: “When a king feels his people begin to rebel, he declares war on another nation.” In modern political science this phenomenon is called diversionary war theory.

Looking at Trump’s situation domestically, this pattern is hard to ignore. Trump is facing tremendous domestic pressure — his approval rating among key voters continues to dip below 40% in most surveys, aggressive tariffs are hurting people’s purchasing power, support from independents has plummeted from 41% to 25% in just one year, young voters who once supported him now disapprove of his performance by 66%, and the threat of a third impeachment looms large.

The strategy of decapitating regimes abroad is a perfect diversionary war strategy, creating a “rally around the flag” effect. It provides the spectacle of a heroic victory for Maga voters without the risk of large-scale military casualties. “Victories” in Venezuela and Iran are being used to silence Democratic opposition. This gives Trump the opportunity to consolidate Republican Party power ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections.

The Trump doctrine has the world entering a new era: regime change without invasion. War no longer requires hundreds of thousands of troops, but rather intelligence networks, air dominance and local elites willing to compromise. Caracas and Tehran have already proven this. National sovereignty is being forced to adapt to a new world order, where US policy is the sole law.

• Ciputra is chairman of the Indonesian Young Socialist Movement.