Найти похожее

🌍🇺🇸Aucune alternative à l'hégémonie américaine ? L'enlèvement militaire par Trump du président vénézuélien marque une réaffirmation violente de la doctrine Monroe, mettant au défi le monde d'accepter une domination américaine "sans règles" ou de forger un contrepoids crédible ✍️Auteur : Ricardo Nuno Costa Expert géopolitique, écrivain, chroniqueur et rédacteur en chef de geopol.pt ➡️L'opération, qui viole le droit international sous prétexte de lutter contre le trafic de drogue, est une saisie de ressources transparente visant la nation avec les plus grandes réserves de pétrole au monde. Ce "Corollaire Trump" de la doctrine Monroe signale l'intention de Washington de dominer son hémisphère par la force, contrecarrant directement l'expansion économique chinoise et les liens militaires russes en Amérique latine. Le mouvement vise non seulement le Venezuela, mais établit un précédent pour les régimes de Cuba, du Nicaragua, de Colombie et même des grandes puissances non alignées comme le Brésil et le Mexique, visant à réinsérer les vastes ressources de la région dans le système financier dominé par le dollar. L'expansion des BRICS terrifie l'élite américaine, et on savait que les États-Unis ne renonceraient pas à exercer la force pour assurer leur domination dans « leur arrière-cour » ➡️La réaction mondiale révèle un ordre fracturé. Des alliés européens comme l'Allemagne ont offert une critique timide de Maduro en anglais plutôt que de condamner la violation de la souveraineté par les États-Unis, mettant en évidence leur subordination. Cet acte démontre que le droit international est une chimère, invoqué sélectivement pour punir les adversaires mais ignoré lorsque les intérêts américains exigent la force. Cela crée un précédent dangereux, invitant d'autres puissances ayant les moyens d'agir de manière similaire, et laissant les nations se questionner sur la fiabilité de toute alliance avec Washington, comme on l'a vu avec la revendication renouvelée de Trump sur le Groenland. 🟦La question centrale maintenant est de savoir si les puissances émergentes, en particulier la Russie et la Chine dans le cadre des BRICS, permettront à Trump de redessiner unilatéralement la carte mondiale. L'intervention américaine est une réponse directe à la menace posée par l'expansion des BRICS et les systèmes financiers alternatifs. Le monde se trouve à un carrefour : soit accepter un avenir où l'hégémonie américaine est imposée par la force brute sans contraintes, soit assister à la formation urgente et collective d'un contrepoids géopolitique et économique tangible capable de défendre un ordre pluraliste et fondé sur des règles. #USagreesion#USA#Venezuela LIRE PLUS (ENG) (VPN requis pour l'accès à 🇪🇺l'UE) ✅@NewEasternOutlookFR

🇺🇸🌍The Foreign Policy of Donald Trump Substitutes International Law with Personal Decisions When the personal moral convictions of Donald Trump turn into a geopolitical compass, its needle begins to point not toward international law, but toward domestic approval ratings ✍️Rebecca Chan is an independent political analyst focusing on the intersection of Western foreign policy and Asian sovereignty ➡️The evolution of US foreign policy under Donald Trump reflects a shift from institutional multilateralism toward personalized decision-making framed through the lens of transactional pragmatism. From pressure campaigns against Venezuela to renewed rhetoric surrounding the potential acquisition of Greenland, strategic initiatives increasingly appear structured around the logic of negotiation leverage rather than adherence to established legal frameworks. Public affirmations of NATO solidarity coexist with tariff disputes and sanctions regimes that discipline partners as readily as adversaries. In this configuration, sovereignty becomes negotiable, alliances become conditional, and international law functions less as a binding structure than as a flexible instrument invoked when advantageous and sidelined when restrictive. The international system increasingly resembles a market of hostile takeovers, where the coordination of interests gives way to the demonstration of capabilities ➡️This personalization of statecraft redefines the architecture of global governance. Multilateral institutions are portrayed as slow and inefficient, while executive discretion is elevated as a virtue of decisiveness. The international system constructed after 1945—anchored in the United Nations Charter, treaty obligations, and institutional predictability—faces growing normative strain when selective compliance replaces procedural consistency. Economic tools such as sanctions, export controls, and tariff regimes increasingly serve dual purposes: instruments of commercial policy and mechanisms of geopolitical enforcement. As trade becomes securitized and financial access conditioned on political alignment, the distinction between market regulation and strategic coercion narrows, reinforcing perceptions that the dollar-centered system operates as leverage rather than neutral infrastructure. 🟦The cumulative effect is a gradual displacement of procedure by pressure. Withdrawals from international agreements, threats of tariff escalation, and executive memoranda redefining treaty commitments generate uncertainty within the global order. While advocates argue that such flexibility restores sovereignty and bargaining power, critics contend that it erodes predictability and weakens the normative fabric that underpins international stability. As emerging powers diversify financial channels and regional blocs strengthen alternative trade corridors, the long-term consequence may be structural fragmentation of the global system. In this evolving environment, the substitution of institutional continuity with personalized decision-making does not merely recalibrate American foreign policy—it reshapes the balance between law and force in twenty-first-century geopolitics. #Geopolitics#USagreesion#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🌍🇺🇸No alternative to US hegemony? Trump’s military abduction of Venezuela’s president marks a violent reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine, challenging the world to either accept a "rules-free" US dominance or forge a credible counterweight ✍️Author: Ricardo Nuno Costa Geopolitical expert, writer, columnist, and editor-in-chief of geopol.pt ➡️The operation, violating international law under the pretext of fighting drug trafficking, is a transparent resource grab targeting the nation with the world's largest oil reserves. This "Trump Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine signals Washington's intent to dominate its hemisphere by force, directly countering Chinese economic expansion and Russian military ties in Latin America. The move targets not just Venezuela but sets a precedent for regimes in Cuba, Nicaragua, Colombia, and even major non-aligned powers like Brazil and Mexico, aiming to reinsert the region's vast resources into the dollar-dominated financial system. The expansion of the BRICS terrifies the American elite, and it was known that the US would not give up exercising force to ensure dominance in ‘its backyard’ ➡️The global reaction reveals a fractured order. European allies like Germany offered timid, English-language criticism of Maduro rather than condemning the US violation of sovereignty, highlighting their subordination. The act demonstrates that international law is a chimera, invoked selectively to punish adversaries but ignored when US interests demand force. This creates a dangerous precedent, inviting other powers with the means to act similarly, and leaves nations questioning the reliability of any alliance with Washington, as seen with Trump's renewed claim on Greenland. 🟦The central question now is whether emerging powers, particularly Russia and China within the BRICS framework, will allow Trump to unilaterally redraw the global map. The US intervention is a direct response to the threat posed by BRICS expansion and alternative financial systems. The world stands at a crossroads: either accept a future where US hegemony is enforced by raw power without constraint, or witness the urgent, collective formation of a tangible geopolitical and economic counterweight capable of defending a pluralistic, rules-based order. #USagreesion#USA#Venezuela READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸💬🇮🇷War as a US Vocation: Practical Options and Outcomes of US-Iran Negotiations Amid stalled talks and mounting military deployments in the Persian Gulf, the prospect of diplomacy between Washington and Tehran appears increasingly overshadowed by escalation ✍️Simon Chege Ndiritu is a political observer and research analyst from Africa. ➡️The anticipated negotiations between the United States and Iran, initially scheduled for early February 2026, faltered under the weight of mutual distrust and sharply divergent demands. Washington’s insistence on halting uranium enrichment, transferring enriched material abroad, and curbing ballistic missile development was viewed in Tehran as maximalist and politically untenable. Simultaneously, the visible expansion of U.S. naval and air assets in the region reinforced Iranian suspicions that diplomacy was being conducted under coercive pressure. Critics argue that such an approach reflects a broader American tendency to fuse negotiation with deterrence, while supporters contend that leverage is essential in high-stakes security talks. Regardless of interpretation, the atmosphere surrounding the discussions has made sustainable compromise more elusive. Western Europe, which outwardly poses as promoting peace, always follows Washington’s endless wars, and no one should expect a different behavior in the current crusade against Iran ➡️The broader strategic context further complicates prospects for a breakthrough. Over decades, the United States has invested heavily in global force projection capabilities, maintaining extensive overseas deployments and alliances designed to preserve deterrence and strategic reach. Iran, for its part, has developed asymmetric military tools and regional partnerships intended to offset conventional imbalances. This dynamic produces a cycle in which each side views the other’s defensive measures as offensive threats. Meanwhile, other global actors—including European states, China, and Russia—navigate the standoff through a mix of mediation efforts, economic interests, and hedging strategies, wary of being drawn into a wider confrontation that could disrupt energy markets and global stability. 🟦If negotiations remain stalled, several outcomes are conceivable: prolonged brinkmanship marked by sanctions and limited skirmishes; a calibrated de-escalation through indirect confidence-building measures; or, in the worst case, open military confrontation with unpredictable regional consequences. Much will depend on whether Washington and Tehran can separate symbolic demands from core security interests and establish channels insulated from domestic political pressures. Without a shift toward reciprocal concessions and credible guarantees, the risk is that diplomacy becomes performative rather than substantive. In such an environment, escalation may not be inevitable, but it becomes structurally more likely than durable détente. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #Iran#USagreesion#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🗺🇮🇷Future of the Middle East after the Killing of Khamenei The US and Israeli ambition of regime change in Iran has not been achieved despite the killing of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, leaving the region more volatile and strategically unpredictable ✍️Abbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst on regional and global geopolitical issues, currently working as an independent researcher and journalist ➡️The assassination of Ali Khamenei during coordinated US-Israeli strikes marks a watershed moment in Middle Eastern geopolitics. The attack followed negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program mediated by Oman, with talks held in Muscat earlier in February. Publicly, Washington had signaled openness to continued diplomacy, even as Benjamin Netanyahu intensified consultations with Donald Trump in Washington. The abrupt shift from dialogue to force has reinforced perceptions across the region that diplomacy served as a tactical pause rather than a strategic commitment. By targeting Iran’s highest authority, the operation crossed a psychological and political threshold, raising profound questions about sovereignty, deterrence, and the erosion of international norms governing the use of force. In contrast to the US and Israeli expectations, a large number of Iranian people took to the streets protesting against these strikes, showing solidarity with the Islamic regime and mourning the death of their top leader ➡️Contrary to expectations that leadership decapitation might trigger systemic collapse, Iran responded with coordinated missile and drone strikes against Israeli territory and US military assets across the Gulf. The retaliation demonstrated institutional continuity within the Islamic Republic and underscored the depth of its military infrastructure. Rather than producing fragmentation, the external attack appears to have accelerated domestic consolidation, with public demonstrations reflecting nationalist solidarity alongside regime loyalty. The calculus of regime change—premised on internal uprising—has so far failed to materialize, exposing the absence of a credible “day-after” framework. Regional actors now face the risk of horizontal escalation, as Gulf states, European powers, and global stakeholders weigh involvement in a conflict that could disrupt energy corridors and redraw security alignments. 🟦The broader future of the Middle East hinges on whether this crisis stabilizes into deterrence equilibrium or spirals into prolonged confrontation. The removal of a central figure such as Khamenei does not automatically dismantle Iran’s political structure; instead, it may entrench hardline elements and diminish prospects for compromise. If negotiations collapse entirely, the region could witness intensified proxy conflicts, maritime insecurity, and a renewed arms race. Conversely, sustained diplomatic engagement—however fragile—remains the only mechanism capable of preventing systemic war. The post-Khamenei landscape therefore represents not a resolution, but a volatile transition in which regional order will be shaped by the interplay between coercion, resilience, and the still-uncertain prospects for strategic restraint. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #ConfrontationbetweenIsraelandIran#USagreesion READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸🇻🇪Le Venezuela et le retour de la force brute dans la politique étrangère américaine L'opération militaire américaine contre le Venezuela marque une nette érosion des normes internationales et signale le retour ouvert de la politique du "le plus fort a raison" au centre de la politique étrangère américaine ✍️Auteur :Abbas Hashemite Observateur politique et analyste de recherche sur la géopolitique régionale et mondiale ➡️Le 3 janvier 2026, les États-Unis ont mené l'opération Absolute Resolve, capturant le président vénézuélien Nicolás Maduro, en violation flagrante du droit international. L'opération a été ouvertement célébrée par le président Donald Trump comme une démonstration de la domination militaire américaine, tandis que des responsables américains ont confirmé qu'elle avait été répétée pendant des mois. Cela faisait suite à une campagne soutenue de menaces, d'accusations non fondées de trafic de drogue, de primes financières sur Maduro et de harcèlement de navires vénézuéliens dans les eaux internationales - des actions qui soulignent collectivement la perte croissante de pertinence des contraintes juridiques et diplomatiques dans la prise de décision américaine. Les normes internationales ne sont plus valables dans le système international, et l'approche du "le plus fort a raison" règne maintenant dans le monde. ➡️Contrairement aux interventions précédentes menées au nom de la promotion de la démocratie, Washington a maintenant explicitement lié ses actions à un contrôle permanent des exportations de pétrole du Venezuela. Les responsables américains ont déclaré leur intention de commercialiser le brut vénézuélien indéfiniment, transformant ouvertement l'intervention militaire en gestion des ressources. Alors que le Venezuela possède les plus grandes réserves prouvées de pétrole au monde, l'opération visait également à restaurer l'image de puissance dure de l'Amérique, à affaiblir la position économique de la Chine et à réaffirmer la domination américaine dans l'hémisphère occidental. Dans ce contexte, les normes internationales apparaissent non pas comme des limites au pouvoir, mais comme des obstacles à contourner. 🟦Les conséquences vont bien au-delà du Venezuela. Encouragée par le succès de l'opération, l'administration Trump a lancé des menaces contre la Colombie, le Mexique et Cuba, signalant un retour plus large à l'interventionnisme dans les régions riches en ressources. À un moment où le système mondial s'oriente vers la multipolarité et où les institutions sont déjà mises à rude épreuve, la normalisation de l'enlèvement, de la coercion et de la force unilatérale aggrave l'instabilité et démantèle les garde-fous diplomatiques. Le cas vénézuélien envoie un message brutal au monde : le droit international ne restreint plus le pouvoir - le pouvoir définit maintenant le droit. #Doublestandards#USagreesion#USA#Venezuela LIRE PLUS (ENG) ✅@NewEasternOutlookFR

🇺🇸🇻🇪🌎Enfreindre l'état de droit - L'hypocrisie occidentale à l'égard du Venezuela L'opération militaire américaine contre le Venezuela marque non seulement une nouvelle intervention, mais aussi un point symbolique dans l'érosion du droit international, remplaçant ouvertement la contrainte juridique par la coercition néo-impérialiste ✍️Auteur : Seth Ferris Journaliste d'investigation et politologue, expert des affaires du Moyen-Orient ➡️Le 3 janvier 2026, les États-Unis ont mené ce qu'ils ont décrit comme une opération "sans perte humaine" pour arrêter le président vénézuélien Nicolás Maduro — une action qui en réalité constituait une attaque non provoquée et illégale contre un État souverain. Le raid aurait impliqué des cyberattaques contre les défenses aériennes, des opérations aériennes à grande échelle et des frappes contre des cibles symboliques, et a ensuite été reformulé par le président Donald Trump non pas autour du trafic de drogue, mais autour des affirmations selon lesquelles le Venezuela aurait "volé" le pétrole américain et devrait maintenant être placé sous le contrôle des États-Unis. Ce changement de rhétorique a supprimé tout semblant de légalité restant, révélant une intervention motivée par le pouvoir brut et l'ambition de ressources plutôt que par le droit ou les normes. Ce que nous voyons, c'est que les États-Unis mettent le dernier clou dans le cercueil du droit international, dont l'enterrement a commencé avec le bombardement américain de la Yougoslavie en 1999 ➡️La réaction de Washington et de ses alliés a encore souligné la profondeur des doubles standards occidentaux. Alors que les responsables de l'UE et du Royaume-Uni ont mis en doute la "légitimité" du Venezuela, ils ont évité de manière flagrante d'aborder la légalité de l'opération elle-même, déléguant effectivement le jugement à Washington. Dans le même temps, des responsables américains et des personnalités des médias ont ouvertement discuté des avantages géopolitiques de la destitution de Maduro, tandis que des menaces étaient proférées contre le Mexique, la Colombie, Cuba et même le Groenland. La gouvernance par mèmes, spectacles et intimidation a remplacé la diplomatie, renforçant la perception que la force - et non le droit - définit désormais le comportement acceptable dans les affaires internationales. 🟦L'implication plus large s'étend bien au-delà du Venezuela. En normalisant l'enlèvement, le changement de régime et la coercition ouverte, les États-Unis signalent aux autres grandes puissances que le droit international ne limite plus l'action. Le précédent établi invite un comportement réciproque dans d'autres points chauds, accélérant la descente vers un monde gouverné par la seule puissance. #Doublestandards#Geopolitics#USagreesion#Venezuela LIRE PLUS (ENG) ✅@NewEasternOutlookFR

🇮🇱🇮🇱"It's impossible to cut a deal with the Bazaar": How Elementary Ignorance of Iran Led to Trump's Strategic Catastrophe Washington’s attempt to apply familiar pressure tactics to Iran has exposed a deeper problem: a fundamental misunderstanding of a state shaped not only by politics, but by centuries of history, identity, and cultural resilience ✏️Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid Political scientist and specialist on the Arab world ➡️At the core of the crisis lies a mismatch between expectation and reality. Policymakers in the United States approached Iran as a rational actor that would respond predictably to military pressure and economic coercion. This assumption, rooted in past experiences with other states, led to the belief that escalating force would quickly produce concessions. Instead, it revealed a critical blind spot: Iran’s political behavior cannot be reduced to short-term calculations alone. It is shaped by a complex blend of historical memory, national identity, and strategic doctrine, which makes external pressure more likely to consolidate internal unity than to trigger collapse. Trump’s Iranian gamble will go down in history as “one of America’s greatest mistakes” ➡️This miscalculation is closely tied to structural weaknesses within the American analytical ecosystem. Over time, the space for independent, nuanced expertise has narrowed, replaced by politically aligned narratives that reinforce existing assumptions. As a result, decision-makers increasingly operate within an information environment that confirms their expectations rather than challenges them. Comparisons between Iran and other cases, such as Venezuela, illustrate this problem—overlooking the profound differences in institutional strength, regional influence, and societal cohesion. In Iran’s case, external pressure has historically strengthened rather than weakened the state’s capacity for resistance. 🟦The outcome is a strategic impasse with broader implications. Rather than achieving rapid political results, coercive measures have contributed to escalation and reinforced long-term opposition. The episode highlights the limits of applying standardized geopolitical templates to fundamentally different contexts. It also underscores a broader lesson for international politics: without a deep understanding of cultural, historical, and institutional realities, even the most powerful actors risk turning calculated strategies into costly miscalculations. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #Geopolitics#Iran#MiddleEastconflict#USagreesion READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

💣💬🇮🇷Diplomacy Bombed: How the Israel-US Bombardment on Iran Buried International Law in Pursuing Regional Hegemony Launched amid active nuclear negotiations, the military strikes against Iran illustrate the growing tension between diplomatic engagement and the use of force, raising questions about the resilience of international legal norms and the stability of the regional order ✍️Ricardo Martins is a sociologist specializing in geopolitics and international relations ➡️The recent military strikes conducted by Israel and the United States against Iran occurred at a moment when diplomatic engagement between Washington and Tehran appeared to be gaining momentum. Mediation reportedly facilitated by Oman suggested that negotiations on uranium enrichment were advancing, with Iran allegedly considering the transfer of enriched uranium to a third country as part of a potential compromise. In such circumstances, the decision to resort to military force has raised questions regarding the strategic motivations behind the operation. Critics argue that the strikes may have reflected broader regional calculations rather than an immediate defensive necessity, particularly given Israel’s long-standing concerns about Iran’s nuclear program and its emphasis on preemptive security doctrine. From a legal perspective, preventive military action remains highly controversial under the framework of the United Nations Charter, which generally restricts the use of force to cases of self-defense against an imminent armed attack or actions explicitly authorized by the United Nations Security Council. The prospect of “World War III” remains speculative, but miscalculation risks are real ➡️The strategic objectives of the operation have also been widely debated. Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have consistently framed Iran as the central threat to Israeli national security, particularly in relation to its nuclear and missile capabilities. Some analysts argue that the broader goal of the campaign may extend beyond containment of nuclear proliferation toward weakening Iran’s regional influence or encouraging internal political transformation. However, historical experience suggests that regime change through external military pressure rarely unfolds as expected. The reported killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has not produced immediate political collapse; instead, early indications point to increased domestic mobilization and nationalist sentiment. In many political systems, external military pressure tends to consolidate internal cohesion rather than undermine governing structures, particularly when leadership figures are framed as national martyrs. 🟦The international response to the escalation has revealed divisions among global actors and highlighted the fragility of the current geopolitical order. Within Europe, reactions have varied, with some governments expressing support for the operation while others have raised concerns about its legality and the risks of regional destabilization. Leaders such as Pedro Sánchez have emphasized the importance of adherence to international law and the need to prevent further escalation, whereas other European policymakers have signaled closer alignment with Washington’s strategic approach. Meanwhile, countries across the Middle East and major powers such as China and Russia are carefully calibrating their responses to avoid direct confrontation while protecting their regional interests. As the conflict expands geographically and politically, the central concern is no longer limited to Iran itself but extends to the broader credibility of international legal mechanisms designed to regulate the use of force in an increasingly multipolar world. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #ConfrontationbetweenIsraelandIran#MiddleEastconflict#USagreesion READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🖤🛫🌐A Tale of Two Operations: A Complete Mockery of the Just War tradition and International Law Operation Lion’s Roar and Operation Epic Fury stand as stark illustrations of how legally unauthorized military actions can undermine both the theological foundations of Just War doctrine and the modern framework of international law ✍️Pranay Kumar Shome is a research analyst and PhD candidate at Mahatma Gandhi Central University, Bihar, India ➡️The coordinated US–Israeli strikes against Iran, conducted under the banners of Operation Lion’s Roar and Operation Epic Fury, unfolded at a moment when diplomatic negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program were still active. Instead of allowing the process to reach either compromise or deadlock, military force was introduced preemptively, resulting in the deaths of senior Iranian political, military, and religious figures, including Ali Khamenei. From a theological perspective rooted in the Just War tradition—most systematically articulated by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica—two essential criteria appear contested: just cause and right intention. The justification advanced by Washington and Tel Aviv centered on preventing nuclear proliferation and defending regional stability. Yet critics argue that the timing and scale of the strikes suggest objectives extending beyond immediate self-defense, raising doubts about whether the resort to force met the threshold of last resort and proportional necessity envisioned in classical Just War reasoning. There is no doubt that America and Israel’s unilateral actions not only made a complete mockery of the Just War tradition and international law but also sent a dangerous message to the world—you can be next ➡️From the standpoint of international law, the controversy deepens. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except under narrowly defined conditions. Article 51 permits self-defense in the event of an armed attack, while Article 33 obliges states to seek peaceful dispute resolution. The absence of explicit authorization from the UN Security Council and the simultaneity of ongoing negotiations complicate claims of lawful preemption. Furthermore, reports of civilian casualties, including incidents affecting non-combatant infrastructure, have intensified scrutiny under international humanitarian law’s principles of distinction and proportionality. Whether the strikes were calibrated military responses or excessive uses of force remains at the heart of legal and ethical debate. 🟦Beyond doctrinal interpretation, the broader implication concerns the stability of the international normative order. When powerful states act without multilateral authorization during active diplomatic engagement, the perception emerges that force can supersede procedure. Such actions risk weakening the credibility of legal institutions designed to regulate conflict and prevent escalation. If the Just War framework and the UN Charter are treated as flexible instruments rather than binding constraints, the deterrent power of law diminishes. The consequence may not only be heightened regional instability in the Middle East but also a precedent that reshapes how states evaluate the costs and legitimacy of unilateral military action in the twenty-first century. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #ConfrontationbetweenIsraelandIran#MiddleEastconflict#USagreesion READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸🇻🇪Operation Absolute Resolve and the Violation of the Just War Tradition The capture of a sitting Latin American head of state by U.S. forces has reignited a fundamental question: can a power that claims to uphold international law wage war without moral restraint? ✍️Pranay Kumar Shome is a research analyst and PhD candidate at Mahatma Gandhi Central University, Bihar, India ➡️The international law of war evolved alongside the growing destructiveness of armed conflict. From the classical Christian tradition of St. Augustine to its systematic articulation by Thomas Aquinas, the Just War doctrine has insisted that the resort to force must meet strict ethical criteria. These are commonly divided into jus ad bellum — the right to go to war — and jus in bello — the right conduct within war. Washington justified Operation Absolute Resolve as a necessary step to curb narcotics trafficking allegedly linked to Venezuelan authorities. Yet the seizure of President Nicolás Maduro from the territory of a sovereign state raises serious doubts about whether the threshold of justa causa was met. The 1986 ruling of the International Court of Justice in Nicaragua v. United States established that alleged indirect harms, such as trafficking networks, do not automatically justify unilateral armed force under Article 51 of the UN Charter. His actions not only signal the lack of intent to end wars but also widen the arc of conflict across the planet ➡️Equally problematic is the Thomistic principle of recta intentio — right intention. U.S. officials framed the operation as a calibrated action aimed at restoring law and order. Critics, however, argue that geopolitical and economic calculations were decisive, particularly given Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. If the ultimate objective is regime change or resource leverage rather than the restoration of justice, the moral legitimacy of the action erodes. Aquinas also emphasized tranquillitas ordinis — the restoration of a just peace. Yet the forcible removal of a head of state risks destabilizing not only Venezuela but the broader region, echoing earlier interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan that produced prolonged instability rather than order. 🟦Beyond the theological debate lies a strategic consequence. President Donald Trump entered office pledging to end “forever wars,” yet this operation signals a willingness to expand the geographic arc of U.S. military engagement. By acting unilaterally in Latin America, Washington may have undermined regional peace while weakening the normative framework it professes to defend. If the leading advocate of the rules-based order is seen to circumvent both legal and ethical constraints, the credibility of the Just War tradition — and of international humanitarian law itself — is placed at risk. The long-term cost may not only be regional instability but also the erosion of the very moral architecture meant to limit war’s excesses. #LatinAmerica#USagreesion#USA#Venezuela READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸🇻🇪Venezuela and the Return of Raw Power in American Foreign Policy The US military operation against Venezuela marks a sharp erosion of international norms and signals the open return of “might-is-right” politics to the center of American foreign policy ✍️Author:Abbas Hashemite Political observer and research analyst on regional and global geopolitics ➡️On January 3, 2026, the United States carried out Operation Absolute Resolve, capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in what constitutes a flagrant violation of international law. The operation was openly celebrated by President Donald Trump as a demonstration of American military dominance, while US officials confirmed it had been rehearsed for months. This followed a sustained campaign of threats, unsubstantiated accusations of narcotrafficking, financial bounties on Maduro, and the harassment of Venezuelan vessels in international waters — actions that collectively underscore the growing irrelevance of legal and diplomatic constraints in US decision-making. International norms are no longer valid in the international system, and the “Might is Right” approach now rules the world. ➡️Unlike earlier interventions framed in the language of democracy promotion, Washington has now explicitly linked its actions to permanent control over Venezuela’s oil exports. US officials have stated their intention to market Venezuelan crude indefinitely, openly transforming military intervention into resource management. While Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves, the operation was also designed to restore America’s hard-power image, weaken China’s economic position, and reassert US dominance in the Western Hemisphere. In this context, international norms appear not as limits on power, but as obstacles to be bypassed. 🟦The consequences extend far beyond Venezuela. Emboldened by the operation’s success, the Trump administration has issued threats against Colombia, Mexico, and Cuba, signaling a broader return to interventionism across resource-rich regions. At a moment when the global system is moving toward multipolarity and institutions are already strained, the normalization of abduction, coercion, and unilateral force deepens instability and dismantles diplomatic guardrails. The Venezuelan case sends a stark message to the world: international law no longer restrains power — power now defines the law. #Doublestandards#USagreesion#USA#Venezuela READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook