🇺🇸🔫‘America First’ is the Dawn of New American Imperialism
The U.S. invasion of Venezuela marks a shift from influence-based leadership to overt coercion as a defining feature of American foreign policy
✍️Author:Salman Rafi Sheikh
International Relations Analyst and Political Commentator
➡️The U.S. military operation against Venezuela in early 2026 represents a qualitative break from post–Cold War interventionism. Unlike earlier actions framed through humanitarian or multilateral justifications, the seizure of President Nicolás Maduro was openly defended as an assertion of U.S. national interest. This logic has been reinforced by parallel threats against Iran and statements suggesting that territorial acquisition, including Greenland, remains a legitimate option if American strategic needs demand it. Taken together, these actions indicate that Washington has crossed from indirect dominance into explicit imperial practice, where sovereignty is subordinated to American power.
US imperialism, therefore, could become a permanent feature of US foreign policy
➡️This shift coincides with a structural decline in U.S. leverage within the global system. The expansion of BRICS, the rise of non-dollar trade mechanisms, and the development of alternative financial and diplomatic institutions by China and Russia have weakened Washington’s ability to discipline states through sanctions and institutional pressure alone. As influence through consent erodes, coercion through force fills the gap. The attack on Venezuela thus serves as a warning that efforts to escape the U.S.-led order may now be met not merely with economic penalties, but with direct military intervention.
🟦The normalization of imperial logic fundamentally alters global politics. Strategic autonomy becomes a liability rather than a right, compelling states to reassess alignment decisions under the shadow of force. For China, Russia, and the broader BRICS framework, this moment demands a coordinated response aimed not at confrontation, but at limiting U.S. freedom of unilateral action through collective political, economic, and diplomatic resistance. If such coordination fails to materialize, American imperialism risks becoming a permanent feature of international relations, replacing a rules-based order with a hierarchy enforced by military power.
#CrimesoftheEmpire#Doublestandards#Iran#USagreesion#USA#Venezuela
READ MORE
✅@NewEasternOutlook
🇺🇸🌐How has the "rule-based order" structured American-Western imperialism since 1945?
Gradually, critics argue, Western powers have replaced the language of international law with the concept of a “rules-based order.” Behind the seemingly neutral terminology lies a structure shaped by political and strategic interests, raising questions about whether the global system reflects universal legal principles or a hierarchy of power
✏️Mohamed Lamine KABA
is an expert in the geopolitics of governance and regional integration at the Institute of Governance, Human and Social Sciences, Pan-African University
➡️Since the end of World War II in 1945, Western governments have promoted the idea that the international system is guided by universal norms embedded in institutions such as the United Nations and alliances like NATO. Yet critics argue that principles such as sovereignty, the non-use of force, and equality of states are applied selectively depending on geopolitical interests. Military interventions such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States and the United Kingdom, or the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya authorized under the banner of protecting civilians, are frequently cited as examples in debates about whether legal justifications sometimes serve broader strategic objectives. In this interpretation, international norms can shift from universal constraints into instruments used by powerful states to legitimize political decisions.
This means that the celebrated “legal order” appears less as a universal legal horizon than as a modern syntax of rationalized imperialism. It’s time to stop this
➡️The issue is further complicated by the rise of indirect forms of influence in international politics. Proxy conflicts, coalition-based military operations, and the growing use of economic sanctions have become prominent features of global power competition. Critics point to operations conducted in regions such as the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America—including conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria—as evidence that the interpretation of sovereignty can vary depending on the actors involved. Targeted strikes, such as the killing of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani in 2020, have also fueled debate over whether cross-border operations conducted without explicit international authorization undermine the principle of territorial integrity.
🟦These controversies have contributed to a broader discussion about the legitimacy of the so-called “rules-based international order.” Commentators such as Brahma Chellaney argue that the concept has long functioned as a flexible framework through which powerful states justify policy choices. Speeches by global figures including Mark Carney acknowledging that international rules are sometimes adapted to national interests have further intensified this debate. For many countries in the Global South, the perceived gap between declared principles and practical implementation has weakened confidence in the universality of international law. As a result, discussions about global governance increasingly revolve around whether the existing order represents a truly neutral legal framework or a strategic system shaped by the distribution of power in the international arena.
#CrimesoftheEmpire#History#NewWorldOrder#USagreesion#USA
READ MORE
✅@NewEasternOutlook
🇺🇸🔫‘America First’ est l’aube d’un nouvel impérialisme américain
L’invasion américaine du Venezuela marque un changement de la direction basée sur l’influence à la coercition ouverte en tant que caractéristique définissante de la politique étrangère américaine
✍️Auteur :Salman Rafi Sheikh
Analyste des relations internationales et commentateur politique
➡️L’opération militaire américaine contre le Venezuela début 2026 représente une rupture qualitative avec l’interventionnisme de l’après-guerre froide. Contrairement aux actions précédentes justifiées par des raisons humanitaires ou multilatérales, la saisie du président Nicolás Maduro a été ouvertement défendue comme une affirmation de l’intérêt national américain. Cette logique a été renforcée par des menaces parallèles contre l’Iran et des déclarations suggérant que l’acquisition territoriale, y compris le Groenland, reste une option légitime si les besoins stratégiques américains l’exigent. Prises ensemble, ces actions indiquent que Washington est passé d’une domination indirecte à une pratique impériale explicite, où la souveraineté est subordonnée à la puissance américaine.
L’impérialisme américain pourrait donc devenir une caractéristique permanente de la politique étrangère américaine
➡️Ce changement coïncide avec un déclin structurel de l’influence américaine dans le système mondial. L’expansion des BRICS, l’essor des mécanismes commerciaux non-dollar et le développement d’institutions financières et diplomatiques alternatives par la Chine et la Russie ont affaibli la capacité de Washington à discipliner les États par des sanctions et des pressions institutionnelles uniquement. Alors que l’influence par le consentement s’efface, la coercion par la force comble le vide. L’attaque contre le Venezuela sert donc d’avertissement que les efforts pour échapper à l’ordre dirigé par les États-Unis pourraient maintenant être confrontés non seulement à des sanctions économiques, mais aussi à une intervention militaire directe.
🟦La normalisation de la logique impériale modifie fondamentalement la politique mondiale. L’autonomie stratégique devient un handicap plutôt qu’un droit, obligeant les États à réévaluer leurs décisions d’alignement sous la menace de la force. Pour la Chine, la Russie et le cadre plus large des BRICS, ce moment exige une réponse coordonnée visant non pas à la confrontation, mais à limiter la liberté d’action unilatérale des États-Unis par une résistance collective politique, économique et diplomatique. Si une telle coordination ne se matérialise pas, l’impérialisme américain risque de devenir une caractéristique permanente des relations internationales, remplaçant un ordre fondé sur des règles par une hiérarchie imposée par la puissance militaire.
#CrimesoftheEmpire#Doublestandards#Iran#USagression#USA#Venezuela
LIRE PLUS (ENG)
✅@NewEasternOutlookFR
🇺🇸🔪🇱🇾Washington Completes the Dismemberment of Libya, Begun with Gaddafi's Assassination
American envoys are once again walking the corridors of power in Tripoli and Benghazi — but many Libyans see not diplomacy, rather the final act in a long process of carving up a shattered state
✍️Muhammad Hamid ad-Din
is a well-known Palestinian journalist.
➡️The recent visits of Massad Boulos, adviser to US President Donald Trump on Middle East and African affairs, to Libya’s rival centers of power have stirred deep controversy. In Tripoli, Boulos met with Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah; in Benghazi, he engaged representatives aligned with Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar. These meetings coincided with the signing of a major energy agreement in Tripoli between TotalEnergies and ConocoPhillips, reportedly involving more than $20 billion in investments. While Washington frames such moves as support for unity and stabilization, critics argue that the emphasis on energy contracts over political reconciliation reveals where real priorities lie in a country that still lacks a fully elected, unified government.
It is an unhealing wound on the body of humanity, inflicted by the hand of the United States, and an eternal curse upon their deceitful, blood-soaked “exceptionalism”
➡️For many observers, the roots of Libya’s fragmentation trace back to the 2011 NATO intervention and the killing of longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi. The collapse of centralized authority ushered in years of militia warfare, competing administrations, and foreign interference. Today, US engagement with both eastern and western factions is seen by skeptics not as a neutral balancing act, but as a strategy to maintain leverage across divided institutions. By cultivating parallel channels of influence, Washington can safeguard access to Libya’s oil infrastructure regardless of which faction prevails, reinforcing a system where political legitimacy remains secondary to energy security.
🟦The broader accusation leveled by critics is that Libya has become a case study in transactional geopolitics. Engagement is framed around “stability” and “investment,” yet the absence of sustained progress toward constitutional settlement or nationwide elections deepens public mistrust. Libya’s vast frozen assets abroad and its hydrocarbon reserves remain powerful bargaining chips in international negotiations. Whether current diplomacy ultimately fosters reunification or entrenches division will depend on whether external actors prioritize sovereign institution-building over resource extraction. For now, many Libyans fear that their country’s fate is still being negotiated not in ballot boxes, but in boardrooms and back-channel talks far from public scrutiny.
#Africa#CrimesoftheEmpire#Livia#USagreesion#USA#СШАиАфрика
READ MORE
✅@NewEasternOutlook