Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

Abstract This paper analyses the current challenges facing NATO and questions its future viability amid shifting geopolitical dynamics. It highlights the evolving U.S. stance, marked by a 2025 National Security Strategy that prioritises self-reliance for European allies and a reduced American military role in Europe, reflecting a broader "America First" approach. Russia's persistent opposition to NATO's eastward expansion, particularly regarding Ukraine, fuels ongoing conflict and threatens regional stability. Germany's emerging leadership role in European security is explored, showcasing its increased defence commitments and strategic cultural shift from restraint to readiness. Turkey’s crucial geopolitical position and military capabilities underscore its significance within NATO despite recent tensions. The paper also discusses the Greenland dispute as a symbol of intra-Alliance tensions and as a challenge to collective defence principles under Article 5. Ultimately, the Ukraine war serves as a critical test for NATO, raising doubts about the Alliance’s coherence and effectiveness amid internal divisions and external threats. Key Words: NATO, Russia, US, Europe, Security Introduction Allegedly, Lord Ismay (Hastings Lionel Ismay), the first Secretary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), famously claimed that NATO was set up for three major reasons: to keep the Americans in, to keep the Russians out (he meant the USSR) and to keep the Germans down.[1] Historians and international security experts generally agree that NATO has been a fundamental part of European security architecture, helping maintain peace on the European continent during the Cold War amid the great powers’ rivalry. Not only did the American presence on the European continent deter a possible Soviet invasion, but it also served as a pacifier regarding European military and political ambitions, especially German. As of today, "the Alliance" (as Nato is often referred to) seems to be edging towards the end of its coherence due to many internal and external reasons. This short paper will explore some of them, albeit the topic naturally requires a much longer and deeper approach. The Americans: still in? On December 9, 2025, Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky introduced H.R. 6508, the NATO Act, which calls for the United States to withdraw from NATO. In his statement, following (consciously or not Lord Ismay) Massie states: “NATO is a Cold War relic. We should withdraw from NATO and use that money to defend our own country, not socialist countries. NATO was created to counter the Soviet Union, which collapsed over thirty years ago. Since then, U.S. participation has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and continues to risk U.S. involvement in foreign wars. Our Constitution did not authorise permanent foreign entanglements, something our Founding Fathers explicitly warned us against. America should not be the world’s security blanket — especially when wealthy countries refuse to pay for their own defense.”[2] This is but a small ripple in a much bigger pool of water that hosts the U.S. concerns regarding their involvement in the European Security architecture. To cut a long story short, there seems to be a formidable force in U.S. politics advocating a "refocus" of US foreign policy doctrine and the consequent foreign policy and security strategies. Not surprisingly, therefore, the U.S. President has recently unveiled the new National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) released by the Trump administration indicates a shift away from the U.S. focus on Europe in foreign and security policy, emphasising greater self-reliance for European allies and prioritising other regions.[3] The NSS ranks global regions by priority, placing the Western Hemisphere first (elevated from fifth in the 2017 NSS), Asia second, and Europe third—a demotion from its previous second-place ranking. This reorientation aligns with an "America First" approach that emphasises burden-sharing, non-interventionism, and a narrower definition of U.S. national interests, thereby avoiding overextension in regions such as Europe. Key elements signalling a less focused approach to Europe include, among others, the encouragement of European self-defence. The strategy calls for Europe to assume primary responsibility for its own security as sovereign nations. It urges ending NATO's expansion and requires allies to meet a new 5% of GDP defence spending commitment (dubbed the "Hague Commitment"), far above the current 2% target, to ensure fair burden-sharing. Secondly, the NSS outlines a limited U.S. role in Europe. The U.S. involvement is framed as diplomatic support for stability (e.g. negotiating an end to the Ukraine war and fostering relations with Russia for reconstruction and strategic stability) rather than sustained military commitments. The document criticises Europe's economic decline, migration issues, and EU "transnationalism" that undermines sovereignty, but positions the U.S. as a helper only for aligned partners willing to open markets and combat hostile practices such as mercantilism. As far as the Western Hemisphere is concerned, the NSS asserts U.S. preeminence through a "Trump Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, focusing on migration control, supply chains, and denying adversarial influence through active military and economic measures (Central and South America and the Caribbean). This marks a departure from past NSS documents, which often centred on Europe due to NATO commitments and threats like Russia, toward a more transactional and restrained U.S. posture in the region.[4] With regards to that last point, the very latest National Defence Strategy of the U.S. confirms the direction away from Europe.[5] The strategy prioritises Europe taking primary responsibility for its own conventional defence, with critical but more limited support from the United States. This includes supporting Ukraine’s defence as primarily a European responsibility. Moreover, according to the document, Russia remains a persistent but manageable threat to NATO's eastern members. The Russians: already in? The ongoing war in Ukraine, which has lasted for 4 years now, has allowed the Russian army to make formidable advances in the field. Russian experts and military advisors are pushing for control of Odessa (I write about it here). It appears probable at this stage that the Russian Federation will want to control as much territory of Ukraine as possible and that the lack of effective diplomacy means that the outcome of the war will be settled on the battlefield rather than in the comfort of negotiation chambers. Regardless of the mainstream narratives constantly pushed by CNN or BBC, the Russians have not really changed their fundamental demand - that Ukraine should not be permitted to become a NATO member. Western societies and their political elites can, of course, feel moral outrage when confronted with such demands. The facts are, however, painfully simple. After the end of the Cold War, the reunification of Germany was agreed to and accepted by the then-Soviet Union, on the condition that NATO would not expand eastward. (I write about here). NATO did expand westward multiple times, however. From the Kremlin's perspective, Ukraine's possible membership in NATO is the last red line Russia cannot allow to be crossed. Put simply, Ukraine's geography makes it a strategic asset to NATO. Let us also remember that countries such as Turkey, Poland, all three Baltic states, and, recently, even Finland are already NATO members.[6] Importantly, Russian security and military experts see this as a fundamental threat to Moscow and its European environment. (Russia, after all, is also a European country). (The pivotal moment came at the April Bucharest Summit, where NATO leaders — despite opposition from France and Germany — declared that Ukraine (and Georgia) "will become members of NATO." This was not an immediate invitation but a promise of future membership once conditions were met, with the U.S. lobbying heavily for a Membership Action Plan (MAP). Ukraine had formally requested a MAP in January 2008.)[7] Source: https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/central-europe-map.htm According to the European Parliament, as early as back in 2014, Moscow identified several challenges as threats to its national security, with a particular focus on the West. First, it is the opposition to Russia's independent foreign policy. Russia perceives that its independent foreign and domestic policies are met with resistance from the United States and its allies, who seek to maintain their domination in world affairs and to "contain" Russia through political, economic, military, and informational pressure.[8] Second, Russia had always viewed the enlargement of NATO, the location of its military infrastructure close to Russian borders, NATO's "offensive capabilities," and the trend towards NATO acquiring global functions as direct challenges to its security Third, Russia was concerned about U.S. initiatives like the global antimissile system, Global Strike capabilities, and the militarisation of space, which it views as efforts to undermine its strategic deterrent. Fourth, Russia resented Western criticism of its policies in the post-Soviet countries, often described by Moscow as neo-imperialistic, and perceives NATO and the EU's enlargement and development of cooperative ties in the shared neighbourhood as expanding their spheres of influence at Russia's expense. Fifth, Moscow condemned efforts to provoke regime changes through means such as "colour revolutions," as it views these as attempts to destabilise its internal situation, supported at times by military force. This includes references to events in Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004 and 2014 "Revolution of Dignity"), Kyrgyzstan (2005), and the Arab Spring (2010-2012). Sixth, the Kremlin perceived an increasing competition with the West, including rival systems of values and societal models, and it rejects the normative dimension of the EU's external action, which it sees as an attempt to impose its norms and values on Russia. Next, Russia faced economic sanctions, financial, trade, investment, and technological policies used by the West as instruments to address geopolitical problems and contain alternative centres of power, such as Russia. Finally, across its strategic documents, Russia consistently emphasised the West (including the EU) as its main challenger to its great-power ambitions and security. The latest National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation as approved by President Putin in July 2021 (still before the beginning of the War in Ukraine), NATO and Western European countries are perceived by Russia as sources of pressure and threats.[9] The Strategy states that attempts to exert pressure on Russia, its allies, and partners, including building up NATO military infrastructure near Russian borders and intensifying intelligence activities, contribute to increasing military dangers and threats to Russia. Moreover, there is mention of Western countries' desire to maintain hegemony, which is associated with the crisis of economic development models, rising disparities and social inequality, attempts to limit the role of states, and the exacerbation of political problems and inter-state contradictions. The document also notes that some states view Russia as a threat or even a military adversary, and that there are efforts to instigate disintegration processes within the Commonwealth of Independent States to undermine Russia's ties with its traditional allies. Additionally, unfriendly actions by foreign countries, including Western states, are seen as attempts to exploit Russia's socio-economic problems to undermine internal unity and radicalise protest movements. Furthermore, information campaigns by foreign countries seek to form a hostile image of Russia, restrict the use of the Russian language, ban Russian media activities, and impose sanctions on Russian athletes. The document describes these as unjustified accusations and discrimination against Russian citizens and compatriots abroad. Overall, NATO and Western European countries are portrayed as pursuing policies aimed at containing Russia, undermining its sovereignty, and interfering in its internal affairs, which Russia views as threats to its national security and statehood. Now, as mentioned here, it seems that the outcome of the War in Ukraine is most likely to be decided on the battlefield and that the Russians will keep expanding their territory control, possibly even including Odessa, and that ultimately, they will want to keep as much Ukrainian territory under their direct or indirect control as possible. It is very unlikely at this stage that Ukraine will ever regain its territorial integrity (compared to pre-2014 status and Crimean operation). The Germans: up or what? In one of the recent publications (available here), I claimed that German leadership has, for some time now, promoted the idea of "special responsibility" for Europe and European security. To briefly recollect: "The former Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, at Charles University in Prague on 24 August 2022, recently elaborated on German leadership’s vision regarding the European defence efforts. His presentation paints a broad picture of the EU's future at the beginning of the 3rd decade of the 21st century, against the backdrop of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Among the four “revolutionary” ideas mentioned by Scholz, two stand out in particular. Firstly, given the potential enlargement of the European Union to up to 35 states, a transition to majority voting in the Common Foreign and Security Policy is urged. Secondly, regarding European sovereignty, the former German Chancellor asserts that Europeans are becoming more autonomous across all fields, assuming greater responsibility for their security, working more closely together, and standing even more united to defend their values and interests worldwide. In practical terms, Scholz indicates the need for one command and control structure for European defence efforts.[10] Arguably, Germany's self-proclaimed special role stems from a re-evaluation of its strategic culture, moving from "restraint to readiness."[11] Post-reunification in 1990, Germany was reluctant to lead on security issues, preferring multilateralism through the EU and NATO while avoiding military assertiveness due to its Nazi past and a culture associating power with guilt rather than responsibility. However, events like the 2014 Crimea annexation and the 2022 Ukraine invasion forced a "profound transformation," with leaders arguing that Germany's previous "strategic ambiguity" is no longer viable in a world of revisionist threats.[12] Former Chancellor Scholz described this as a "mandate to act," not just a description of change, emphasising Germany's obligation to secure peace and foster EU solidarity. [13] Chancellor Merz has built on this, asserting that "everything else is subordinate to external security" and that Europe expects German leadership after years of underperformance.[14] German leaders generally justify this role through a combination of geopolitical, economic, and normative arguments, often tied to specific policy actions like defence spending hikes and institutional reforms. First, geopolitical necessity and threat response. Germany portrays itself as uniquely positioned to confront existential threats like Russian aggression, given its central location in Europe and proximity to conflict zones. Scholz argued that Germany must act as the "guarantor of European security that our allies expect us to be," defending the international order against autocracies and serving as a bridge-builder in the EU. [15] Merz has emphasised the need to fill the void left by U.S. disinterest, stating that Germany faces a "dual shock" from Russian imperialism and American retrenchment, necessitating leadership to maintain transatlantic security. [16] This includes strengthening NATO's deterrence, with Germany committing to nuclear sharing and viewing alliance solidarity as part of its "reason of state."[17] Second, economic power and resource capacity. As Europe's largest economy, Germany justifies its role by leveraging its financial clout for defence investments, aiming to reach 3 - 3.5% of GDP by 2029 — surpassing NATO's 2% target and outpacing France and the UK.[18] Apparently, recently, Merz has relaxed the constitutional debt brake to fund €500 billion in infrastructure and defence, arguing this enables Germany to lead systemic renewal in European security without overburdening allies. [19] Leaders like Scholz and Merz frame this as a responsibility commensurate with Germany's potential, turning economic strength into security leadership rather than mere fiscal discipline.[20] Third, there is the question of perceived historical responsibility and the evolution of strategic culture. Drawing on Germany's past, its contemporary political leaders argue for a shift from "fence-sitting" to "pace-setting," redefining power as responsibility rather than aggression.[21] This includes overcoming "outdated beliefs" about post-Cold War peace and embracing a "geopolitical, security-driven master narrative." Scholz invoked Germany's duty to foster multilateral solutions and reject isolationism, while Merz highlights the need to reshape public perceptions of military force as a tool for stability. This narrative aligns with broader values such as defending democracy, human rights, and the rules-based order, positioning Germany as a defender of European unity.[22] What of Turkey? Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952, joining primarily to counter Soviet threats during the Cold War, and it remains a pivotal ally due to its unique geopolitical position, military strength, and contributions to alliance objectives. As far as the country's location, Turkey straddles Europe and Asia, serving as NATO's southeastern anchor and controlling the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits, which connect the Black Sea to the Mediterranean.[23] Under the 1936 Montreux Convention, Turkey regulates naval traffic through these waterways, effectively limiting Russian (and other non-Black Sea states') military movements — a role that's become even more critical amid Russia's actions in Ukraine and increased Black Sea presence.[24] This position also borders key regions like the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, Iran), the Caucasus, and Europe, enabling NATO to project influence and address threats from multiple fronts, including countering Russian A2/AD (anti-access/area denial) strategies. In terms of military strength, Turkey boasts NATO's second-largest standing army, providing significant "military mass" for defending extended frontiers and sustaining operations where other allies might lack scale. [25] It hosts vital NATO assets, including the Incirlik Air Base (which stores around 50 U.S. nuclear weapons and supports Middle East operations), the Allied Land Command headquarters in İzmir, AWACS facilities at Konya, and a radar station in Kürecik for NATO's ballistic missile defence system. [26] These capabilities enhance the alliance's rapid response and deterrence in Europe, the Middle East, and beyond. Turkey has actively participated in numerous NATO operations, from sending 4,500 troops to the Korean War (which helped secure its NATO membership) to leading roles in Afghanistan (ISAF and Resolute Support), Iraq, the Balkans, and Mediterranean patrols like Operation Active Endeavour. More recently, it has supplied military aid to Ukraine, including Bayraktar TB2 drones that have proven effective against Russian forces, and co-led the Black Sea Grain Initiative to ensure global food security amid the ongoing war.[27] Turkey also collaborates on counterterrorism efforts against groups like ISIS and the PKK, and helps stabilise regions like the South Caucasus and Eastern Mediterranean. [28] Turkey's growing defence sector produces affordable, battle-tested equipment, such as drones and other systems, which offer NATO alternatives to more expensive Western options and enable rapid production for allies like Ukraine.[29] This industrial capacity strengthens the alliance's overall resilience and reduces dependency on single suppliers. Beyond military might, Turkey extends NATO's diplomatic reach through cultural, economic, and political ties in Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia — areas where Western allies often face credibility gaps. It engages with challenging regimes to secure resources, energy deals, and counter Russian or Chinese influence, acting as a bridge for the alliance. However, recently Turkey's relations with NATO have faced strains — such as its purchase of Russian S-400 systems (leading to U.S. sanctions and F-35 exclusion), disputes with Greece over Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, and delays in approving Finland and Sweden's memberships (resolved by 2024). It is fair to say that Turkey plays a strategically important role in European security, and its leadership effectively leverages this position against European partners. Given its geographic location and military potential, Ankara will largely influence NATO's future. Greenland Conundrum Perhaps the most intriguing in recent days is the U.S. President's claim regarding Greenland. As of January 27, 2026, tensions between the United States, Denmark, and Greenland have escalated due to renewed U.S. interest in expanding its strategic presence on the Arctic island. President Donald Trump has reportedly issued an ultimatum, pushing for greater control over parts of Greenland to bolster military bases and counter Russian influence in the region, including restrictions on drilling rights for Russia. This follows historical U.S. attempts, such as Trump's 2019 proposal to purchase Greenland outright, which was rebuffed by Denmark. Importantly, the U.S. already operates Pituffik Space Base in Greenland for early warning and missile defence, but the current demands aim to expand this amid Arctic geopolitical competition with Russia and China. Recent talks in Washington between U.S. and Danish officials have led to the formation of a working group aimed at a diplomatic resolution. However, interpretations differ: U.S. officials, including Ambassador Leavitt, frame it as facilitating a transfer or enhanced control, while Denmark emphasises disagreement and no sale. For example, a recent New York Times report indicates Denmark may grant the U.S. sovereignty over select land pockets for military bases, modelled after arrangements like those in Cyprus, to strengthen Arctic defences. [30] Greenland's Prime Minister has declared the island's sovereignty a "red line," rejecting any outright transfer.[31] Denmark has reportedly increased troop deployments to Greenland in response, insisting the territory is not for sale. To spice things up, Trump has questioned Denmark's legal claims, stirring further controversy.[32] This has arguably strained U.S. - EU relations, with Europe adopting a firmer stance against Trump's approach. As a NATO member and EU affiliate through Denmark, Greenland's status has prompted calls for allies to boost Arctic security.[33] Some European leaders worry this could force divestment from U.S. ties or heighten NATO divisions.[34] In an interesting twist, a number of European leaders issued strong rhetoric against Trump and his claims about Greenland. A Joint Statement from European Leaders declared in a collective rebuke: "Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland and them only to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland," […] "Security in the Arctic must therefore be achieved collectively, in conjunction with NATO allies including the United States, by upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders. These are universal principles, and we will not stop defending them."[35] Herein lies the fundamental conundrum: the core of the security guaranteed by NATO (at least legally speaking) is Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, the so-called Casus Foederis.[36] The article 5 states: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Originally conceived as a defensive military alliance, NATO was established to protect its member states from external threats, according to its founders. In the event that one member state turns against the others, the Alliance risks becoming ineffective, akin to the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War, which served as a mechanism for exerting control over weaker states. Should such a scenario occur, the survival of NATO would be in jeopardy. Historical precedent suggests that oppressive institutions inevitably collapse over time. Conclusion It is imperative to acknowledge that NATO is currently engaged, albeit indirectly, in a conflict with Russia. This situation is significant as it serves as a test of NATO's capabilities. Presently, it appears that NATO is not prevailing. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assert, as I have argued in my previous analysis (available here), that Russia is likely to achieve its primary objective: ensuring that Ukraine will not join NATO. Additionally, I expect Russia to retain its territorial acquisitions and, in some manner, exert influence over the political system that will emerge in Ukraine following the conflict. Several pertinent questions arise in this context. Will the eventual peace, following the conclusion of the conflict, be sustainable? Will it adequately consider the national interests of all parties involved? Will it offer a satisfactory compromise? Is there a probability of a resurgence of Cold War-like relations between Western European nations and Russia? In the event of a renewed Cold War scenario, will NATO continue to be perceived as an effective instrument? Furthermore, given the United States' strategic focus on the Far and Middle East, will it remain committed to participating in the European security framework through institutions such as NATO? References [1] NATO. (2026, January 15). A short history of NATO. NATO. https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/nato-history/a-short-history-of-nato [2] Rep. Massie Introduces Bill to Remove the United States from NATO. (2025, December 9). Congressman Thomas Massie. https://massie.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=395782 [3] United States of America. (2025). National Security Strategy of the United States of America (November 2025). The White House. Washington. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf [4] Grieger, G. (2025, December). The 2025 US National Security Strategy. European Parliamentary Research Service. https://eprs.in.ep.europa.eu [5] Department of War. (2025). National Defense Strategy [Unclassified document]. U.S. Government. https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/23/2003864773/-1/-1/0/2026-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY.PDF [6] See more at: https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/organization/nato-on-the-map [7] Pifer, S. (2024, August). Ukraine’s Long Path toward NATO. American Diplomacy. https://americandiplomacy.web.unc.edu/2024/08/ukraines-long-path-toward-nato [8] Facon, I. (2017). Russia’s national security strategy and military doctrine and their implications for the EU (Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies, EP/EXPO/B/SEDE/FWC/2013-08/Lot6/11 EN). European Parliament. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/379ea707-e9dc-11e6-ad7c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en [9] President of the Russian Federation. (2021, July 2). National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation (Decree No. 400). Kremlin. [10] Sliwinski, K. (2025, June 16). Germany – the EU’s challenging leadership in challenging times. World and New World Journal. https://worldandnewworld.com/germany-eu-leadership/ [11] Harsch, M. F. (2025, December 30). From Restraint to Readiness? Germany Considers Conscription. War on the Rocks. https://warontherocks.com/2025/12/from-restraint-to-readiness-germany-considers-conscription/ [12] Kandyuk, O. (2025, October 15). THE END OF STRATEGIC AMBIGUITY? GERMANY’S NEW ROLE IN EUROPEAN SECURITY. Ukraine Analytica. https://ukraine-analytica.org/the-end-of-strategic-ambiguity-germanys-new-role-in-european-security/ [13] Bartenstein, A., & Wessels, W. (2024). German Claims for Leadership: From a Federalist to a Geopolitical Leadership Master Narrative. German Politics, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2024.2374371 [14] Cliffe, J., & Puglierin, J. (2025, May 6). From fence-sitter to pace-setter: How Merz’s Germany can lead Europe. European Council on Foreign Relations. https://ecfr.eu/article/from-fence-sitter-to-pace-setter-how-merzs-germany-can-lead-europe/ [15] Bartenstein, A., & Wessels, W. (2024). German Claims for Leadership: From a Federalist to a Geopolitical Leadership Master Narrative. German Politics, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2024.2374371 [16] Freytag von Loringhoven, A. (2025, December 16). Germany: Europe’s New Security Leader. Centre for European Policy Analysis. https://cepa.org/article/germany-europes-new-security-leader/ [17] Dempsey, J. (2023, June 22). Judy Asks: Is Germany Getting Serious About Security and Defense? Carnegie Europe. https://carnegieendowment.org/europe/strategic-europe/2023/06/judy-asks-is-germany-getting-serious-about-security-and-defense?lang=en [18] Koenig, N., & Schütte, L. (n.d.). Don’t Dodge Dilemmas Three Tests for German Leadership in European Defense. Munich Security Conference. Retrieved January 23, 2026, from https://securityconference.org/en/publications/analyses/dont-dodge-dilemmas-german-leadership-in-european-defense [19] Fuhrhop, P., & Kempin, R. (2025, December). New ambitions, old constraints: Germany’s role in shaping European defence. Berlin Perspectives, (08). Institut für Europäische Politik. https://www.iep-berlin.de [20] U.S. Department of State. (2024). Integrated Country Strategy: Germany (Approved May 25, 2022; Revised January 30, 2024). [Report]. https://placeholder-url-for-document.org [21] Harsch, M. F. (2025, December 30). From Restraint to Readiness? Germany Considers Conscription. War on the Rocks. https://warontherocks.com/2025/12/from-restraint-to-readiness-germany-considers-conscription/ [22] Weiss, S. (2016, October 1). Germany’s Security Policy. From Territorial Defense to Defending the Liberal World Order? Newpolitik. https://www.bfna.org/politics-society/germanys-security-policy-1ozhaghk6w/ [23] The United States and Türkiye: A Key NATO Ally and Critical Regional Partner. (2023, February 19). U.S. EMBASSY TÜRKİYE. https://tr.usembassy.gov/the-united-states-and-turkiye-a-key-nato-ally-and-critical-regional-partner/ [24] Ellehuus, R. (2019, December 2). Turkey and NATO: A Relationship Worth Saving. Centre for Strategic &International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/turkey-and-nato-relationship-worth-saving [25] Jones, D. (2025, February 20). Turkish army could play key role in Europe’s security. Voice of America. https://www.voanews.com/a/turkish-army-could-play-key-role-in-europe-s-security/7982514.html [26] Turkish Armed Forces. (n.d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved January 24, 2026, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Armed_Forces [27] Lucas, R. (2025, March 18). Turning Towards Turkey: Why NATO Needs to Lean into Its Relationship. RAND. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/03/turning-towards-turkey-why-nato-needs-to-lean-into.html [28] The United States and Türkiye: A Key NATO Ally and Critical Regional Partner. (2023, February 19). U.S. EMBASSY TÜRKİYE. https://tr.usembassy.gov/the-united-states-and-turkiye-a-key-nato-ally-and-critical-regional-partner/ [29] Lucas, R. (2025, March 18). Turning Towards Turkey: Why NATO Needs to Lean into Its Relationship. RAND. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/03/turning-towards-turkey-why-nato-needs-to-lean-into.html [30] Jakes, L., Tankersley, J., & Kanno-Youngs, Z. (2026, January 21). Trump Says He Has Framework for Greenland Deal as NATO Mulls Idea of U.S. Sovereignty Over Bases. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/us/politics/trump-greenland-threats-diplomacy-force.html?searchResultPosition=2 [31] Greenland and Denmark say sovereignty ‘red line’ after latest Trump remarks. (2026, January 22). Aljazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/22/trumps-greenland-pact-will-demand-allies-boost-arctic-security-nato-chief [32] Westfall, S. (2026, January 25). Trump tells one history of Greenland. Historians tell another. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/01/25/greenland-deal-trump-history-denmark-europe/ [33] Adler, K. (2026, January 20). Confronted over Greenland, Europe is ditching its softly-softly approach to Trump. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0lx7j1lrwro [34] Schoen, D. E. (2026, January 26). What Trump’s risking in the row over Greenland. The Hill. https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5703677-trump-greenland-geopolitical-impact/ [35] Joint Statement on Greenland. (2026, January 6). ÉLYSÉE. https://www.elysee.fr/en/emmanuel-macron/2026/01/06/joint-statement-on-greenland [36] See more at: https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/1949/04/04/the-north-atlantic-treaty

The price of gold has risen to over US$5,000 (£3,662) an ounce for the first time ever, after doubling in value over the course of a very strong 2025 for the precious metal. The usual explanation for such strong rises is that gold is considered a safe bet for investors when other options look a little shaky. High inflation for example, when cash quickly loses value, is often linked to gold price rises. Trade wars and actual wars usually have a similar effect. A common view then, is that gold performs well in moments of instability. But the research I was involved with suggests that gold prices are not simply a reaction to short-term economic events. Instead, they are a response to something deeper, reflecting an overall level of confidence in how economic systems are managed over time. During recent periods of sustained economic stability in the west, gold prices have remained largely flat. The steady growth, moderate inflation and predictable policy of the early 1990s and 2000s for example, were not good times for gold. And rather than responding to every economic peak or dip, the thing that really pushes gold prices up is instability in what’s known as “monetary credibility”. In other words, when there are doubts about whether central banks and governments will be able to maintain discipline over inflation, public debt and currency value over the coming decades. At times like this gold becomes more desirable. This helps explain why gold can continue to rise even as inflation falls, as has happened recently in several big economies, including the US and parts of Europe. And although recent weakness in the dollar and political uncertainty in the US have probably added momentum to gold’s rise, these factors amplify a deeper shift in confidence rather than explain it on their own. Our findings suggest that no single set of macroeconomic variables (like inflation, interest rates and stock prices) consistently explains gold prices across developed and emerging economies. They matter sometimes, but not always. So simple narratives (whether they’re about inflation, or trade wars or the weakening of the US dollar) are not enough to account for today’s gold market. Inflation alone cannot explain why gold prices remain elevated even as headline price pressures have eased. What gold tells us about the world There is more evidence for this in the fact that, according to the World Gold Council, central banks have been buying gold at the fastest pace in decades, particularly since 2022. This has continued even as inflation has fallen in many countries, again suggesting that these decisions are driven by longer term considerations rather than short term price movements. The decisions of central banks reflect concerns about resilience, diversification and trust. And to those banks, gold’s appeal lies squarely in the fact that it carries relatively little risk. It is not issued by a government like fiat currencies. It cannot be created at will like paper money. And it does not depend on the credibility of any single institution. So, in a world of high public debt, geopolitical fragmentation and increasing pressure on central bank independence, gold offers stability and insurance. And its price rises when confidence in the rules governing money becomes uncertain. That uncertainty can persist even when growth resumes or inflation falls. Seen in this light, gold’s recent surge does not signal a kneejerk panic or imminent collapse. Instead, it reflects a reassessment of long-term monetary confidence at a time when governments face difficult trade-offs between debt sustainability, political pressures and price stability. With its current high value, gold is not predicting a specific crisis. Nor does it provide a clear forecast for inflation. But it is revealing something important about the current moment. Markets appear less certain that the frameworks governing money, debt and policy will remain unchanged. That does not mean those systems have failed, but it does suggest their credibility is no longer taken for granted in the way it has been in the past. Gold does not predict the future. But it does offer a window into how confident markets are about the foundations of the world’s economics system.

I. Introduction In late December 2025, mass protests erupted across Iran, driven by public anger over the deepening economic crisis. Initially led by bazaar merchants and shopkeepers in Tehran, the demonstrations quickly spread to universities and major cities such as Shiraz, Isfahan, and Mashhad, becoming the largest unrest since the 2022 Mahsa Amini protests. Over time, the movement expanded beyond economic demands to include calls for freedom and, in some cases, the overthrow of the regime. Protesters chanted anti-government slogans such as “death to the dictator.” [1] In response, since late December 2025 Iranian state security forces have engaged in massacres of dissidents. The Iranian government has also cut off internet access and telephone services in an attempt to prevent protesters from organizing. The Iranian government has accused the US and Israel of fueling the protests, which analysts suggest may be a tactic to increase security forces’ willingness to kill protesters. A Sunday Times report, based on information from doctors in Iran, said more than 16,500 people were killed and more than 330,000 injured during the mass protests. The Interior Ministry in Iran verified 3,117 people had been killed in protests. [2] The Iranian protests, the largest in the Islamic republic’s 46-year history, appear to have subsided for now in the face of a violent government crackdown. US President Donald Trump has threatened to “hit very hard” if the situation in Iran escalates, reigniting concerns about possible US intervention in the region. Even Trump called Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei “sick man” in an interview with Politico on 17 January 2026, and said, “It’s time to look for new leadership in Iran.” It appeared to be the first time Trump had called for the end of Khamenei’s rule in Iran. [3] Despite having repeatedly threatened to attack Iran if the regime were to start killing protesters, Trump has held off on any immediate military action against the Islamic Republic. While the US reportedly sent the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group to the Middle East on January 15, 2026, President Trump has not specified what he might do. However, on January 28, 2026, Trump posted on social media: “A massive Armada is heading to Iran... It is a larger fleet, headed by the great Aircraft Carrier Abraham Lincoln, than that sent to Venezuela. Like with Venezuela, it is ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary.” Saying that time is running out, Trump demanded that Iran immediately negotiate a nuclear deal. He also suggested his country’s next attack on Iran could be worse than last year’s. In response, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has warned the US that any attack on his country would result in a “regional war” as US President Donald Trump has amassed military assets in the Middle East. “They should know that if they start a war this time, it will be a regional war,” the 86-year-old supreme leader, who has held absolute power for 37 years, said at an event in downtown Tehran on February 1, 2026. With this tension between Iran and the US running high, Iran and the US agreed to resume nuclear talks on Friday on February 6, 2026, in Oman. US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will meet in Oman in an effort to revive diplomacy over a long-running dispute about Iran’s nuclear program and dispel fears of a new regional war, However, experts expect that the deal will not be reached. Then the US will consider military strikes on Iran. Reflecting the pessimistic prospects, the US military on February 3, 2026 shot down an Iranian drone that “aggressively” approached the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea. So if the US carries out military strikes against Iran, what will happen? Which scenarios will follow? This paper deals with this issue. It first describes the US military presence in the Middle East and then examines the scenarios if the US conducts military strikes on Iran. II. US military presence in the Middle East As President Donald Trump considers a major strike on Iran after discussions about limiting Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missile production haven’t progressed, the US military has accelerated a weeks-long buildup of military hardware in the Middle East, open-source data shows. That includes near-constant surveillance flights and dozens of C-17 and C-5 military planes dropping off loads of cargo at US military bases across the region. As Figure 1 shows, the arrival of the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, now in the northern Arabian Sea, represents the most dramatic shift in military positioning. The group includes the USS Abraham Lincoln along with three guided-missile destroyers and the carrier air wing which includes squadrons of F-35C Lightning II fighters, F/A-18E Super Hornet fighters, and EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jets. Figure 1: US military presence in the Middle East (source: Congressional Research Service, Airframes.io and FlightRadar24) The Navy also has three destroyers — the USS McFaul, USS Delbert D. Black, and USS Mitscher — in the region separate from the aircraft carrier strike group. Three littoral combat ships — USS Canberra, USS Santa Barbara, and USS Tulsa — based out of Bahrain could be called upon for minesweeping duties if Iran chooses to deploy such armaments. In recent days, the US has deployed various air defense systems to the region as well, including additional Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems, and Patriot missile systems that appeared at Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar last week, Those systems would be key to combating retaliatory missile strikes if Iran were to respond to a strike by taking aim at either US military assets or US allies in the region. The equipment has accumulated as Trump has repeatedly threatened military action, saying on Wednesday that if Iran doesn’t agree to a deal, “the next attack will be far worse” than last June’s attack on its nuclear facilities. “Like with Venezuela, it is, ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary,” Trump said of the Abraham Lincoln. [4] The guided-missile destroyers steaming with the Lincoln and elsewhere in the region offer significant strike potential. Each destroyer can carry dozens of Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles with a range of 1,000 miles and wields a 1,000-pound conventional warhead. In addition, US Navy carrier strike groups usually operate with an attack submarine that can also launch Tomahawks, but the presence of submarines is almost never disclosed. While the carrier provides a floating base for military operations, the US has a number of permanent locations in the region where a slew of other aircraft have also been heading. As Figure 2 shows, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, the US has at least 19 military bases - eight of which are considered to be permanent - across the Middle East. The US has a major military presence in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Oman and the UAE. While in Djibouti and Turkey, the US maintains large military bases that serve different regional commands, but contribute to activities in the Middle East. Currently, there are approximately 40,000 American troops in the Middle East, according to US defense officials. Around a quarter of them are in Al-Udeid, which hosts combat aircraft, tankers, aerial refueling and intelligence assets. Al-Udeid airbase in Qatar, in the desert on the outskirts of Doha, is the tactical headquarters of the US Central Command, also known as Centcom. Centcom’s area of responsibility is not only the Middle East, but also parts of Central and South Asia. Al-Udeid is the largest American base in the region, hosting around 10,000 troops. The next biggest military base in terms of personnel is thought to be the naval base in Bahrain. Figure 2: US troops numbers in the Middle East (source: Middle East Eye) Bahrain (hosting 9,000 American troops) is where the US navy’s fifth fleet is headquartered, with responsibility over the Gulf, Arabian Sea, Red Sea, and some of the Indian Ocean. Kuwait hosts Camp Arifjan. That is the name of the tactical (or forward) headquarters of the US Army Central - a military formation that serves as the army component for Centcom. Ali al-Salem air base, known as “The Rock” for its isolated environment, is also in Kuwait, along the Iraqi border. Another Kuwait base is Camp Buehring, which has been a staging post for units heading to Syria and Iraq. In total, around 13,500 US troops are stationed in Kuwait. The UAE is home to 3,500 American troops, as well as al-Dhafra airbase, a site shared between the US and the Emiratis. It has been used during missions against the Islamic State group, as well as for reconnaissance missions in the region. The American presence in Iraq includes the Ain al-Asad airbase in Anbar - a site that was targeted by Iranian missiles after the US assassination of Qassem Soleimani, the senior Iranian general. There’s also the Erbil airbase in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region, which is used for training exercises. Approximately 2,700 American troops are stationed in Saudi Arabia, providing air and missile defense capabilities. The Prince Sultan airbase, near Riyadh, is a major air force hub where its main assets include Patriot missile batteries. For its missions in the Levant, Muwaffaq Salti airbase in Jordan’s Azraq is the key hub. It hosts the US’s 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing. Further afield in Turkey, the major base run jointly with Turkish forces is the Incirlik airbase in southern Adana. That base reportedly hosts US nuclear warheads. The size of US military bases, personnel, and equipment has fluctuated in recent years and months, reflecting shifting regional priorities. Early in President Trump’s second term, several warships departed the Middle East to support US international operations. However, naval and air power is now being bolstered in the region to attack Iran. On January 29, 2026, an E-11A jet arrived at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. This is one of the last critical assets the US needs to coordinate complex operations. The E-11A, a converted business jet, serves as a high-altitude communications relay system, transmitting data to support air and ground forces. [5] On the same day, a transport aircraft modified for combat search and rescue operations arrived in the area of operation. A squadron of F-15E Strike Eagle fighters, capable of carrying a variety of guided bombs and air-to-surface missiles, also recently deployed to the region as part of a planned troop rotation. Surveillance flights by US drones and reconnaissance aircraft have continued in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. Since last Monday, reconnaissance aircraft have been flying nonstop from US bases in Bahrain, Qatar, and even beyond the Middle East. Modified versions of the RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft, capable of detecting radioactive debris and interpreting electromagnetic signals, have also been deployed to the region. On January 29, 2026, at least eight aerial refueling tankers, used to provide aerial refueling for small military aircraft, crossed the Atlantic and landed at Morón Air Base in Spain. Several of the tankers transmitted messages during the flight, suggesting they were supporting at least seven additional small aircraft ‘en route’, likely conducting electronic warfare or fighter missions. Messages sent by two tankers on Thursday night specifically referred to the F-35 Operations Center, and these were recorded on the flight tracking dashboard tbg.airframes.io, showing that the F-35 fighter was crossing the Atlantic. Both, aerial refueling tankers mentioned in the message took off from Homestead Air Force Base in Florida. Less than two hours after the message was sent, six F-35 fighter jets landed at Lages Air Base in Portugal. Amid high tensions over President Trump’s recent threats, US Central Command announced on January 27, 2026 that it had conducted several days of training exercises across the Middle East to demonstrate its “ability to deploy, distribute, and sustain combat power.” [6] Given the US military’s extensive aerial refueling tanker network, it is unclear what other assets from around the world will be deployed in the military operation against Iran. As a reminder, in June 2025, seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers flew from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to Iran for 37 hours, dropping over a dozen bombs on three Iranian nuclear sites. Furthermore, guided missile submarines were also used in the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025. The U.S. Navy has four Ohio-class guided missile submarines, converted ballistic missile submarines whose locations are kept secret, that can carry up to 154 Tomahawk missiles. III. What could happen if the US strikes Iran? Seven scenarios. Iran and the US agreed to resume nuclear talks on Friday on February 6, 2026, in Oman. However, if no last-minute deal with Iran can be reached and President Donald Trump decides to order US forces to attack Iran, then what are the possible outcomes? Here are seven scenarios. [7] Scenario 1: Targeted, surgical strikes, minimal civilian casualties, a transition to democracy US naval and air forces conduct limited, precision strikes targeting military bases of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and the Basij unit - a paramilitary force under the control of the IRGC - ballistic missile launch and storage sites as well as Iran’s nuclear program. An already weakened Iranian regime is toppled, eventually making a transition to a genuine democracy where Iran can rejoin the rest of the world. This is a highly optimistic scenario but is highly unlikely. Western military intervention in both Iraq and Libya did not bring a smooth transition to democracy. Although it ended brutal dictatorships in both countries, it ushered in years of chaos and bloodshed. US secretary of state Marco Rubio assessed that the Iranian regime was probably weaker than it had ever been. However, a senior Israeli official said that Israel does not believe US airstrikes alone can topple the Islamic Republic, if that is Washington’s goal. A protracted US air campaign is considered unlikely, experts say, citing Trump‘s reported desire for a limited and decisive attack. But even a monthslong offensive would not guarantee the fall of the Iran regime. “A sustained US air campaign could severely degrade Iran‘s conventional military by ripping up command-and-control, and fixed infrastructure, but it is unlikely by itself to produce the collapse of Iranian security forces, which can disperse, hide, and shift to low-signature internal repression,” said Michael Horowitz, an independent defense expert in Israel. [8] “If you’re going to topple the Iran regime, you have to put boots on the ground,” he told Reuters, noting that even if the US killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran would “have a new leader that will replace him.” [9] Only a combination of external pressure and an organized domestic opposition could shift Iran’s political trajectory, the Israeli official said. The Israeli official said Iran’s leadership had been weakened by the massive protests but remained firmly in control despite the ongoing deep economic crisis that sparked the protests. Western diplomats and Arab officials also told Reuters that they were concerned that instead of bringing people onto the streets, US air strikes could weaken a movement already in shock after the bloodiest repression by Iranian authorities since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran Program at the Middle East Institute, said that without large-scale military defections Iran’s protests remained “heroic but outgunned.” Trump has notably avoided endorsing a successor, and Iran’s exiled crown prince Reza Pahlavi lacks sufficient support within the country to immediately be installed as a leader. Jason Brodsky, a member of the Atlantic Council’s Iran Strategy Project, said President Trump has historically favored “quick, surgical, targeted, dramatic, and decisive military operations,” pointing to US airstrikes in Syria during his first term. He said any US military intervention could involve leadership decapitation alongside attacks on Iran’s military and security infrastructure. However, Brodsky cautioned that Iran’s political system is designed to survive even major leadership losses. [10] “The Islamic Republic is bigger than any one individual,” he said, noting that institutions and succession mechanisms exist to fill any vacuum — even if the removal of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be temporarily destabilizing. Scenario 2: Regime survives but moderates its policies This could broadly be called the “Venezuelan model” whereby swift, powerful US military action leaves the regime intact but with its policies moderated. Some in Washington hope that US military pressure could force Iran to moderate its behavior — scaling back its nuclear ambitions, missile program and regional proxy network. In Iran’s case, this would mean the Islamic Republic survived, which won‘t satisfy large numbers of Iranians, but is forced to curtail its support for violent militias across the Middle East, curtail or cease its domestic nuclear and ballistic missile programs as well as easing up on its suppression of protests. Again, this is at the more unlikely end of the scale. The Islamic Republic leadership has remained defiant and resistant to change for 47 years and is unlikely to shift its course now. Danny Citrinowicz, a former Israeli intelligence official now with the Atlantic Council, warned that US military strikes could actually strengthen hardliners. “A US attack would more likely consolidate elite cohesion around the regime, marginalize protesters and reinforce Iran’s narrative of external siege,” he said. Scenario 3: Iran regime is replaced by military rule Many experts think that this is the most likely possible scenario. While the Iran regime is clearly unpopular with many, and each successive wave of protests over the years weakens it further, there remains a huge and pervasive security deep state with a vested interest in the status quo. The main reasons why the protests have so far failed to overthrow the Iran regime is because there have been no significant defections to their side, while those in control are prepared to use unlimited force and brutality to remain in power. At present, there is no credible alternative pathway to a stable and democratic Iran. Any attempt by the US to impose regime change by force, whether through the dismantling of the regime or the assassination of Khamenei, would almost certainly produce catastrophic outcomes. The most likely scenarios would be a full takeover by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) or a descent into civil war. Iran currently lacks a viable domestic opposition capable of governing the country. At the same time, the exiled opposition, including figures such as Reza Pahlavi, remains fragmented, weak, and organizationally unprepared to assume power. In the confusion of the aftermath of any US strikes it is highly likely that Iran ends up being ruled by a strong, military government composed largely of IRGC figures. One of the most likely scenarios, according to both Atlantic Council experts and BBC analysts, is a shift toward overt military rule. [11] If Iran’s current leadership gets weak but does not collapse, power could move fully into the hands of the IRGC — a force that already dominates Iran’s security network and large parts of its economy. Brodsky at the Atlantic Council said that an IRGC figure like parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf could emerge as a central authority. But rather than bringing reform, such a transition could entrench a more hardline system. Scenario 4: Regime collapses, replaced by chaos This is a very real danger and is one of the major concerns of neighbors like Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The greatest danger now is that President Trump, having amassed powerful military forces close to Iran‘s borders, decides he must act, and a war starts with no clear end-state and with unpredictable and potentially damaging repercussions. Despite its Persian-speaking majority, Iran has a diverse population with at least 40% belonging to different non-Persian ethnic groups, which may play a significant role in the event of a US attack, according to several analysts. Perhaps the gravest risk, experts say, is the collapse of central authority in Iran. BBC analysis highlights the possibility of civil war, ethnic unrest involving Baluchis and Kurds, and a humanitarian crisis in a country of over 90 million people. Atlantic Council analysts warn that regime failure without an organized opposition could produce great instability rather than democracy. Citrinowicz, a former Israeli intelligence official, said that “Iran lacks a credible, organized opposition capable of governing the country.” He added that externally imposed regime change could lead to chaos. While some Western media have pointed out Reza Pahlavi – the son of the ousted Shah of Iran – who had called on protesters to take to the streets against Khamenei’s rule, as a possible alternative, many analysts don’t see in him the ingredients of a true leader. Many people see Pahlavi as a figure too close to Israel’s Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “Reza Pahlavi, even himself, is not looking forward to coming back to Iran,” says Fatemeh Karimkhan, an Iranian journalist. Karimkhan says that while there are some pro-monarchy supporters in Iran, they are not as many as projected. Karimkhan claims that “they are much less in number and in ability.” Scenario 5: Iran retaliates by attacking US forces and neighbors using missiles and drones Iran has vowed to retaliate against any US attack, saying that “its finger is on the trigger.” Specifically, on February 1, 2026, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei warned the US that any attack on his country would result in a “regional war” as President Donald Trump has amassed US military assets in the Middle East. Iran is clearly no match for the might of the US Navy and Air Force but it could still lash out with its arsenal of ballistic missiles and drones, many concealed in caves, underground or in remote mountainsides. During the 12-day war in June 2025, Israel hit Iran’s military infrastructure, including missile-production centers. Israel struck sites around Tehran, including the Parchin military complex, the Khojir military base, the Shahrud missile site, and a factory in the Shamsabad Industrial Zone. The strikes took aim at Iran’s production of medium-range ballistic missiles that have threatened Israel and are “fairly potent,” said Sascha Bruchmann, a military analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. [13] Even then, Iran was still capable of firing hundreds of ballistic missiles at Israel. Dozens of the missiles, aimed mostly at military sites, penetrated Israel’s formidable air defenses. Israel estimated that Iran had 1,000–1,500 missiles remaining after the 12-day war in June 2025, down from 2,500 held previously. But by the end of 2025, it assessed that Iran was rebuilding its inventory. As a result, Figure 3 shows, Iran “still has a large arsenal of short and medium range missiles that can easily hit US military bases in the Middle East, as well as cruise missiles and drones that it would likely use to target US ships,” said Michael Horowitz, an Israeli independent defense expert. [14] Figure 3: Iran’s ballistic missiles (source: IISS) Many of the medium-range ballistic missiles are “liquid-fueled and rely on infrastructure to be loaded, fueled, and launched,” said Bruchmann. Iran also possesses short-range ballistic missiles that are “often solid-fueled, much more flexible, and thus more difficult to detect before launch,” added Bruchmann, estimating that Iran has several thousand of the missiles. [15] Bruchmann said the short-range missiles “constitute a real threat, particularly for the smaller Gulf countries” like Bahrain and Qatar that house US bases and forces. There are US military bases and facilities dotted along the Arabian side of the Gulf, notably in Bahrain and Qatar. As Figure 4 shows, almost all US bases in the region fall within the range of Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities. But Iran could also, if it chose, target the critical infrastructures of any nation it considered was complicit in a US attack, such as Jordan or Israel. Moreover, Iran has had large-scale production of cheap short-range armed drones over the past decade. These drones have already been used to exert chilling effects in Ukraine by Russia. They are easily hidden and their manufacture can be readily dispersed into numerous small factories. Iran’s Shahed suicide drone, for example, has proved to be a destructive tool in Russia’s war in Ukraine. While few have the range to cause serious damage to Israel, many drones are well within range of plenty of US military forces, including its largest air base in the region, in Qatar, and the headquarters of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. Iran has prepared many drones after the US attack in June 2025. Iran’s Army Chief, General Amir Hatami, said Iran changed its military strategy after the 12-day conflict in June 2025. As part of this shift, Iran has prepared a large number of drones. Recently the IRGC received a batch of 1,000 new drones while Iran has prepared for a military confrontation with the US. [16] General Amir Hatami said these drones can be launched from both land and sea. The devastating missile and drone attack on Saudi Aramco’s petrochemical facilities in 2019, attributed to an Iranian-backed militia in Iraq, showed the Saudis just how vulnerable they were to Iranian missiles. Figure 4: Selected Iranian aerial weapons to target the middle East region (source: Center for Strategic and International Studies) Iran’s Gulf neighbors, all US allies, are understandably extremely jittery right now that any US military strike on Iran is going to end up rebounding on them. This is because Iran could use its arsenal of ballistic missiles and drones to hit infrastructures in Middle East countries it sees as complicit. Scenario 6: Iran retaliates by laying mines in the Gulf or closing the Strait of Hormuz Iran could disrupt global energy flows by laying sea mines in the Gulf or closing the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping route through which around a fifth of the world’s oil and gas exports pass, as Figure 5 shows. Laying mines in the Gulf has long loomed as a potential threat to global shipping and oil supplies ever since the Iran-Iraq war when Iran mined the shipping lanes in the Gulf. The narrow Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Oman is a critical chokepoint. Approximately 20% of the world‘s Liquified Natural Gas exports and between 20-25% of oil and oil byproducts pass through this strait each year. Iran has conducted military exercises in rapidly deploying sea mines. If it did so, then it would inevitably impact on world trade and oil prices. Figure 5: Iran may lay sea mines inside the Strait of Hormuz (source: BBC) Iran, one of the world’s biggest energy producers, sits on the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway. The Iran regime has threatened to close it if it is attacked — a prospect that experts warn could send fuel prices soaring far beyond Iran’s borders and trigger a global economic recession. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s very important shipping chokepoints connecting the oil-rich Persian Gulf to the rest of the world. Approximately 20% of global production flows through the waterway. Iran controls its northern side. Figure 6: The Strait of Hormuz (source: US Energy Information Administration) Experts say that targeting the global economy through the Strait of Hormuz may be one of Iran’s most effective options. However, it is also the most dangerous because of its widespread impact. A prolonged closure of the Strait would represent a “dangerous scenario,” said Umud Shokri, a senior fellow at George Mason University. “Even partial disruptions could drive sharp price spikes, disrupt supply chains and amplify inflation globally. In such a scenario, a global recession could be a realistic risk.” [17] Such an aggressive move would likely be a last resort for Iran, because it would severely disrupt its own trade and that of neighboring Arab states, many of which have lobbied President Trump against attacking Iran and pledged not to allow US access to their territory for an assault on Iran. The Iranian regime says that it has naval bases deep underground across the country’s coast with dozens of fast attack boats ready to deploy across Persian Gulf waters. The Iranian military has spent three decades building its own fleet of ships and submarines with production ramped up over the past years in anticipation of possible naval showdown. Retired Vice Adm. Robert Harward, a former deputy commander of US Central Command, said that Iranian naval capabilities and proxies present a challenge for shipping in the Strait of Hormuz that “can be addressed very quickly.” However, he said “asymmetric” tools such as drones and other tactics could prove challenging for shipping and oil flow. [18] Iran’s ability to disrupt global shipping and shock the global economy has historical precedent. In 2019, several oil tankers were hit in the Gulf of Oman during heightened tensions between Iran and Arab nations of the Persian Gulf following President Trump’s withdrawal from a nuclear agreement with Iran. Iran was widely believed to have been responsible. More recently, during the Israel-Hamas war, the Houthis disrupted commercial shipping at the Bab al-Mandab Strait in the Red Sea, through which approximately 10% of the world’s seaborne trade passes. Together with Iran’s ability to threaten traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, Iran wields outsize power to inflict global economic pain. The Houthi group in Yemen has been targeted by both Israel and the US, but it remains one of Iran’s most strong and destructive surrogates, and it has also indicated that it will defend Iran, its patron. Last weekend, the Houthis released a video showing images of a ship engulfed in flames, accompanied by the simple caption, “Soon.” With Iranian support over the past few years, the Houthi group has struck Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel, as well as US ships in the Red Sea. Scenario 7: Iran retaliates, sinking a US warship A US Navy Captain onboard a warship in the Gulf claimed that one of the threats from Iran he worries about most is a “swarm attack.” [19] This is where Iran launches so many high explosive drones and fast torpedo boats at a single or multiple targets that even the US Navy’s formidable close-in defenses are not able to eliminate all of them in time. The IRGC Navy has long replaced the conventional Iranian Navy in the Gulf, some of whose commanders were trained at Dartmouth during the time of the Shah. Iran’s naval crews have focused much of their training on unconventional or “asymmetric” warfare, looking at ways to overcome or bypass the technical advantages enjoyed by their main adversary, the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet. As Figure 7 shows, the sinking of a US warship near Iran, accompanied by the possible capture of survivors among its crew, would be a massive humiliation for the US. Figure 7: US warships near Iran (source: TRTWorld) While this scenario is unlikely, the billion-dollar destroyer the USS Cole was crippled by an Al-Qaeda suicide attack in Aden harbor in 2000, killing 17 US sailors. [20] Before that, in 1987 an Iraqi jet pilot fired two Exocet missiles at a US warship, the USS Stark, killing 37 sailors. While considered unlikely, analysts warn that Iran has trained extensively for “swarm attacks” using drones and fast boats designed to overwhelm US naval defenses. A successful strike on a US warship would represent a major escalation and a symbolic blow to US military dominance in the region. IV. Conclusion This paper raised a question, “What would happen if the US carried out military attacks on Iran?” amidst escalating tensions between Iran and the US. To address this question, this paper first examined the US military presence in the Middle East, which is intended to attack Iran. It then analyzed seven scenarios that could arise if the US conducts military attacks on Iran and evaluated the feasibility of each scenario. The most likely scenarios currently are Scenario 3 (Iran’s regime transition to military rule), Scenario 4 (Iran’s regime collapses and chaos ensues), and Scenario 5 (Iran retaliates with missiles and drones against the US military and US allies in the Middle East). Referencias [1] Barin, Mohsen (31 December 2025). "Iran's economic crisis, political discontent threaten regime". DW News. [2] https://www.timesofisrael.com/irans-president-warns-us-attack-on-supreme-leader-would- mean-full-scale-war/ [3] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/17/trump-to-politico-its-time-to-look-for-new-lead ership-in-iran-00735528?_kx=LSFywwe4GSg_lcFWo5DyId8VKdphy2F0zhlZVneJnA97jKgVYFyty4cB80GJkTHR.U5D8ER&utm_id=01KF7GKF35MAAW8BRA143VFM9M&utm_medium=cam2paign&utm_source=Klaviyo [4] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-massive-armada-heading-iran-warns-time-running /story?id=129635685 [5] https://www.itamilradar.com/2026/02/02/usaf-e-11a-heads-back-to-the-united-states-as-a -second-bacn-aircraft-reinforces-the-gulf/ [6] It had conducted several days of training exercises across the Middle East to demonstrate its “ability to deploy, distribute, and sustain combat power.” [7] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3kenge1k9o [8] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3kenge1k9o [9] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3kenge1k9o [10] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/trump-iran-us-strikes-war-regim e-change-nuclear-b2909957.html [11] https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/if-the-us-strikes-iran-what-could-happen-next-experts -warn-of-chaos-and-escalation-1.500424901 [12] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3kenge1k9o [13] https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-us-israel-strikes-war/33662293.html [14] https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-us-israel-strikes-war/33662293.html [15] https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-us-israel-strikes-war/33662293.html [16] https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-884948 [17] https://caspianpost.com/analytics/if-u-s-strikes-iran-possible-scenarios-and-regional-fall out [18] https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/29/middleeast/iran-response-options-trump-intl [19] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3kenge1k9o [20] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3kenge1k9o

In the bilateral relationship between the United States and Mexico, the word “security” functions as a hinge: it can open doors to cooperation or abruptly shut down any attempt at understanding. The busiest border in the world, a deeply integrated economy, and a public health crisis in the United States associated with fentanyl consumption have, in recent years, shaped a scenario in which interests converge, but where historical mistrust, structural asymmetries, and unilateral temptations also accumulate. Although latent tension between the two countries has long existed, it was not until early January 2026 — specifically after the capture of Maduro by the United States — that this tension became more visible. In Mexico, concern grew over signals and U.S. military “movements” — real, perceived, or amplified by the media — which were interpreted not so much as immediate preparations for a U.S. intervention, but rather as political messages in a context in which political discourse in Washington once again flirts with a high-voltage idea: the possibility of sending troops, carrying out incursions, or executing armed actions on Mexican territory to combat Mexican drug trafficking cartels — recently classified as terrorist organizations in the United States. Many analysts share the view that the relevance of these episodes lies not solely in their operational dimension, but in their symbolic value within a broader strategy of diplomatic pressure. Three currents fueling interventionist temptation The idea of a U.S. intervention in Mexico has not emerged out of nowhere; in fact, it could be said that there are three simultaneous currents that feed this idea. The first is domestic, inherent to the internal situation of the United States. The fentanyl crisis has become one of the country’s main public health problems, with tens of thousands of deaths annually. This crisis has been used and translated by broad political sectors into a narrative of an external threat. Within this framework, Mexican cartels are portrayed as transnational actors comparable to terrorist organizations, which enables — at least discursively — the use of exceptional tools against them. Moreover, as several analyses published in U.S. media and echoed by the Mexican press point out, this narrative has a clear electoral utility, in which there is pressure to offer “visible” — or tangible — solutions with immediate impact, even when their strategic costs are high. All of this occurs within the context of the fight against drug trafficking. The second current is the Mexican reality. The persistence of high levels of violence and corruption within the institutional apparatus, the fragmentation of territorial control, and the uneven penetration of criminal networks at the local level feed the perception in Washington that Mexico is not doing “enough.” Mexican security policy has oscillated between attempts at territorial control, containment strategies, and the management of a chronic conflict that neither fully resolves nor fully escalates. From the outside, this ambiguity is often interpreted as incapacity or lack of will; from within, on the other hand, it is seen as a pragmatic adaptation to a long-term structural problem. The third current is historical and symbolic. For Mexico, any mention of a U.S. military intervention recalls records of past grievances such as the territorial loss of half of its territory in the nineteenth century, occupations, diplomatic pressures, and episodes of subordination. Therefore, even when bilateral cooperation is intense — and it is — the political margin to formalize or accept a foreign military presence on Mexican territory is virtually nonexistent. Analysts from the Mexican Council and CESPEM remind us and emphasize that the principle of non-intervention is not merely a doctrinal element of Mexican foreign policy, but a pillar of internal legitimacy. The real architecture of cooperation Despite media noise and the dramatization of the public debate, security cooperation between Mexico and the United States is broad, constant, and deeply integrated. For decades, both countries have collaborated in intelligence sharing, border control, judicial actions, the fight against money laundering, and operations against criminal networks, with mixed results. However, the format has recently changed: today, technical and discreet mechanisms are prioritized over large public plans. At the same time, intelligence sharing and operational cooperation are emphasized under clearly defined red lines regarding sovereignty. Even so, this architecture contains a central paradox. The more integrated the cooperation becomes, the more politically fragile it is, as it depends on trust between governments and on the ability of both to justify it before their increasingly polarized domestic audiences. This is why in Mexico, any perception of subordination can erode the government’s legitimacy; while in the United States, any sign of “softness” toward the cartels can turn into electoral ammunition. In January 2026, this dynamic became clearly evident with the transfer of 37 individuals linked to criminal organizations from Mexico to the United States, in a context in which more than 90 handovers had already been recorded in less than a year. Beyond its judicial impact, the gesture — although it had a clear political dimension, aimed at showing tangible “results” to reduce pressure from Washington and deactivate the temptation of unilateral actions — is fundamentally symbolic and masks a deeper dilemma for the Mexican government. From the Mexican perspective, the signal is ambivalent. On the one hand, it seeks to demonstrate that the state retains the capacity to act and can strike criminal structures without accepting foreign military tutelage. On the other hand, it implicitly acknowledges that the bilateral relationship operates under a regime of permanent evaluation, in which U.S. perceptions of Mexican effectiveness condition the level of political pressure and rhetoric. In other words, it is a form of conditional subordination. In the United States, by contrast, these gestures continue to be perceived as insufficient by influential political sectors. The reason is that the problem is measured through indicators that cannot be resolved through mass extraditions: the availability of synthetic drugs, overdose deaths, the industrial capacity of clandestine laboratories, territorial control of routes, or the flow of weapons to the south, among others. Given the influence of these sectors and the impact of the phenomenon on U.S. territory, the issue is often used as a domestic electoral weapon, frequently highlighting “visible” solutions — troops, drones, incursions — without considering their strategic costs. Drug trafficking, politics, and institutional corrosion Speaking about the involvement of drug trafficking in the Mexican state requires analytical precision. It is not a matter of a homogeneous capture of the “government” as a whole, but rather of a fragmented and layered phenomenon. What numerous reports and investigations have documented and repeatedly pointed out is a mosaic of local co-optations with consequences at the national and even international level: infiltrated municipal police forces, regional authorities pressured or bought off, clientelist networks financed with illicit resources, and, in high-impact cases, links to political actors that end up becoming sources of bilateral friction, among many other examples. At this stage of the relationship with the United States, the most explosive political issue is not only the existence of corruption, but the political use of that corruption as a lever of pressure. From Washington, it has been suggested that Mexico should go beyond operational arrests and target political figures with alleged ties to organized crime, even within the governing party — MORENA. However, for the Mexican administration, such a step would entail an extremely high internal cost and the risk of political destabilization, in addition to a potential contradiction of MORENA’s narrative legitimacy regarding its promises of honesty and transparency, which it has strongly defended since coming to power. Here lies one of the core dilemmas. When drug trafficking “invests” in politics, it does not seek only impunity; it seeks governance. Controlling strategic nodes — customs offices, ports, local prosecutors’ offices, police forces, mayoralties — makes it possible to manage violence in ways that are functional to the criminal business. In that context, cooperation with the United States becomes a double-edged sword. While it can contribute to dismantling criminal networks, it can also amplify the narrative of a “failed state,” either through the imposition of external agendas or through the exposure of institutional weaknesses. In turn, this perception, rooted in certain U.S. political sectors, often translates into the promotion of coercive responses or approaches. Figure 1: Mexico cartel map 2024. Source: Ioan Grillo. https://www.crashoutmedia.com/p/mexicos-cartel-map-2024 Military noise as diplomatic language Reports of recent, unusual, and amplified U.S. military activity related to Mexico —magnified by regional media and echoed within Mexico — have generated a climate of alarm that goes beyond the immediate plausibility of an intervention. In this environment, what matters is not whether an aircraft, a navigation notice, or a border deployment implies an imminent action, but rather the political message they convey, especially following U.S. military actions in the region and the simultaneous hardening of rhetoric against the cartels. In other words, the demonstration of capability — and the ambiguity surrounding intentions — is being used, or is functioning, as a way to force and extract concessions from Mexico: more cooperation, greater access to intelligence, more measurable results, and greater alignment. From this perspective, the pressure does not necessarily seek to cross the red line of intervention, but rather to come close enough to extract concessions. Consequently, the Mexican response has been repetitive and carefully calibrated: “cooperation yes, subordination no.” This framing, present in official statements and in analyses by national media, seeks to draw clear boundaries without breaking the relationship. It is a defensive — “negotiating” — strategy that acknowledges the asymmetry of power but attempts to contain it within institutional frameworks. The range of options and their strategic costs When people speak of an “invasion,” the term tends to polarize more than it explains. In the U.S. debate, however, this word is often more rhetorical than descriptive. In practice, the range of options circulating in the media is broad and, at times, dangerous, precisely because it is gradual: 1. Expansion of the presence of advisers and liaisons in command centers. This is what Mexico can accept with greater political ease if it remains under institutional control. 2. Joint operations with direct participation of U.S. forces (for example, accompaniment during raids). According to reports cited by the media, this is something the United States has sought and Mexico has consistently resisted. 3. “Surgical” unilateral actions (for example, drones or the deployment of special forces against laboratories or criminal leaders). This is militarily feasible but politically devastating. 4. Sustained intervention (what the public imagination calls an “invasion”). It is extremely costly and also difficult to justify legally and politically at present. Moreover, it would trigger a major bilateral crisis. From the above, the greatest strategic risk lies in the intermediate options. “Limited” incursions may appear efficient from Washington’s perspective, but in Mexico they would be interpreted as a direct violation of sovereignty, with effects ranging from nationalist cohesion to the rupture of bilateral cooperation and even incentives for criminal groups to present themselves as defenders of the territory. In such a scenario, a unilateral action by Washington could lead Mexico to restrict intelligence sharing, close operational channels, and turn the issue into a permanent dispute — precisely at a time when coordination is indispensable to strike at the logistical chains of drug trafficking. Sheinbaum’s position: sovereignty and calculated concessions President Claudia Sheinbaum has been clear in her repeated rejection of the entry of U.S. troops into Mexico. This stance appears time and again in reports and media coverage that emphasizes opposition to any intervention while supporting cooperation. Moreover, this position responds both to historical convictions and to calculations of internal stability. As previously mentioned, accepting a foreign military presence would entail a high political cost. At the same time, her government has sought to shield the bilateral relationship through visible actions: extraditions, seizures, port controls, and a discourse focused on results. Some media outlets, such as El País, report that Sheinbaum has defended these advances and insisted on “mutual respect and shared responsibility,” reminding that the United States must also address its domestic consumption and the trafficking of weapons from the United States. That last point — the trafficking of weapons — is crucial, as the U.S. firearms market fuels the firepower of cartels in Mexico. For Mexico, insisting on “shared responsibility” is not merely rhetoric or a moral argument; it is an attempt to rebalance the narrative and prevent the problem from being defined exclusively as an external threat originating in Mexico. Figure 2: Opioid-related and other drug poisoning deaths per 100,000 people in the USA. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics via CDC Wonder Database. https://statehealthcompare.shadac.org/trend/197/opioidrelated-and-other-drug-poisoning-deaths-per-100000-people-by-drug-type#32/1/162,163,127,125,126,129,128/21,19,20,9,10,11,12,13,14,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,15,24,25,27,32,37,42,76/233 Figure 3: Illegal arms trafficking from US to Mexico The Trump factor and the U.S. political limit In discourse attributed to Trump and his inner circle, Mexico frequently appears as a space where the state is “dominated” by cartels and, therefore, where exceptional action would be justified. This framing appears both in press coverage and in political debate in the United States. However, even within the U.S., there are warnings about the “disaster” that bombing or intervening in Mexico would entail — not only because of the human impact, but also due to the geopolitical consequences of opening a conflict with a key trading partner and a neighbor with whom borders, migration, supply chains, and regional security are shared. Moreover, a military operation in Mexico is not comparable to an “overseas” action. Proximity means that any escalation would have immediate repercussions: border tensions, commercial disruption, migration waves, political radicalization in both countries, and incentives for criminal groups to respond with spectacular violence or low-intensity terrorism, precisely in an effort to break bilateral cooperation. Conclusion The United States and Mexico share a structural crisis — synthetic drugs, violence, weapons, migration — but they do not share the same narrative to explain it, nor the same tools to resolve it. Washington tends to frame it as an external threat requiring immediate action; Mexico, by contrast, tends to view it as an internal problem with a binational dimension that calls for cooperation without intervention. As long as these narratives remain unreconciled, the security relationship will continue to be tense, marked by cooperation and distrust at the same time. In 2026, the ghost of deploying troops to Mexico is not merely a military scenario: it is a negotiating tool, an identity symbol, and a test of political strength. The least costly path is not spectacular, but it is the only sustainable one: deep cooperation with clear limits, shared responsibility (drugs, weapons, money), institutional strengthening, and verifiable results that allow both governments to tell their societies they are acting without crossing lines that, once broken, could turn the border into a battlefield. It is also important to remember that drug trafficking is not a conventional army; it is an adaptive criminal economy. Striking one node can fragment and disperse violence. In Mexico, this dynamic has already been observed: the decapitation of leadership can generate succession wars and multiply victims, which is why strategy, risks, and strategic costs must be carefully considered. Ultimately, what is at stake is not only security, but legitimacy: who defines the problem, who imposes the solution, and who bears the political and human costs of carrying it out. Until that dispute is resolved, the bilateral relationship will remain a taut rope, stretched between mutual necessity and historical fear. Finally, an additional element that also weighs on the Mexico–United States relationship is the economic dimension, specifically the future of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). Its 2026 review has generated political and commercial uncertainty that intertwines with the security agenda, as U.S. pressure is not limited to drug trafficking but also extends to trade and regulatory compliance issues. This could affect Mexico’s economic stability and, consequently, its capacity to respond to the security crisis. The USMCA juncture comes precisely at a moment when bilateral relations — from trade to security cooperation — are under strain. Although a total rupture is unlikely due to deep regional interdependence, the agreement could remain in a limited or “zombie” state, with more frequent reviews and no significant renewals. In this context, defending agreements such as the USMCA becomes a strategic tool for Mexico, allowing it to balance sovereignty, cooperation, and pragmatism in the face of external pressure. References ABC7 Los Angeles. (20 de January de 2026). Crece inquietud en México ante movimientos militares de Estados Unidos. Obtenido de ABC7 Los Angeles: https://abc7.com/post/crece-inquietud-en-mexico-ante-movimientos-militares-de-estados-unidos/18433593/?utm_source=chatgpt.com Canchola Raygoza, D. L. (31 de Octubre de 2025). De AMLO a Sheinbaum: los desafíos que impone el fentanilo a la política exterior. Obtenido de CESPEM: https://www.cespem.mx/index.php/component/content/article/sheinbaum-desafios-fentanilo-pol-ext?catid=9&Itemid=101 Carbajal, F. (16 de Enero de 2026). Desafíos actuales de la Seguridad Nacional en México. Obtenido de E Sol de México (OEM): https://oem.com.mx/elsoldemexico/analisis/desafios-actuales-de-la-seguridad-nacional-en-mexico-27693374?ref=consejomexicano.org Carreño Figueras, J. (13 de Enero de 2026). ¿Intervención? Posible, pero no probable II. Obtenido de El Heraldo de México: https://heraldodemexico.com.mx/opinion/2026/1/13/intervencion-posible-pero-no-probable-ii-758570.html?ref=consejomexicano.org Carreño Figueras, J. (16 de Enero de 2026). EU-México: La presión como diplomacia. Obtenido de El Heraldo de México: https://heraldodemexico.com.mx/opinion/2026/1/16/eu-mexico-la-presion-como-diplomacia-759598.html?ref=consejomexicano.org Carreño Figueras, J. (19 de Enero de 2026). EU-México: un momento preocupante. Obtenido de El Heraldo de México: https://heraldodemexico.com.mx/opinion/2026/1/19/eu-mexico-un-momento-preocupante-760093.html?ref=consejomexicano.org Cázares Luquín, V. (12 de Diciembre de 2025). De la defensa a la acción: México y la reinterpretación del principio de no intervención. Obtenido de CESPEM: https://www.cespem.mx/index.php/component/content/article/de-la-defensa-a-la-accion-principio-de-no-intervencion?catid=9&Itemid=101 Contreras, A. (21 de Enero de 2026). Avión militar de EUA llega a Toluca. ¿Cooperación o alerta? Obtenido de COMEXI: https://www.consejomexicano.org/avion-militar-de-eua-llega-a-toluca-cooperacion-o-alerta/ Corona, S. (24 de Enero de 2026). Sheinbaum marca límites ante amenazas de Trump sobre acciones contra el narco; "México negocia con EU, pero no se subordina". Obtenido de El Universal: https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/sheinbaum-marca-limites-ante-amenazas-de-trump-sobre-acciones-contra-el-narco-mexico-negocia-con-eu-pero-no-se-subordina/?utm_source=chatgpt.com Díaz Santana, A. S. (23 de January de 2026). Intervención militar de EE. UU. en México: la duda ahora es cuándo y cómo se producirá. Obtenido de The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/intervencion-militar-de-ee-uu-en-mexico-la-duda-ahora-es-cuando-y-como-se-producira-274088 Drusila Castro, L. (20 de Enero de 2026). México, ante las amenazas de Trump: “Donde pisa el ejército estadounidense no llega la paz”. Obtenido de El Salto: https://www.elsaltodiario.com/estados-unidos/donde-pisa-ejercito-estadounidense-no-llega-paz El Economista. (23 de Enero de 2026). Intervención militar de EU en México: La duda ahora es cuándo y cómo se producirá. Obtenido de yahoo! noticias: https://es-us.noticias.yahoo.com/intervenci%C3%B3n-militar-eu-m%C3%A9xico-duda-125025443.html Flores Delgado, I. (15 de Junio de 2025). Diplomacia en tiempos de incertidumbre: la política exterior de México frente a la imprevisibilidad del gobierno de Donald Trump. Obtenido de CESPEM: https://www.cespem.mx/index.php/component/content/article/diplomacia-tiempos-incertidumbre-pol-ext-mx-imprevisibilidad-trump?catid=9&Itemid=101 France 24. (10 de Enero de 2026). México en la mira de Trump: demócratas alertan de un potencial "desastre" y Sheinbaum llama al diálogo. Obtenido de France 24: https://www.france24.com/es/am%C3%A9rica-latina/20260110-m%C3%A9xico-en-la-mira-de-trump-dem%C3%B3cratas-alertan-un-potencial-desastre-y-sheinbaum-llama-al-di%C3%A1logo Garrido, V. M. (17 de Enero de 2026). Sheinbaum asegura que hay resultados concretos de seguridad ante la presión del Gobierno de Trump. Obtenido de El País: https://elpais.com/mexico/2026-01-16/sheinbaum-asegura-que-hay-resultados-concretos-de-seguridad-ante-la-presion-del-gobierno-de-trump.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com Gil Olmo, J. (22 de Diciembre de 2025). Corrupción, el talón de Aquiles de Morena. Obtenido de Proceso: https://www.proceso.com.mx/opinion/2025/12/22/corrupcion-el-talon-de-aquiles-de-morena-365063.html Graham, T. (21 de January de 2026). Sheinbaum defends transfer of Mexican cartel members amid efforts to appease Trump. Obtenido de The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/21/sheinbaum-mexican-cartel-trump Gutiérrez Velázquez, M. F. (12 de Noviembre de 2025). Geopolítica global y la política exterior de México: entre dependencia y liderazgo regional. Obtenido de CESPEM: https://www.cespem.mx/index.php/component/content/article/entre-dependencia-y-liderazgo-regional?catid=9&Itemid=101 Latinus_us. (26 de Enero de 2026). Mesa de Análisis con Loret: Dresser, Becerra, Silva-Herzog, Córdova y Aguilar Camín. Obtenido de YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfd5MI3PbaM Macías Salgado, D. (17 de Diciembre de 2025). México entre Estados Unidos y América Latina: liderazgo regional en un sistema internacional complejo. Obtenido de CESPEM: https://www.cespem.mx/index.php/component/content/article/mx-liderazgo-regional-en-un-sistema-internacional-complejo?catid=9&Itemid=101 Madhani, A. (5 de May de 2025). Trump blasts Mexico’s Sheinbaum for rejecting offer to send US troops into Mexico to fight cartels. Obtenido de AP: https://apnews.com/article/trump-sheinbaum-mexico-drug-cartels-c2113e74cfc122f8f5a9e162644a470f Noticias DW. (12 de Enero de 2026). EE.UU. y México buscan mayor cooperación contra narcotráfico. Obtenido de DW: https://www.dw.com/es/eeuu-y-m%C3%A9xico-buscan-mayor-cooperaci%C3%B3n-contra-narcotr%C3%A1fico/a-75468890 Olivera Eslava, M. A. (23 de Agosto de 2023). México y Estados Unidos: un frente común contra el Cártel Jalisco Nueva Generación. Obtenido de Centro Mexicano de Relaciones Internacionales: https://cemeri.org/art/a-mexico-estados-unidos-cjng-it Pardo, D. (15 de Enero de 2026). "México es el más fuerte y el más débil ante Trump": la encrucijada de Claudia Sheinbaum tras la intervención de EE.UU. en Venezuela. Obtenido de BBC: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/ce3enj4j8g5o Soriano, R. (21 de Enero de 2026). Trump usa las amenazas a México en seguridad para alardear de su poder ante su electorado. Obtenido de El País: https://elpais.com/mexico/2026-01-21/trump-usa-las-amenazas-a-mexico-en-seguridad-para-alardear-de-su-poder-ante-su-electorado.html The New York Times. (15 de January de 2026). The U.S. Is Pressing Mexico to Allow U.S. Forces to Fight Cartels. Obtenido de The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/world/americas/us-mexico-cartels.html Treader, V. (12 de Enero de 2026). Intervención en México: "Donald Trump está dispuesto a todo". Obtenido de DW: https://www.dw.com/es/intervenci%C3%B3n-en-m%C3%A9xico-donald-trump-est%C3%A1-dispuesto-a-todo/a-75481087 Wagner, J. (20 de Enero de 2026). México responde a la presión de Trump y envía a 37 delincuentes a EE. UU. Obtenido de The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/es/2026/01/20/espanol/america-latina/mexico-envio-37-narco-trump.html

Will the US-Iran ‘peace talks succeed or fail? Given the mix of personalities and national interests involved, we just don’t know. Success would likely be a short-term, mutually face-saving compromise, leaving many major bilateral and regional issues still to be resolved. Failure is likely to lead to a US-initiated war with chaotic outcomes and perhaps no real winners. What does President Donald Trump want? In the short term, he wants a “peace deal” comprising multiple components. While not all details are public, the first and foremost goal is nuclear. Iran must not have the capability to make a nuclear weapon. While some reports suggest the US demands that Iran close down its whole nuclear program, most reporting claims US demands are limited to Iran ceasing the production of and giving up all enriched uranium beyond that needed for its domestic nuclear energy needs. US demands also include Iranian agreement to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections to verify they comply with this commitment. Other demands include limiting the range of all ballistic missiles to some 500 km (compared to some 2000 km at present), the cessation of all hostilities toward both regional countries, and support for other nations or proxies engaged in such hostilities. These terms would put all of Israel out of range and discourage further attacks from Iran on Israel, despite the term “hostilities” being left vague. It is difficult to see Iran agreeing to the former. A deal on the latter might be possible. One formula could be through recognizing Israel’s right to exit (as does the Palestine Authority - PA) and ceasing hostilities and support to proxies in the context of progress towards a two-state solution. Trump’s aim is ‘maximum pressure’, precipitating ‘regime change’— that is, the end of Iran’s conservative mullah-led autocracy and its military guardians, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). This is a longer-term goal, but one he would pursue opportunistically in the short term if circumstances permit, such as in the event of an outbreak of war. Denials and Tricky Negotiations Iran has always denied its intention to develop nuclear weapons; most recently, this week, by the Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi. The international community generally believes Iran knows how to make a nuclear weapon and would do so if it could; however, Iran won’t because it could not hide the process, and external intervention in response could be horrendous. Therefore, Iran is willing to negotiate the nuclear issue. It did so before, as part of negotiations between Iran and the US, resulting in the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 during the presidency of Barack Obama. The difference between Obama and Trump is that Obama understood the subtleties of negotiating with Iran, i.e. build trust through the JCPOA before moving on to missiles and issues of regional hostilities. Trump 1.0 trashed the JCPOA in 2018, remarking it was “the worst deal in history.” Although Iran continued to comply with its conditions for a further 12 months. President Joe Biden dropped the ball on this issue, and Trump 2.0, upon re-election, continued where he left off in 2021. The Iranians are certainly not easy to negotiate with. Relevant “subtilties” include being a proud, fiercely independent, well-educated people who seek to own/control their own resources (e.g., oil) and, to the extent possible, be self-sufficient. They do not like being bullied, and trust is a key part of relationships. They claim Trump has consistently bullied them with his threats and actions, and all trust has long gone, dating back to Trump 1.0. Iranian officials have argued privately that the policies and actions of both Trump 1.0 and Biden, including the heavy economic sanctions, forced Iran into the “axis of evil” for basic survival reasons. They claim they want their independence, and have no particular affinity for the Russians, Chinese and North Koreans. One conclusion from that any negotiations with the US will occur in an atmosphere of tension and distrust. So, who does Iran trust? Violence on the Streets of Tehran: Regime Change and Civil Unrest On the issue of regime change, US (and Israeli) exploitation of last month’s widespread demonstrations throughout Iran was both an opportunity and a challenge. But the regime survived. There are four basic criteria for the successful change of any regime: leadership, the reason for change, the will of the majority of the people, and the support of a significant element of the armed forces and security forces to facilitate and sustain change Discontent with the Iranian government has been evident among different groups in the country for some time. Mostly, this has been political, but this time the driver was economic, driven principally by the hard squeeze of external sanctions, coupled with mismanagement and corruption. The outreach of hardship and dissent was much broader than before. And despite targeted input from outside Iran, the regime did not topple. Demonstrators were strongly suppressed by the government, and Trump’s threat to help demonstrators did not eventuate. Would his military intervention have been the tipping point? We can only guess. But here was no apparent split within the armed or security forces – given their deep involvement in the economy, there were strong self-interest motives not to – and no leadership figure, civilian or military, emerged. Attempts to promote Reza Pahlavi, the Shah’s son, who was deposed in 1979, as a rallying figure, if only temporarily, failed. I doubt he has much appeal in-country due to the heavy suppression and corruption of his father. But the message was loud: there is disaffection, political and especially economic, which could ignite if the fuse is right. What to Expect Will Trump be tempted to use military force to try to facilitate regime change if he doesn’t get his way at the next round of nuclear negotiations, now due to be held in Oman late this week? He has the fleet in place, and comprehensive planning will be well underway, building on lessons learned from the Israeli-US 12-day war last June and recently in Venezuela. The planning focuses on key kinetic and non-kinetic targets, especially those requiring a preemptive strike. Israel will be part of this, with its own targets, which presumably will include key leadership, military and other persons. Iran will have done its planning also around its own lessons learned. Iranian early warning of an attack, even if measured in only minutes, will be critical in determining how quickly events unfold within and outside Iran, and how devastating they are. However, if this does force regime change, who will take over? Without the mullahs and lacking any civilian opposition infrastructure, the military (minus the IRGC?) would have to be the backbone of any new government. Civilian leadership is an unknown, though talented politicians and technocrats exist. Iran could become very fragmented and unstable as it sorts itself out. This article is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.

On 3 January 2026, the US carried out a surprise military operation in Venezuela, capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. The US has made little effort to cloak its operation in either solidarist language, such as appeals to democracy promotion, human rights, or liberal peacebuilding – or in pluralist rhetoric emphasizing the preservation of international order. Instead, Washington has presented the action in largely instrumental and strategic terms, signalling a willingness to sidestep both dominant justificatory traditions within international society. While Maduro and Flores are charged with narco-terrorism conspiracy and cocaine importation conspiracy, international debates focus on the future of Venezuela’s oil (Poque González 2026). On 7 January administration officials said the US plans to effectively assume control over the sale of Venezuela’s oil “indefinitely” (Sherman 2026) and President Donald Trump confirmed that he expected the US to run Venezuela, insisting that the country’s interim government was “giving us everything that we feel is necessary” (Sanger et al. 2026). Attention is fixed not only on Washington’s plans for Venezuela’s oil sector and control over its export revenues, but also on the replies from Moscow and Beijing, Maduro’s chief foreign backers and heavyweight players in energy politics. Consequently, this article asks two questions. First, to what extent does American control of Venezuelan oil threaten China’s and Russia’s energy interests? Second, what does the resulting US–China–Russia triangle imply for how energy security itself is being redefined? A constructivist perspective, recognizes that oil is an idea—valuable not only because it burns but because control over it symbolizes power and authority (Kuteleva 2021). Thus, when the US claims the right to supervise Venezuelan oil revenues, it is not only increasing leverage over barrels, but asserting the authority to define legitimate energy exchange itself. In this context, while the material threat is limited for China and already largely sunk for Russia, the symbolic, institutional and political threat is profound. A straightforward constructivist interpretation of the US–China–Russia triangle centres on status. China had cultivated Venezuela as an “all-weather strategic partnership” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC 2025b) and major debtor, only to watch Maduro captured days after senior Chinese officials visited Caracas (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC 2025a). In constructivist terms, this is an obvious status injury: China appeared present but powerless. China’s energy diplomacy had functioned as proof of its global influence, and the nullification of China’s energy ties with Venezuela by US force undermines China’s narrative as a protective patron for the Global South. Beijing accused Washington of “hegemonic thinking” (Liu and Chen 2026), “bullying” (Global Times 2026a), and violating Venezuelan sovereignty and “the rights of the Venezuelan people” (Global Times 2026b). This strong pluralist language is not incidental—it is a bid to reclaim moral authority and redefine the event as norm-breaking rather than capability-revealing. Similarly, Russia’s involvement in Venezuela was never purely economic. Moscow saw the alliance with Venezuela as a way to advance its anti-American agenda and to signal that it could cultivate allies in Washington’s traditional backyard (Boersner Herrera and Haluani 2023; Gratius 2022; Herbst and Marczak 2019). It used Venezuela as leverage against the US, subsidised the regime during periods of domestic recession, and framed support as proof of great-power reliability. As senior Russian executives put it, “economic considerations took a back seat to political goals of taking swipes at the US” (Seddon and Stognei 2026). US control of Venezuelan oil thus removes a symbolic platform on which Russia enacted its identity as an energy superpower and geopolitical spoiler. While Russia continues loud sovereignty talk, its demonstrated incapacity to protect partners pushes it toward opportunistic bargaining (“concert” deals, see Lemke 2023) rather than overt defense of UN-pluralist restraint. As such, Dmitry Medvedev (2026) bluntly claimed that the US special military operation in Venezuela all but justifies Russia’s own actions in Ukraine. Venezuela is not a core supplier for China in volumetric terms. In 2025, Venezuelan exports to China averaged roughly 395,000 barrels per day—about 4% of China’s seaborne crude imports, according to Kpler data cited by the FT (Leahy and Moore 2026). China has diversified routes, strategic reserves covering at least 96 days of imports, and strong purchasing power in global markets (Downs 2025). Hence, from a narrow supply perspective, the loss of Venezuelan oil is manageable. That said, around one-fifth of China’s crude imports come from suppliers under US or western sanctions, primarily Iran, Venezuela and Russia, much of it disguised via transshipment near Malaysia (Downs 2025). Independent “teapot” refiners (Downs 2017)—who account for about a quarter of China’s refining capacity—are structurally dependent on this discounted, politically risky oil. Consequently, Trump’s seizure of Maduro alarmed China not mainly because of Venezuela itself, but because it demonstrated Washington’s capacity to escalate from sanctions to physical control of an energy sector, and thus potentially to Iran. Here, constructivism reveals the problem: “sanctioned oil” is not simply cheaper crude; it is a political category—oil marked as illegitimate by a dominant legal-financial order. The US move signals that this stigma can be converted into coercive authority, turning commercial vulnerability into geopolitical dependence. This reclassification transforms Chinese domestic actors into security subjects. “Teapot” refiners are no longer just businesses; they become strategic vulnerabilities whose survival depends on US tolerance. Analysis warn that a cutoff of Iranian oil could force many to shut down entirely (Leahy and Moore 2026). In this context, US control of Venezuelan oil reshapes Chinese energy security discourse from one of diversification and market access to one of hierarchy and exposure to political permission. Russia’s oil interests in Venezuela were largely written down years earlier. In 2020, Rosneft had sold most formal assets after pouring around $800m into loans and projects that produced little return (The Economist 2020). Much of the remaining exposure consisted of debts and shadow ownership arrangements. More important is the damage to Russia’s sanctions-evasion architecture. Russia had become the leading marketer of Venezuelan oil by trading crude as debt repayment and using banks partly owned by sanctioned Russian institutions, creating what the 2019 Atlantic Council report described as “a counter financial system to the one dominated by the West” (Herbst and Marczak 2019). The recent reporting on the US tracking a tanker linked to Venezuela, Russia and Iran illustrates how this counter-order is being contested operationally (Sheppard et al. 2026). The vessel sailed under false flags, was sanctioned for carrying Iranian oil, later re-registered under Russian jurisdiction, and became vulnerable to boarding under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea because it was “without nationality.” Such episodes show that energy security is increasingly constituted by maritime law, insurance rules, and surveillance practices. US control over Venezuelan oil expands this regime of enforcement, making Russia’s informal trading networks less viable. A constructivist approach suggests that American control of Venezuelan oil is best understood not as a supply shock, but as an act of social stratification in the international system. Energy markets have always been hierarchical, but the hierarchy was largely implicit: reserve currencies, shipping insurance, futures exchanges, and contract law already privileged Western institutions. What is new is the explicit performance of hierarchy—the public demonstration that a great power can redefine ownership, legality, and access through coercion and administrative authority. This produces a stratified energy order: First, rule-makers – states whose legal systems, sanctions regimes, and corporate actors define what counts as legitimate oil (primarily the US and its allies). Second, rule-takers – states whose energy security depends on access to these institutions (most importers). And third, rule-evaders – states forced into informal networks (Russia, Iran, Venezuela) whose energy becomes socially “tainted.” China occupies an unstable middle category: economically powerful but institutionally dependent. Venezuela’s takeover publicly signals that material power is insufficient without normative control over legality. Referencias Boersner Herrera, Adriana, and Makram Haluani. 2023. ‘Domestic and International Factors of the Contemporary Russo–Venezuelan Bilateral Relationship’. Latin American Policy 14 (3): 366–87. Downs, Erica. 2017. The Rise of China’s Independent Refineries. Geopolitics. Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, School of International and Public Affairs. https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/rise-chinas-independent-refineries/. Downs, Erica. 2025. China’s Oil Demand, Imports and Supply Security. Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, School of International and Public Affairs. https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/chinas-oil-demand-imports-and-supply-security/. Global Times. 2026a. ‘China Condemns US Demands for Venezuela to Partner Exclusively on Oil Production as “Bullying,” Breaches of Intl Law: FM – Global Times’. Global Times, January 7. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202601/1352547.shtml. Global Times. 2026b. ‘China’s Legitimate Rights and Interests in Venezuela Must Be Safeguarded, Chinese FM Responds to Claim about US to Sell Venezuelan Sanctioned Oil – Global Times’. Global Times, January 7. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202601/1352555.shtml. Gratius, Susanne. 2022. ‘The West against the Rest? Democracy versus Autocracy Promotion in Venezuela’. Bulletin of Latin American Research 41 (1): 141–58. Herbst, John E., and Jason Marczak. 2019. Russia’s Intervention in Venezuela: What’s at Stake? Policy Brief. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/russias-intervention-in-venezuela-whats-at-stake/. Kuteleva, Anna. 2021. China’s Energy Security and Relations with Petrostates: Oil as an Idea. Routledge. Leahy, Joe, and Malcolm Moore. 2026. ‘Donald Trump’s Venezuela Action Raises Threat for China’s Oil Supplies’. Oil. Financial Times, January 8. https://www.ft.com/content/f64826fa-5c36-4fb3-8621-ee0b9d9a1ff5. Lemke, Tobias. 2023. ‘International Relations and the 19th Century Concert System’. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. Liu, Xin, and Qingqing Chen. 2026. ‘US Reportedly Sets Demands for Venezuela to Pump More Oil; Experts Say “Anti-Drug” Claims a Pretext, Exposing Neo-Colonialism – Global Times’. The Global Times, January 7. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202601/1352544.shtml. Medvedev, Dmitry. 2026. ‘Год начался бурно’. Telegram, January 9. https://t.me/medvedev_telegram/626. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC. 2025a. ‘Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian’s Regular Press Conference on January 5, 2026’. January 5. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/fyrbt/202601/t20260105_11806736.html. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC. 2025b. ‘Xi Jinping Meets with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro Moros’. May 10. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/zyxw/202505/t20250513_11619919.html. Poque González, Axel Bastián. 2026. ‘Energy Security and the Revival of US Hard Power in Latin America’. E-International Relations, January 12. https://www.e-ir.info/2026/01/12/energy-security-and-the-revival-of-us-hard-power-in-latin-america/. Sanger, David E., Tyler Pager, Karie Rogers, and Zolan Kanno-Youngs. 2026. ‘Trump Says U.S. Oversight of Venezuela Could Last for Years’. U.S. The New York Times, January 8. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/trump-interview-venezuela.html. Seddon, Max, and Anastasia Stognei. 2026. ‘How Russia’s Venezuelan Oil Gambit Went Awry’. Venezuela. Financial Times, January 9. https://www.ft.com/content/e09a6030-325f-4be5-ace3-4d70121071cb. Sheppard, David, Chris Cook, and Jude Webber. 2026. ‘US Tracking Oil Tanker off UK Coast Linked to Venezuela, Russia and Iran’. Shipping. Financial Times, January 6. https://www.ft.com/content/a699169a-983a-4472-ab23-54bceb9dd2bd. The Economist. 2020. ‘Why Putin’s Favourite Oil Firm Dumped Its Venezuelan Assets’. The Economist, April 2. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/04/02/why-putins-favourite-oil-firm-dumped-its-venezuelan-assets.

Show strength, challenge traditions, put America’s interests — and its own — at the center: the first year of President Trump’s second term was a whirlwind of national and international change. In foreign policy in particular, he profoundly reshaped the role of the United States — and called the existing order into question. Opinion polls In recent years, it has become increasingly difficult for U.S. presidents to convince large majorities of Americans of their policies and to achieve high approval ratings. The situation is no different for President Trump: his approval ratings were last positive in March of last year. Since then, Trump has become increasingly unpopular. RealClearPolitics aggregates various polls and now sees a disapproval rate for Trump of almost 56 percent. [1] Only on the issue of border security does approval remain positive; for all other issues such as immigration, security, foreign policy, or the economy, disapproval is rising.[2] Inflation, healthcare, and jobs are the most important issues for the Americans surveyed, for which a majority now sees the competence with the opposing Democrats. Even Trump’s Republicans are rather dissatisfied with the president’s economic policies: according to an AP poll, only 16 percent of Republicans think he has done much to reduce the cost of living. In general, however, they still support Trump: eight out of ten Republicans surveyed give him a good rating. [3] Domestic Policy “Move fast and break things” – is the mantra of the Silicon Valley, that the Christian Science Monitor uses to describe the past year of the president. Trump made a lightning start: “He expanded the boundaries of presidential power and, in his first year after returning, issued more executive orders than in his entire first term. He bypassed Congress, challenged the courts, invaded Venezuela and arrested its head of state, took revenge on his supposed opponents, and redecorated the White House with gold fixtures and a large-planned ballroom.” Trump’s second term makes his first term look like a rehearsal: “It’s almost as if he spent his first four years in office figuring out how much power he really had and then came back determined to fully exercise that power.” According to an analysis by the progressive think tank the Center for American Progress, after the first year of Trump’s second administration, the American workforce is feeling the effects of misguided economic policies: “2025 was marked by chaotic tariff announcements, rising costs for everyday necessities, increasing unemployment, as well as historic cuts in healthcare, food assistance, and clean energy, which drove costs even higher.” The economic turbulence of the first year has left most Americans skeptical about the new year. The think tank cites a survey showing that nearly 70 percent of respondents expected 2026 to be a year of economic difficulties. “Despite Trump’s claim that 2025 was the ‘best first year in history’ for an American president, Americans’ perceptions of their economic security and the latest economic data tell a different story.” “Is Trump trying to lose the midterm elections for Congress?” asks former Republican presidential adviser Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal: “It was a year full of rapid changes, controversies, and upheavals. It was also a year full of puzzles.” Why does the president repeatedly take actions that go against his political interests? “Trump misses the opportunity to win over key swing voters for the Republicans.” As an example, Rove cites immigration policy and Trump’s approach at the border: “He stopped the flow of illegal migrants. He was right. We didn’t need a new law, just a different president. But Trump did not capitalize on the success to publicize it.” Instead, the Trump team misplayed its hand by sending immigration officers to hardware stores to arrest day laborers without valid papers who had otherwise done nothing wrong. “Americans are increasingly unsettled by the president’s erratic appearances and late-night tirades. Whether it is his age or his advisers, who cannot rein in his worst instincts, Trump behaves differently from any American president before him.” Trump dominates many news cycles but drives no substantial political change, writes conservative analyst Yuval Levin in The Atlantic: “He has worked more around the formal powers of the presidency than with them, and his goal often seems less about governing and more about showing strength.” This approach appears attractive, especially to those on the political right who feel disadvantaged by the American elites. Trump has been able to extract real concessions from some institutions. However, this approach is short-sighted and reactive. Levin writes that in his first year in office, Trump signed fewer laws than any other modern president, and most of them were limited in scope and purpose. The only significant law was essentially an extension of existing tax policy. Otherwise, there were interventions like DOGE and deals. In doing so, the president’s discretionary powers are “used as a lever to influence behavior, rather than using the government’s administrative authority to set predictable, uniform rules for entire areas of society. In other words: they use arbitrariness as an instrument. This can be a source of real power in the short term, but it is ultimately very dangerous for public life in the United States.” Donald Trump will get a third term — by overshadowing his successor, analyzes John Harris of Politico. Trump is on the path to changing the character of the American government and the United States’ international relations more profoundly than any of his predecessors in recent decades: “The reach of Trump’s policies and his disruptive way of implementing them will almost inevitably dominate the campaign and the first term of his successor — perhaps even more so if that successor is a Democrat.” In this way, Trump gets a third term, even if he is not unconstitutionally trying to stay in office. “The task of repairing what Democrats and many others see as Trump’s vandalism means that the first day of the next president will be backward-looking — and probably also the first month and the first year.” Trump has expressed his mix of ideas, grievances, and vanities in a much more concrete, programmatic way than friends or opponents would have expected. He has become more radical and less restrained. “In his first term, his critics cried, ‘This is not normal!’ Only now, it is normal.” Foreign Policy Benn Steil from the Council on Foreign Relations analyzes “Trump’s new world order” and the contradiction between his campaign promise to focus on the U.S. and interventions such as in Venezuela: “The obvious contradiction reflects a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy thinking, which aligns with Trump’s preference but is independent of it: dominate what is easy to dominate, and appease or ignore what is not.” There is said to be a consensus within the administration, which is committed to maintaining the hemisphere’s dominance. There is an attempt to offset a withdrawal from persistent overseas conflicts with a simultaneous demonstration of strength closer to home. The goal is to restore the world order that existed before World War I, when America’s global ambitions were more restrained and its neighborhood was safer. What role will the United States play internationally this year? Leslie Vinjamuri of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs asks: “Will it be a stabilizing force? A peacemaker? Or will it continue to sow unrest?” Events at the start of the year have shown that Trump sees value in the latter. Trump does not feel bound by precedent, norms, or laws, and is not deterred by them. Neither allies, Congress, nor courts have so far given reason to believe that this could change. Trump is slowly changing public perception of sovereignty, territory, and national security: “There are already many people that look at maps of Greenland and think differently about its geography, significance, and proper place in the international order.” Whether Trump’s desire for public recognition will divert him from his pursuit of global power — or whether the public will be swept along by Trump — remains to be seen. William Alan Reinsch from the Center for Strategic and International Studies analyzes the president’s trade policy and constant new tariff threats. Whether these are economically sound steps is debatable, but they are undoubtedly politically savvy moves. The constant announcement of new “shiny objects” makes any detailed analysis of previous actions irrelevant: “When these decisions are announced, few facts are released, and by the time journalists, scholars, and other analysts have figured out what was actually decided and taken the time to assess its significance, the public has already moved on, captivated by the next shiny object.” The result is a lack of accountability. “When historians eventually write about this era, there will be accountability, but it will be too late.” The framers of the Constitution intended a government that acts prudently. Checks and balances were meant to ensure that no single branch of government holds disproportionate power over the others. When a president pursues so many political actions that they flood the space and undermine the oversight mechanisms, these accountabilities disappear. Donald Trump started 2026 as the true leader of Europe, writes Nile Gardiner of the Trump-friendly Heritage Foundation. In the first year of his second term, the Trump administration had already shaken the foundations of Europe to its core: “Trump may not be popular in Europe, but he is increasingly respected as a force to be reckoned with.” Trump is wrongly accused of being an isolationist. In reality, he cares far more about Europe than his predecessors: “He is the most transatlantic American president since Ronald Reagan and regards the salvation of Europe as a vital national interest of the United States. His approach to Europe is downright revolutionary. He is the first U.S. president to question the European project, and his ultimate goal is of great significance: the salvation of Western civilization itself.” The U.S. has every right to comment on the EU and Europe’s future because Americans have financed Europe’s security for decades. Whether President Trump actually has a plan is questioned by Thomas de Waal of the Carnegie Endowment. One version suggests he is trying to revive the Monroe Doctrine and govern the Western Hemisphere — a return “to an era of imperialism and spheres of influence”: “The threat he currently poses is primarily a threat of chaos. Calling the challenge a new Monroe Doctrine is only partly correct: it is more of a ‘Gone-Rogue Doctrine.’ However, it is no longer possible to establish spheres of influence in the 21st century in the old style. Trump needs to be reminded that he already has a modern variant: a friendly alliance stretching from Vancouver to Kiev, which he is now losing.” References [1] https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donal d-trump/approval-rating [2] Beispielhaft bei Strength in Numbers: https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/new-poll-trump-slipson-immigration [3] https://apnews.com/article/poll-trump-republicansimmigration-economy-inflation-costs634472fc2ee3b4477a7be997bbd0c69e

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech at Davos on January 20th marks a watershed in the post-war economic world order. Riddled with sectoral US tariffs and fearful of potential draconian trade concessions in the upcoming renegotiation of the North American free trade pact (CUSMA), Canada has taken to the world stage to say the obvious – that most countries, except the superpowers, can no longer count on global economic multilateralism as a cornerstone of their prosperity. The Davos Speech The central theme of Carney’s Davos speech was to define what exactly is happening in the world’s economic sphere. His delivery was frank and brutal, tearing away the veil of uncertainty. Carney offered his explanation of the ‘rupture’ in the world economic order. Philosophers call it an epistemological break. It best defines the scope of the break Carney is referring to. Although President Trump was not named, the break extends to, but is not limited to, the worsening state of Canadian-American economic relations. It is more than that. According to Carney, the break is not a temporary phenomenon, meaning that nostalgia for the old-world order will not provide answers on how to move forward. A return to the past multilateralism will not occur. This stark conclusion was written on the faces of the attendees: America has become an unpredictable and unreliable partner. Trade diversification is required for Canada to pull away from too much dependence on the United States. Before arriving in Davos, PM Carney visited China in an effort to patch up relations that had been strained under the Trudeau regime. Trade diversification was discussed. The Chinese gave way on a few key agricultural products that had been subject to huge tariffs. The old ‘quid pro quo’ on the importation of Chinese electric vehicles was put on its head. Canada agreed to import 49,000 EVs. At the conclusion of the visit, one could sense a warming of relations, although there was no full-blown free trade deal. International Reaction (A Star Is Born) On the international level, Carney’s Davos speech thrust him into the spotlight. The appeal he made to middle powers in Europe and Asia, in particular, has won him praise from many world leaders. Despite early positive indications, the Trump administration has now changed course and seeks to marginalize Carney’s consequential message. National Level (clear skies) The national parliament in Ottawa features little opposition to Carney’s Liberals. There have even been some floor crossings to add to the Liberal minority government, several seats away from a majority. The main opposition party has been outflanked and outgunned by Carney. Their leader is facing a leadership review soon. The Provinces (Carney’s Achilles Heel) It is on the provincial level that Carney faces the most serious challenges. First, Carney must juggle the different and sometimes conflicting interests of the provinces. This was evident during the recent trip to China. Some relief was found in the agricultural sector. Carney’s decision to let a limited number of Chinese EVs into the country has angered Ontario Premier Doug Ford and his allies in the automotive sector. It looks as if that crisis is temporarily over, but the potential for further unrest remains a concern. Alberta Alberta is mounting an independence referendum this year. At this time, polls indicate that the independence option would fail if the referendum were held now. Both the Alberta and a potential third referendum in Québec could be subject to election interference from the United States, using their diplomatic missions as forward bases. American interest in Alberta’s oil fields is undoubtedly a consideration in this regard. Suddenly, Trump’s ‘idle talk’ about Canada becoming the 51st state becomes a real proposition. Is Alberta’s independence a prelude to joining the USA, or will it become an independent state in its own right? It is in the interests of the Alberta separatist movement to keep these two threats alive as plausible options in any future negotiations with the central government. Québec After Davos, Carney returned home to Québec. At the very site of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, Carney delivered a speech to foster Canadian unity and explain how the 1763 battle paved the way for French-English cooperation, the future basis of Confederation in 1867. The reaction in French Québec was swift and bipartisan. Carney’s questionable interpretation of this event was strongly criticized as being patronizing, historically incorrect, and pro-English. Carney’s rejoinder in halting French did nothing to quell the anger. In Québec, events are moving fast. Québec Premier François Legault, a former separatist minister whose aim was to increase Québec provincial autonomy, has resigned amidst desperate polling numbers. A Parti Québécois separatist victory in October of this year now appears likely, heralding a third referendum on independence and adding more tension to already strained federal-provincial relations. Renewal of CUSMA (waning hopes) Prior to Davos, the Carney government sent several emissaries to Washington to seek to eliminate sectoral tariffs on products such as aluminum and steel and to prepare the ground for the renewal of CUSMA. More than 80% of Canadian goods delivered to the USA are CUSMA-compliant and tariff-free. At the end of the first year of Trump’s second mandate, no clear path towards that goal has been identified. CUSMA, an economic accord, is the basis of Canada-US bilateral relations. Such a rupture, despite Canada’s best intentions and efforts at renewal, would be a logical reflection of Carney’s Davos message. The Canadian people have responded to the situation by boycotting US goods and suspending visits to Uncle Sam. Anxiety over threats of annexation is rife. That sentiment is captured allegorically in a clip from a popular sixties movie: Soon after the Allied victory at El Alamein during World War II, Winston Churchill remarked that ‘Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is perhaps the end of the beginning.’ Carney’s Davos message will endure. This article is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.

As the US powers ahead with its plans to recover Latin America’s ‘oil El Dorado’, we explore Venezuela’s environmental and geopolitical outlook. “Uninvestable”. That was the verdict on Venezuelan oil delivered by Exxon’s CEO, Darren Woods, earlier this month. He was speaking at the White House with the US president Donald Trump and representatives from 17 oil companies. Nevertheless, following the extraction of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, Trump plans to revive the country’s flailing industry. He says a USD 100 billion investment will be geared towards resurrecting the “oil El Dorado” of the 1990s. He has takers. After Woods’ White House comments, the US energy secretary Chris Wright said the US oil and gas company Chevron, the UK’s Shell, Spain’s Repsol and Italy’s Eni were all willing to “immediately increase” investment in Venezuela. He added that a dozen other companies were also interested, while dismissing the doubts expressed by Exxon and ConocoPhillips. Any company following Trump to the country will have to deal with uncertainty – and the estimated USD 1 billion cost of the failed nationalizations enacted by Venezuela’s former president, Hugo Chávez. According to Venezuela’s Centre for the Dissemination of Economic Information (Cedice), the government expropriated several thousand between 1999 and 2019. Independent experts estimate the bill for success will reach USD 180 billion – nearly double that announced by Trump. On the other hand, some companies will be encouraged by successful gas operations in Venezuela. For example, the Perla (Cardón IV) field, which covers the entire domestic demand for gas and is operated by Repsol. And Chevron has been able to continue operating in the country, despite a barrage of economic sanctions initiated by the US under Trump in 2017. Demands and first legal changes Trump has claimed the US could be making money from Venezuelan oil in 18 months. Venezuelan oil experts say this will require a fiscal and contractual framework that does not exist today, and a decade of “arduous democratic work”. The economist José Manuel Puente estimates it will require an investment of USD 180 billion and 15 years of institutional work. Patrick Pouyanné, CEO of the French oil company TotalEnergies, thinks similarly. Without a legal framework that guarantees rights, he says, it would be too expensive and slow to return to production of three million barrels a day. Last week, Venezuela’s interim government responded by announcing that the acting president, Delcy Rodríguez, will send a new Hydrocarbons Law to the national assembly, as well as another for streamlining procedures. The interim government’s strategy is to further “production sharing contracts”. These would allow foreign companies to recover their investments by selling a portion of the extracted crude oil. However, interested foreign oil companies are pushing for greater changes. Reuters has reported that they are seeking to reduce the tax burden by returning to a royalty payment model. They also want the right to sell the majority of the oil, by gaining access to export infrastructure. This infrastructure, currently dilapidated and faulty, includes thousands of kilometers of oil and gas pipelines, 16 shipping terminals, 153 gas compression plants and six large oil refineries. The economy responds Following the capture of Maduro, the Caracas stock market benefitted from a 124% rise, accompanied by a fall in the black market exchange rate. This has been attributed to news that the first sale of Venezuelan oil through the US will generate USD 330 million. This will go to five private Venezuelan banks through the Central Bank of Venezuela. To facilitate this, Rodríguez has announced the creation of two sovereign funds. One will raise the salaries of public employees; the other will address Venezuela’s frequently deficient public services. The minimum wage in Venezuela is VES 130 (USD 0.38) per month. In May 2025, Maduro decreed a “minimum comprehensive indexed income” for public workers of USD 160 per month. This was to be issued through special bonds paid in Venezuelan bolívars at the official exchange rate. In the private sector, the average income was USD 237 per month at the beginning of 2025. The interim government has announced a host of other changes, including the modification of eight legal codes. For her part, the acting president has announced reforms to laws on electricity services and industrial intellectual property. She has also made reference to legislation on agreed prices and socio-economic rights, which aim to maintain a mixed economic model that combines openness with state involvement. Whether these reforms will bring the stability US oil companies need to safely (and profitably) operate remains to be seen. Logistics and corruption Venezuelan oil is plentiful, but it is also of poor quality. The estimated 300 billion barrels in the reserves of the Orinoco belt – the largest oil deposit in the world – consist of heavy and extra-heavy crude oil. These are the most difficult to extract, transport and refine. This has raised doubts among experts, who point to the need for maritime insurance, as well as the risks attached to the poor condition of the country’s pipelines and other facilities. Whether this oil will be refined in Venezuela or shipped to refineries in the United States is another uncertainty. As Patrick Galey, head of fossil fuel investigations for the climate justice campaign group Global Witness, wrote earlier this month: “You would have to be forced at gun point to try to make money from [Venezuelan oil].” Then there are security concerns. Despite Trump’s promise of protection for oil companies, his administration has advised its citizens to leave the country over Chavista militia kidnap fears. The administration is considering the use of private companies to secure oil facilities. It is still difficult to know whether a transition to democracy is possible and when elections can be held. As things stand, Venezuela continues to be run by the same government that has accumulated dozens of corruption cases. For example, a scandal implicating executives of PDVSA (Venezuela’s state oil company) in illegal activities related to cryptocurrencies led to USD 16 billion in losses. Meanwhile, a railway network funded using billions of dollars worth of Chinese investment has never been completed. The role of China Venezuela has played a key role in the story of Chinese investment in South America, becoming its biggest debtor. Following the actions of the US government, Venezuela finds itself once again split between superpowers. Venezuelan imports account for just 3% of China’s total crude oil purchases, according to an analysis published this month by the Center on Global Energy Policy – a think-tank based at Columbia University in the US. But the analysis also highlights the importance of these imports to China’s “teapot refineries”, which specialize in processing unconventional crude oil. Venezuela’s debt to China is estimated to be between $10 billion and $19 billion. This is being paid off slowly with crude oil shipments, prompting Chinese officials to approach their Venezuelan and US counterparts to try and obtain payment guarantees. Some analysts have suggested that a stabilizing of Venezuela’s economic situation and a lifting of US sanctions could actually increase the chances of Chinese development banks recouping their investments. The environmental issue, pending The full environmental impacts of a Venezuelan oil recovery are unclear. While it would not involve exploitation in new protected areas or Indigenous territories, significant concerns remain. These include the tens of millions of dollars’ worth of methane gas that leaks from damaged pipelines, as reported by Bloomberg Green. And more methane gas is lost through flaring, for which Venezuela ranks fifth worldwide. Some onlookers have suggested that greater transparency and better technology could improve this situation. This view is not shared by Juan Carlos Sánchez, co-winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work as an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change author. Sánchez, who also worked at PDVSA for 21 years, told Dialogue Earth he does not foresee a positive environmental scenario: Trump promotes climate denialism, while the track records of oil companies operating in other Latin American countries are littered with environmental damage. “In my experience, when oil companies decide to cut costs to increase profits, the budgets that are most affected are environmental projects,” said Sánchez. Moreover, he adds, Venezuela lags considerably in terms of institutional frameworks regarding climate change. “Only a Venezuelan government that is genuinely interested in environmental issues and policies will be able to demand environmental safeguards in the future.” References Business Insider. (2026, January 22). Exxon CEO calls Venezuela ‘uninvestable’ during meeting with Trump. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com El País. (2026, January 22). Trump insta a las petroleras a invertir 100.000 millones de dólares en Venezuela para controlar la industria. El País. https://elpais.com Swissinfo.ch. (2026, January 22). EEUU asegura que Chevron, Shell y Repsol “elevarán de inmediato” su inversión en Venezuela. Swissinfo.ch. https://www.swissinfo.ch Yahoo Finanzas. (2026, January 22). Venezuela tendrá que pagar a Exxon menos de 1.000 mln dlrs por nacionalización de activos. Yahoo Finanzas. https://es-us.finanzas.yahoo.com PaisdePropietarios.org. (2026). ”Exprópiese”: la política expropiatoria del “Socialismo del Siglo XXI”. PaisdePropietarios.org. https://paisdepropietarios.org Repsol. (2026). Perla (Cardón IV) field details. Repsol. https://www.repsol.com Euronews. (2026, January 22). ¿Por qué Chevron sigue operando en Venezuela pese a las sanciones de Estados Unidos?. Euronews. https://es.euronews.com elDiario.es. (2026, January 22). Estados Unidos necesitará más de una década para resucitar El Dorado petrolero de Venezuela. ElDiario.es. https://www.eldiario.es El Colombiano. (2026, January 22). ”Recuperar la producción petrolera en Venezuela tomaría 15 años y hasta US$180.000 millones”, José Manuel Puente, economista venezolano. El Colombiano. https://www.elcolombiano.com Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela. (2026). Hydrocarbons Law draft. https://www.asambleanacional.gob.ve Petroguía. (2026). Production sharing contracts overview. https://www.petroguia.com Reuters. (2026). Companies seek reduced tax burden, export access [Headline varies]. https://www.reuters.com Cedice. (2026). Venezuela oil and gas pipeline infrastructure details. https://cedice.org.ve Scribd. (2026). Map of Venezuelan oil refineries and facilities. https://es.scribd.com Bloomberg. (2026). Caracas stock market reaction and data. https://www.bloomberg.com Sumarium.info. (2026). First oil sale through U.S. channels data. https://sumarium.info Banca y Negocios. (2026). Average private sector income data. https://www.bancaynegocios.com Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (2026). Venezuelan migrant photo and context. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com Globovisión. (2026). Legal code modifications announcement. https://www.globovision.com Bitácora Económica. (2026). Electricity services reform reference. https://bitacoraeconomica.com Cuatrof.net. (2026). Socio economic rights legislation reference. https://cuatrof.net Infobae.com. (2026). Refinery uncertainty and U.S. oil imports. https://www.infobae.com LinkedIn. (2026). Patrick Galey quote on Venezuelan oil risks. https://www.linkedin.com La Razón. (2026). Kidnap fears among Chavista militia detail. https://www.larazon.es CNN Español. (2026). Private security company oil protection reference. https://cnnespanol.cnn.com Transparencia Venezuela. (2026). PDVSA corruption cases and figures. https://transparenciave.org El Clip. (2026). Unfinished Chinese funded railway network reference. https://www.elclip.org Wilson Center. (2026). Venezuela China financing/debt relationship. https://www.wilsoncenter.org Center on Global Energy Policy. (2026). Analysis of China’s share of Venezuelan imports. https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu Contrapunto. (2026). Chinese “teapot refineries” processing explanation. https://contrapunto.com New York Times. (2026). Venezuela debt to China and negotiations coverage. https://www.nytimes.com Bloomberg Línea. (2026). Chinese approaches to payment guarantees. https://www.bloomberglinea.com Bloomberg Green. (2026). Methane leakage and environmental concern details. https://www.bloomberg.com El País. (2026). Environmental transparency and technology quote. https://elpais.com LinkedIn. (2026). Juan Carlos Sánchez environmental outlook quote. https://www.linkedin.com Climatica.coop. (2026). Trump climate denialism reference. https://climatica.coop RAISG.org. (2026). Venezuela climate change framework context. https://www.raisg.org

The United States has employed different geopolitical strategies to maintain its status as a dominant power vis-à-vis rival countries such as China and to achieve its foreign policy objectives. Since his return to the White House, President Donald Trump has announced tariff increases on 60 countries, issued ultimatums to Russia to end the War in Ukraine, and recently intervened in Venezuela by capturing Nicolás Maduro. In this way, a rise in the use of hard power by the United States can be observed, aimed at forcing other countries to behave in a particular manner in order to achieve its geopolitical objectives. The foreign policy process of a state is the most important means through which it formulates and implements the policies that determine its interactions with other actors in the international system. Hans Morgenthau (1949) argued that self-preservation is the primary duty of a nation; in this regard, the choice of foreign policy objectives and means is predetermined in two ways: by the goals to be pursued and by the power available to achieve them. For his part, Joseph Nye (1999) argued that a state’s interests are not revealed solely through power or security considerations, since they also include economic concerns. Thus, countries also focus on economic relations, which may entail interdependence effects among states. Consequently, both national security and economic well-being are important to states’ interests. Within this framework, it is possible to discern the geopolitical landscape that the United States is developing through its foreign policy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that they would not allow the Western Hemisphere to become a base of operations for adversaries, competitors, and rivals of the United States. “This is our hemisphere,” he affirmed, “and President Trump will not allow our security to be threatened” (The White House, 2026). This warning, together with the National Security Strategy and the recent intervention in Venezuela, represents a new form of the Monroe Doctrine. In his address to Congress in 1823, President James Monroe articulated the United States’ policy regarding the new political order that was developing in the Americas and Europe’s role in the Western Hemisphere. The Monroe administration warned the European imperial powers not to interfere in the affairs of the newly independent Latin American states. In this way, it sought to increase U.S. influence and trade throughout the southern region (Office of the Historian, n.d.). Likewise, the Trump administration’s geopolitical objective is to consolidate its hemisphere of influence in the face of rival powers, primarily China. Marco Rubio indicated that it is important to secure the national interest in the region and stated: “we have seen how our adversaries are exploiting and extracting resources from Africa. They are not going to do it in the Western Hemisphere” (The White House, 2026). In addition to Latin America, the United States has sought to increase its presence in Africa to counterbalance China. China’s main foreign policy strategy is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched by President Xi Jinping in 2013 with the aim of strengthening global connectivity through infrastructure initiatives such as roads, ports, and railways. As a result, China’s economic and political influence expanded by linking Asia, Europe, and Africa. By early 2025, more than 150 countries had joined the BRI, representing approximately 75% of the world’s population and more than half of global GDP. China’s Ministry of Commerce reported that the cumulative value of BRI investments and construction contracts has exceeded one trillion dollars across all participating countries (Ulubel, 2025). In Africa, one example of Belt and Road infrastructure is the Mombasa–Nairobi railway in Kenya, which was financed by Chinese banks under the framework of the agreements. As a result, more than 2 million passengers and around 6 million tons of goods are transported annually, allowing transportation costs to be reduced by 40%. In addition, the expansion of the line toward Uganda, Rwanda, and South Sudan is planned, with the aim of integrating the economies of East Africa into a common railway system (Ulubel, 2025). Figure 1 illustrates the countries that have partnered with the Belt and Road Initiative, by year of accession. The geographic areas where China is consolidating its presence can be observed, especially on the African continent. Source: Lew et al., 2021, p. 14. The Belt and Road Initiative, with the support of state-owned banks and Chinese companies, is displacing U.S. exports and challenging American firms in BRI countries. Consequently, the United States has increasingly moved closer to African countries to counter China’s influence. Recently, the House of Representatives voted to continue trade programs such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which protect and strengthen U.S. strategic, economic, and national security interests, including access to critical minerals found outside the country. In this way, AGOA seeks to challenge the economic coercion and exploitation of African nations by China and Russia (Ways & Means, 2026). This approach has also been pursued during the foreign policy of former President Joe Biden. In 2022, the Secretary of State of the Biden administration, Antony Blinken, launched the U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa, which reinforced the view that African countries are geostrategic actors and key partners on urgent issues, ranging from promoting an open and stable international system to shaping the technological and economic future (U.S. Department of State, 2022). In this context, Blinken stated: “Africa is a major geopolitical force. It has shaped our past, it is shaping our present, and it will shape our future” (US Africa Media Hub, 2022). In 2022, Blinken indicated that even as President Putin’s war continues, they remained focused on the most serious and long-term challenge to the international order: the People’s Republic of China. This is because it is the only country with both the intention to reshape the international order and has the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do so. Consequently, Blinken stated: “China is a global power with extraordinary reach, influence, and ambition. It is the second-largest economy, with world-class cities and public transportation networks. It is home to some of the world’s largest technological companies and seeks to dominate the technologies and industries of the future. It has rapidly modernized its military and aims to become a top tier fighting force. And it has announced its ambition to create a sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific and to become the world’s leading power” (Blinken, 2022). Consequently, the United States has sought to consolidate its bilateral relations in regions where China has a greater presence. However, U.S. power in the international system relies on the strength of the dollar. The petrodollar system helps sustain the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. In 1974, Saudi Arabia and other regional oil suppliers agreed to accept only dollars for the sale of oil in exchange for military aid and equipment from the U.S. In addition, the Saudis invested the surpluses from that production in U.S. Treasury bonds, thereby financing U.S. spending (Wong, 2016). This process, commonly called “petrodollar recycling,” is beneficial for the parties involved: oil-producing countries have a reliable destination to invest the income from their exports, while the United States ensures a source of financing to cover its fiscal deficit. Consequently, countries seeking to purchase oil must do so using U.S. dollars, which drives demand for this currency in international markets (Grant, 2018). Since that time, the oil market has been trading in dollars, increasing demand for the currency. The predominance of the dollar as the world’s reference currency gives the United States enormous geopolitical influence, with the ability to impose sanctions on countries it considers adversaries, freeze dollar-denominated assets, or exclude a country from the international financial system, paralyzing its foreign trade or complicating the import of raw materials priced in that currency, such as oil. This mechanism represents one of the foundations of U.S. power and allows it to maintain its status as a hegemonic power. However, if oil trade were to begin taking place in another currency, it would affect the dominant position of the United States. Within this framework, the United States has prevented rival countries from attempting to displace the supremacy of the dollar, such as the members of BRICS. This bloc has sought to reduce dependence on the dollar by using local currencies for trade. One example is the BRICS Pay initiative, a cross-border digital payment system being developed by the BRICS countries. This means that trade among its members could be settled directly in reais, rubles, rupees, yuan, or rand, with the system managing conversion, clearing, and settlement without routing transactions through the U.S. dollar. The initiative is part of a broader strategic effort to reduce dollar dependence, strengthen financial sovereignty, and create alternative global payment infrastructures outside systems controlled by the West (BRICS, 2026). With the creation of the BRICS New Development Bank, there has been speculation that they could launch a common currency as a strategy for de-dollarization. Given this possibility, many market operators advocate for the currency to be digital, backed by gold or other resource assets. If the project materializes, the implications for the international monetary system and financial markets would be significant (Lissovolik, 2024). The United States was aware of this possibility. When the BRICS 2025 summit was held, Trump stated that the bloc is not a serious threat, but that they are attempting to destroy the dollar so that another country could take control. “If we lose the dollar as the global standard,” he declared, “it would be like losing a great world war; we would no longer be the same country. We will not allow that to happen” (Messerly et al., 2025). Later, on his Truth Social account, he wrote: “Any country that aligns with the BRICS’ anti-American policies will receive an additional 10% tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy” (Reuters, 2025). Although there is still no BRICS currency, the United States has anticipated its potential effects. Dollar supremacy also gives the U.S. the power to sanction or economically isolate certain countries, such as Russia in 2022. In response to the invasion of Ukraine, the European Union, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom agreed to exclude several Russian banks from the international payment messaging system SWIFT. This decision was one of the most forceful sanctions within a set of measures aimed at economically isolating Russia and, consequently, weakening its financial system, with the goal of pressuring Vladimir Putin’s government to end its military operations in Ukraine (Pérez, 2022). Therefore, Russia has conducted its commercial transactions in another currency, such as the Chinese yuan. In this context, the growing weight of the Chinese currency in financial markets could erode the primacy of the dollar, a trend that began to concern Washington. In this scenario, Venezuela announced in 2017 that the country was prepared to sell oil to China and receive payments in yuan, thus making international agreements using a currency other than the dollar (Valladares & Medina, 2017). In 2023, Petróleos de Venezuela Sociedad Anónima (Pdvsa) announced that PetroChina International Corp purchased one million barrels of Venezuelan crude, a transaction carried out in digital yuan through the Shanghai International Energy Exchange. In this way, a trend is marked toward abandoning the dollar as the currency for transactions in the energy market (CIIP, 2023). When the United States intervened in Venezuela this year and captured Nicolás Maduro, it was not only seeking oil but also preventing the displacement of the petrodollar system. As a result, this operation directly affects China, since part of Venezuela’s oil exports to China is used to pay debts, estimated between 10 and 12 billion dollars. The U.S. intervention endangered the flow of discounted Venezuelan oil to China’s teapot refineries and will likely affect the role of Chinese oil companies in Venezuela’s upstream business. The Trump administration has declared that all Venezuelan oil will now flow through legitimate and authorized channels, in accordance with U.S. law and national security. This strategy seeks to prevent any influence over natural resources in the region. Consequently, the U.S. president’s approach of directing all oil flows from Venezuela will negatively impact China, Venezuela’s largest oil customer and a major creditor (Downs & Palacio, 2026). However, it is not only rival countries that have been affected by the U.S. attempt to maintain its hegemony; its allies and strategic partners have also been impacted. In January 2025, Trump posted an image of the map of Canada with the U.S. flag, hinting at a possible annexation. On other occasions, Trump referred to his neighbor as the 51st state. In February of that year, the White House announced an additional 25% tariff on Canadian imports and a 10% tariff on its energy resources (The White House, 2025). As a result, Prime Minister Mark Carney negotiated trade agreements with China, allowing for a mutual reduction of tariffs (Yousif, 2026). On the other hand, Trump generated tensions within NATO when he threatened to annex Greenland by force and warned those who did not support him of increased tariffs. He later declined both measures and assured that a framework agreement had been reached (Holland & Hunnicutt, 2026). Nevertheless, the political damage was already done. Trump’s plan for territorial expansion destroyed an important post-World War II norm: that borders cannot be redrawn by force of arms. Mark Carney stated at this year’s Davos Forum that “great powers have begun using economic integration as a weapon, tariffs as leverage, and financial infrastructure as coercion.” In this way, he indicated that the world order is “in the middle of a rupture, not a transition” (World Economic Forum, 2026). Consequently, the United States, as a hegemonic power, has acted unilaterally, disregarding the rule-based world order, and has even accelerated its breakdown. Therefore, from this background, it can be concluded that the United States has developed geopolitical strategies to remain a global power vis-à-vis rival countries, primarily China. Two strategies can be discerned. First, the U.S. emphasizes national security by securing the Western Hemisphere, reviving the Monroe Doctrine. Second, economic interdependence is intensified through the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, preventing financial alternatives. Moreover, the attention the United States has directed toward Africa responds to the intention to balance China’s growing influence in the region gained through the Belt and Road Initiative. Finally, it can be observed that the Trump administration has set aside soft power (attraction and persuasion) and has relied on hard power mechanisms, such as military threats to annex Greenland, ultimatums to Russia, intervention in Venezuela, and economic sanctions and tariff increases on countries that do not comply with its directives. These measures demonstrate that the United States has lost its capacity for attraction and has had to resort to threats to influence the behavior of other states. In summary, the frequent use of hard power shows that the status of the United States as the leading power has begun to decline, and it is striving to maintain its global hegemony by force, regardless of the consequences for the international order. References Blinken, A. (2022). The Administration’s Approach to the People’s Republic of China. Department of State. https://2021-2025.state.gov/the-administrations-approach-to-the-peoples-republic-of-china/ BRICS. (2026). What Is BRICS Pay and How Does It Work?What Is BRICS Pay and How Does It Work? BRICS. https://infobrics.org/en/post/77791/ CIIP. (2023). Compra de petróleo venezolano en yuanes afianza desdolarización del mercado energético global. Centro Internacional de Inversión Productiva. https://www.ciip.com.ve/compra-de-petroleo-venezolano-en-yuanes-afianza-desdolarizacion-del-mercado-energetico-global/ Downs, E. y Palacio, L. (2026). US Action Threatens Venezuela-China Oil Flows, Debt Repayment, and Investments. Center on Global Energy Policy al Columbia SIPA. https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/venezuela-china-oil-ties-severely-impacted-by-us-action/ Grant, J. (2018). The end of the petrodollar? American Foreign Policy Council. https://www.afpc.org/publications/articles/the-end-of-the-petrodollar Holland, S. y Hunnicutt, T. (2026). Trump backs down on Greenland tariffs, says deal framework reached. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/davos/determined-seize-greenland-trump-faces-tough-reception-davos-2026-01-21/ Lew, J., Roughead, G., Hillman, J. y Sacks, D. (2021). Task Force Report N° 79: China’s Belt and Road: Implications for the United States. Council on Foreign Relations. Lissovolik, Y. (2024). Changing the Global Monetary and Financial Architecture: The Role of BRICS-Plus. BRICS Journal of Economics, 5(1). https://brics-econ.arphahub.com/issue/4634/ Messerly, M., Hawkins, A. and Bazail-Eimil, E. (2025). ‘The president is pissed’: Trump's Brazil tariff threat is part of a bigger geopolitical dispute. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/10/trumps-brics-fueled-anger-sparked-50-percent-tariff-threat-on-brazil-00447814 Morgenthau, H. (1949). The Primacy of the National Interest. The American Scholar, 18(2), 207–212. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41205156 Nye, J. (1999). Redefining the National Interest. Foreign Affairs, 78(4), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/20049361 Office of the Historian. (s. f.). Monroe Doctrine, 1823. Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/monroe Pérez, C. (2022). What Does Russia’s Removal From SWIFT Mean For the Future of Global Commerce? Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/08/swift-sanctions-ukraine-russia-nato-putin-war-global-finance/ Reuters. (2025). Trump says alignment with BRICS' 'anti-American policies' to invite additional 10% tariffs. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-says-alignment-with-brics-anti-american-policies-invite-additional-10-2025-07-07/ The White House. (2025). Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Imposes Tariffs on Imports from Canada, Mexico and China. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-tariffs-on-imports-from-canada-mexico-and-china/ The White House. (2026). RUBIO: This Is Our Hemisphere — and President Trump Will Not Allow Our Security to be Threatened. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2026/01/rubio-this-is-our-hemisphere-and-president-trump-will-not-allow-our-security-to-be-threatened/ Ulubel, Y. (2025). 12 years, over 150 countries: Inside the Belt and Road Initiative's global legacy. China Daily. https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202509/17/WS68ca22caa3108622abca13d4.html US Africa Media Hub. (2022). [@USAfricaMediaHub]. X. https://x.com/AfricaMediaHub/status/1604782790029049858 U.S. Department of State. (2022). Travel to Cambodia, the Philippines, South Africa, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Rwanda, August 2-12, 2022. U.S. Department of State. https://2021-2025.state.gov/secretary-travel/travel-to-cambodia-the-philippines-south-africa-the-democratic-republic-of-the-congo-and-rwanda-august-2-11-2022/ Valladares, D. y Medina, J. (2017). Venezuela venderá petróleo a China en yuanes. Ministerio del Poder Popular de Economía y Finanzas. https://www.mppef.gob.ve/venezuela-vendera-petroleo-a-china-en-yuanes/ Ways & Means (2026). House Advances America’s Strategic Interests in Africa and Haiti, Eliminates Payments to Dead People. United States House Comittee on Ways and Means. https://waysandmeans.house.gov/2026/01/12/house-advances-americas-strategic-interests-in-africa-and-haiti-eliminates-payments-to-dead-people/ Wong, A. (2016). The Untold Story Behind Saudi Arabia’s 41-Year U.S. Debt Secret. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret World Economic Forum. (2026). Davos 2026: Special address by Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/davos-2026-special-address-by-mark-carney-prime-minister-of-canada/ Yousif, N. (2026). Canada's deal with China signals it is serious about shift from US. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm24k6kk1rko