In January, the United States surprised the international community by deciding to carry out an operation in Venezuela to capture dictator Nicolás Maduro. On the last day of February, the Americans once again made an impact by carrying out, together with Israel, the extensive ongoing operation against the Iranian regime, which has already culminated in the explosion of military and government centers and the death of supreme leader Ali Khamenei. In the space of two months, two regimes considered historic adversaries of Washington suffered direct blows.
The operations indicate that President Donald Trump has started to use sudden and high-impact military operations as a central instrument of his foreign policy – a strategy that, according to analysts, also could end up influencing other geopolitical disputes being conducted by Washington at the momentsuch as American pressure on the regime of Cuba and the threat of annexation of Greenland.
Economist and doctor in International Relations Igor Lucena told People’s Gazette that the operations authorized by the White House in recent months have an important symbolic effect on the international system: reinforcing the perception that The United States continues to exercise strong global power projection capabilities.
“President Trump is managing to demonstrate a very significant American presence,” said Lucena.
PhD professor and researcher of International Relations at the Centro Universitário de Brasília (CEUB), Aline Thomé, assesses that these US military operations tend to strengthen the American position in ongoing international negotiations.
“This increases the bargaining power of the United States, because other countries start to consider that such a situation could happen to them,” he stated.
Pressure on Greenland and Cuba
Cuba is one of the countries that is most feeling this pressure from Trump. The US government has already warned the communist regime to initiate political and economic changes and imposed new barriers on the country. One of the main ones is the blockade of Venezuelan oil shipments to the island, which has worsened the energy crisis in the country. Trump also threatened tariffs on countries that continue to supply Miguel Díaz-Canel’s dictatorship.
“Cuba will have to make agreements and, most likely, advance in a new economic opening, as Delcy Rodríguez has been leading in Venezuela, both in the economic and political fields,” said Lucena, referring to Maduro’s deputy who was placed in charge of Venezuela after the dictator’s capture. Since taking power, Delcy has made several concessions to the Trump administration, including removing Cubans from counterintelligence positions in Venezuela.
A Greenland It is also a target of Trump’s interests, who argues that the Arctic region, where the territory is located, has strategic importance for American national security. Since last year, he has been advocating that the United States gain control over the island, which currently has the status of an autonomous territory belonging to the Kingdom of Denmark. The Arctic has been gaining military and economic relevance with the growing presence of Russia and China.
Two days after the American attack on Iran, Denmark announced its adherence to a French-led nuclear deterrent program, alongside seven other European countries. Although Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen justified the move as a response to the Russian threat and the agreement does not involve protection for Greenland, the gesture illustrates the tension that Trump’s new style of foreign policy could cause within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) itself, of which the USA and Denmark are part.
For international strategist and doctor of Philosophy Cezar Roedel, the recent nuclear agreement between Denmark and France cannot be interpreted simply as a response to Moscow’s aggressive stance after the invasion of Ukraine. In his assessment, the movement also occurs amid an environment of growing strategic uncertainty among European governments in relation to the United States, which has led part of the continent to discuss more intensely the need to expand its autonomy in matters of security.
“When the United States signals its own geopolitical interests in a territory that belongs to a NATO country, it has a profound psychological effect on European capitals,” he said.
In turn, analyst Aline Thomé points out that other NATO countries may feel threatened if the United States decides to take more aggressive action on Greenland.
But, in the case of Greenland, the issue seems to be more in the diplomatic field. Trump announced, in January, a preliminary agreement with NATO aimed at Arctic security and expanding military cooperation in the region, which could include a greater American presence in Greenland.
Lucena believes that military cooperation with the Americans could expand in the coming years, which, in his assessment, could be considered healthy and positive for the defense of the territory and could leave Trump satisfied. The analyst adds that the dispute tends to develop in the strategic field, not in a military intervention.
Zones of influence and the advancement of China and Russia
Washington’s recent war stance can also be read within a broader perspective of the global repositioning of the United States in the face of growing competition with China and Russia, two powers that have started to put more direct pressure on the American position as the main global actor in recent years.
In Aline Thomé’s view, US military operations act as a sign that Washington does not intend to give up its influence in regions considered strategic for its national security, such as Latin America, where Russia and China were trying to advance through influence.
“The attack on Venezuela, to some extent, sends a message to both China and Russia that the United States also wants this region [a América Latina] as a zone of influence”, he stated.
According to CEUB International Relations professor Lucas Portela, this dispute over zones of influence also plays into the American interest in strategic resources present in these regions: energy, minerals and trade routes that gain increasing weight in a scenario of competition between great powers.
“When we look at these movements – the political pressure on Venezuela, the discussions involving Greenland, trade tensions with Brazil and the recent actions involving Iran – we notice different episodes that, although they have their own regional origins, are also related to regions that concentrate energy or mineral resources relevant to the global economy”, stated the professor.
Signals for Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Canada and Nicaragua
The operations in Iran and Venezuela also send a strong signal to other countries that maintain or have maintained open tensions with Washington. Among them are both authoritarian regimes, such as Nicaragua, and more democratic nations that face occasional friction with the United States, such as Canada, Mexico, Colombia and Brazil itself.
Canada was the target of direct threats from Trump himself last year, when the American president even talked about annexing the country and did not rule out the use of force to do so. The American justification revolves around national security: Washington claims that Ottawa does not adequately control its borders, which would open the door for the entry of drugs and the influence of foreign powers in North American territory.
In Mexico, Trump has already threatened to use force against drug cartels, classified by his government as terrorist organizations and as a direct threat to the security of the United States. Brazil, in turn, although it recently normalized relations with Washington, was also the target of criticism from the American government last year, in a period of greater diplomatic tension between the two countries. The Nicaraguan regime has been warned by the White House to promote strong political changes and cease the persecution of opponents.
According to Thomé, the recent operations against Venezuela and Iran show that, if the US understands that they must use force against Mexico, Canada, Colombia, Nicaragua and Brazil, they will do so.
“It’s a very clear message,” she said. The analyst listed, however, the costs that this type of initiative can bring. For her, acting against historical allies, such as Brazil, Mexico, Canada and Colombia, is a much more delicate equation than facing authoritarian regimes such as Venezuela and Iran or Nicaragua.
In Lucena’s view, even though the operations against Venezuela and Iran increase pressure on other countries that are in the US’s focus, the use of force tends to remain punctual and directed at regimes widely criticized by the international community. In the economist’s assessment, disputes with Brazil, Mexico, Canada and Colombia, for example, should continue to be conducted mainly in the commercial and diplomatic field.
“The United States will continue to use negotiations and bargains with other countries, mainly based on trade,” he said.
What were the operations in Venezuela and Iran like?
The operation carried out in Venezuela in early January marked a change in US policy towards Latin America, a region that was the focus of the latest update to the Americans’ national security policy. In the middle of last year, the White House spent a few months trying to negotiate Maduro’s peaceful departure from power – even though he was on its wanted list – but the Chavista dictator refused to leave command of the South American country. Maduro even mocked Trump at several rallies held in Venezuela and mocked the warnings issued by Washington. On January 3, however, in a quick and casualty-free operation for the American side, Maduro was captured and taken to the US, where he is now imprisoned and awaiting trial on charges of leading a drug cartel.
The Iranian case is different. Tehran had already been a US target during the war in June last year, when several Iranian nuclear facilities were bombed and, according to Trump, practically destroyed. The US supported Israel in that war, which aimed to prevent the Islamic regime from achieving nuclear weapons production. The war, which lasted around 12 days, was ended through an effort by Trump himself, who blocked further Israeli attacks against Iran and brokered a ceasefire.
At that moment, Washington signaled that it expected the Iranian regime to return to the negotiating table to peacefully discuss a new nuclear agreement. The regime was willing to talk, but maintained a position considered unacceptable by the United States in defending its national security: it did not agree to completely abandon its nuclear program, insisting on the right to maintain uranium enrichment activities in the country. This divergence ended up halting the negotiations and maintaining the impasse that culminated in the attack on Saturday (28), when the US struck directly at the heart of the Islamic regime’s power.
