Why does Trump have no interest in the exiled opposition? Changing the face from within instead of regime change

Euronews- When Maria Corina Machado presented her Nobel Peace Prize to Donald Trump less than three months ago and declared the American president worthy of receiving this award, she probably believed that by doing so she could become the main alternative to the Venezuelan government from the White House's point of view.
But after the unprecedented American attack on Venezuela and the arrest of Nicolás Maduro and his departure from the country, Donald Trump poured clean water on Ms. Machado's hand and considered her to lack the "necessary support and respect to run the country."  The next shock to Machado was the acceptance of Nicolás Maduro's deputy as the country's interim leader.  American officials have confirmed that, at least for the time being, Delsey Rodriguez is going to hold power in Venezuela.  Someone who for many years was known as the loyal force of Nicolas Maduro.

Although Donald Trump is known for making statements that he later changes, and there is no guarantee that this approach of the White House will remain in place, he said at his press conference in Florida addressing reporters: 'We will continue with Venezuela until we can make a safe transition. We cannot take the risk that someone else who does not consider the people's resources in this country takes control of the situation.'

The President of the United States further remarked that he will probably work with Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro's deputy, because he believes that Ms. Rodríguez is willing to do what the U.S. considers necessary to restore greatness to Venezuela.

But why did this happen and what is its translation for the protest movement in Iran as well as domestic and foreign opposition movements?

Critic of "expensive interventions"

Since his election campaign in 2015, Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized the country's previous governments for launching "endless wars" and US military interventions in the Middle East and other parts of the world.  He also criticized the foreign interference, which he called the efforts of "militants in America".

But what is the logic of Mr. Trump's belief?  The current American president believes that the United States should not pay so much for its actions around the world.  During his 5 years in the White House, he has shown that, contrary to popular belief, he does not avoid American intervention in world affairs, but the key issue for him is the issue of "money".

In the sense that he wants these interventions and changes to happen with the lowest cost and as soon as possible.  Although the US president has attacked various countries during this period, none of them has turned into a long-term military conflict.

He has always been one of the main critics of George Bush Jr.'s attack on Iraq and the fall of Saddam Hussein, and has emphasized that Saddam's fall has upset the regional balance in the Persian Gulf in favor of Iran.

Venezuela model;   Change of face, not a complete change of the system
In Venezuela, instead of relying on opposition leaders outside the power structure, Trump recognized Vice President Nicolás Maduro as president, sending a clear message that the insider could be an acceptable partner to Washington if he was willing to cooperate.  Instead, he ignored symbolic efforts by the opposition outside the power structure, including Maria Corina Machado's efforts to win over Trump.

This behavior shows that for Trump, practical legitimacy, control of existing structures and the possibility of immediate implementation of agreements are more important than opposition symbols or long-term investment in figures who will face more challenges to create a new order in the country.

Changes at the lowest cost
In recent weeks and months, Trump and his associates have repeatedly emphasized that they have no plans to change the regime in Iran.  However, this statement cannot be considered definitive, and especially with the protests that are being observed in different cities of Iran these days, the possibility of a new option being on the table of the White House is not out of mind.  But Trump's hint that he has no plans for regime change in Iran stems from his classic belief in making quick, limited, low-cost and non-committal changes for the US government.
 

Changing the complete system of a political system, although it may happen easily, but the formation of a new order in a country where a revolution, collapse or foreign attack has occurred will not be easy and fast.  If the US is involved in such a process, it can involve his government in a new headache from which it will not be possible to get rid of it simply.

Learning from the experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan
The experience of Iraq and Afghanistan showed that the complete removal of a political system and the attempt to build everything from scratch brings heavy financial, human and political costs for the United States.  Trump considers these projects to be a symbol of the failure of the American foreign policy elite and has repeatedly emphasized that he does not want his country to enter such quagmires again.

From this point of view, bringing in a foreign opposition leader and trying to build a completely new political order is probably the path that Trump avoids.  Such an option would not only require a long-term US presence, but also risk chronic instability, civil war, and the reproduction of enmity with Washington.

Advantages of the domestic option for Trump
Removing a leader and replacing him with another person from the same power structure, if he can satisfy Washington's demands, is cheaper and faster in Trump's view.  Such a scenario does not require a complete reconstruction of government institutions, security forces and administrative structure and reduces the risk of uncontrolled collapse.

In particular, the election of an intra-systemic pawn, even if he is currently marginalized, has several distinct advantages for Trump:

This person is familiar with the power structures, security forces and the country's governance logic.  At the same time, it can transfer power with minimal shock and instability.  Besides, it has relative legitimacy among a part of the elites and the ruling body.  For someone like Trump, who avoids bureaucratic processes and administrative complexities, choosing someone from the same system allows for quick implementation of agreements and changes in foreign behavior.

Ideally, from Trump's point of view, such a change could turn the hostile country into a non-hostile actor and even potentially align with the US, without incurring the heavy costs of occupation or reconstruction.

In addition to the above, several other factors also strengthen this preference;  The first factor is Trump's deal-oriented mentality, which prefers to negotiate and agree with actors who have real leverage.  At the same time, his concern about creating a power vacuum that can give field to radical anti-American actors causes the American president to examine options that can justify the forces within the system to pursue a new model of governance.

What factors can weaken this hypothesis?
With all that said, the issue may not be so simple, or the circumstances may change in such a way that the control of the affairs is lost, or the priorities and preferences may change.

In the specific case of Iran, if the gaps within the governance deepen, it may be difficult to find a reliable option within the system that is accepted by both the society and the system itself.

In addition, although Donald Trump is known as an agent who has had more influence on the structure than other American presidents, even he is not immune from possible criticism and pressure in the Congress as well as the public opinion of the United States.  As a result, these deterrent factors may cause Trump to move towards foreign opposition forces.

Regarding the issue of Iran, the other decisive actor is Israel;  If an attempt to change Iran is implemented by the US, it seems very unlikely that after Khamenei, someone will take power in Iran that Israel opposes.  As a result, Israel's preferences will be key in this matter.

And finally, the developments in the field, especially considering what is happening in the streets of different cities of Iran these days, may change the situation in such a way that the process of transferring power from within, like the pattern seen in Venezuela, no longer exists.

Fast, low-cost and limited changes
All in all, Trump's pattern of behavior shows that he is more than anything looking to change the behavior of actors at the lowest cost and in the fastest possible time.  As a result, he does not seek to implement ambitious projects to change a political system.
As a result and with the recognition of Trump's behavioral pattern, the probability of choosing an option outside of Iran or relying on the foreign opposition is less than choosing a low-cost domestic transition;  This choice is not out of interest, but out of a cold and pragmatic calculation;  A calculation that the experience of the last two decades of American foreign policy has clearly shaped.