Washington, Jan 19 : Influential US lawmakers, former officials, and foreign policy experts openly discussed political change in Venezuela and Iran, reviving regime-change language that Washington had sought to downplay in recent years.

The renewed tone reflects frustration over pressure campaigns that have failed to deliver clear results, even as unrest and economic distress persist in both countries.

Appearing on CNNâ??s State of the Union, former Vice President Mike Pence described Iran as â??the leading state sponsor of terror in the worldâ?? and said it was in Americaâ??s interest to see change in Tehran. He linked support for Iranian protesters to US national security, though he did not outline a clear path to regime transition.

Defending the Trump administrationâ??s past pressure campaign on Venezuela, Pence said sanctions and diplomatic recognition of the opposition had weakened President Nicolás Maduroâ??s government. He acknowledged, however, that the political transition had stalled and said restoring democracy through elections remained the stated objective.

On CBSâ??s Face the Nation, Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said years of sanctions had failed to dislodge Maduro while inflicting severe economic pain on civilians. Warner warned that repeated public talk of regime change risked benefiting US adversaries, adding that only Russia and China were gaining from turmoil in the international order.

Warner also cautioned that overly rhetorical statements weakened US credibility. He said pressure campaigns needed realistic goals and clearer limits.

Responding to a question on CBS, Republican Congressman Mike Turner of Ohio, a senior member of the House intelligence panel, noted American interest in Venezuelaâ??s political future but said Washingtonâ??s leverage was limited. He warned against creating expectations that sanctions alone could deliver regime change.

On NBCâ??s Meet the Press, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, warned against unilateral executive action, arguing that the Constitution places war-making powers with Congress. Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, echoed that view, saying that coercive escalation without congressional approval would repeat past US mistakes.

On CNNâ??s Fareed Zakaria GPS, the most direct debate came from Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former senior State Department official, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, CEO of New America and a former director of policy planning at the State Department.

Discussing Venezuela, Haass said the United States was not pursuing classic regime change. Instead, he described what had occurred as a narrow leadership shift that left the broader system intact. He argued that Washington had effectively accepted a transactional arrangement focused on oil access and limited engagement, rather than democratic transformation.

Slaughter said outright regime change in Venezuela was politically unrealistic. She said US rhetoric reflected a preference for â??friendly governmentsâ?? rather than democratic outcomes, warning that public declarations often exceeded Washingtonâ??s ability to shape events on the ground.

Haass was sharper when the discussion turned to Iran. He said encouraging protests without follow-through was irresponsible and put civilians at risk. He argued that Iran was not on the verge of collapse and that US statements suggesting otherwise misread the strength of the regime and the loyalty of its security forces. He said the United States â??canâ??t promote regime change or anything like it from offshore.â??

That assessment was reinforced by Narges Bajoghli, a professor at Johns Hopkins University and an expert on Iranian society, who appeared later on the same programme. Bajoghli said Iranians were deeply angry over economic and political conditions, but that protests had been violently suppressed. She said there was no unified opposition capable of toppling the regime and cautioned against assuming a repeat of 1979.

/IANS