2026-01-10T17:40:23+00:00
font
Enable Reading Mode
A-
A
A+
Shafaq News
Within days, US foreign policy has shifted from issuing
warnings to applying force through unconventional means, as the world watches
developments in Venezuela with growing concern.
Analysts interviewed by Shafaq News view the moves not as an
isolated episode in Latin America, but as a potential prototype for how
President Donald Trump’s administration may act in other regions, particularly
the Middle East.
Trump’s repeated assertion that “the world is changing” now
appears less rhetorical and more declarative, signaling what observers describe
as the erosion of the post–World War II international order.
That shift was underscored by a recent executive decision to
withdraw the United States from 66 international organizations, which the
administration characterized as bureaucratic and hostile to US interests. One
day later, Trump told The New York Times that restraint on his actions comes
from personal moral judgment and rational calculation rather than adherence to
international law.
Read more: Early 2026 global tensions raise fears of a newphase of proxy conflict
Venezuela and Iran in the Spotlight
As major capitals assess the maritime blockade measures and
oil seizures imposed on Venezuela, attention has increasingly turned to the
Middle East, and specifically Iran.
For the third time since protests erupted in Iran —initially
driven by economic grievances before evolving into political demands— Trump has
warned Tehran that Washington would intervene forcefully if protesters are
killed.
In discussions with Shafaq News, three prominent
Washington-based experts outlined competing interpretations of this emerging
global order.
Thomas Warrick, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and
former US deputy assistant secretary of homeland security for counterterrorism
policy, rejected the notion of a direct replication between Venezuela and Iran.
He explained that each file is handled by separate teams within the
administration, with Venezuela falling under Western Hemisphere policy and Iran
tied to nuclear and regional security concerns.
Read more:Iran’s protests between economic crisis and political contestation
Still, Warrick cautioned that this distinction does not
translate into safety for Tehran. He noted that Trump, who holds broad
authority over the US military, may bypass options such as naval blockades in
favor of more severe measures if Iranian protesters face violent repression.
“One option under consideration could involve launching
Tomahawk cruise missiles against Revolutionary Guard bases,” Warrick said,
adding that despite the absence of a US aircraft carrier in the Gulf, naval
vessels capable of carrying out such strikes remain deployed.
He also referenced the 2020 killing of Iran’s Quds Forces
Leader Qassem Soleimani in an airstrike near Baghdad International Airport as
evidence of Trump’s preference for unexpected choices from the Pentagon’s menu
of options.
Logistical Constraints and Legal Arguments
Patrick Clawson, research director at The Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, assessed the situation from a logistical
standpoint. He suggested that the US Navy may be overstretched, arguing that
intercepting Iranian vessels would be far more complex than targeting
Venezuelan shipping.
However, Clawson maintained that legal justification for action
against Iran already exists. He pointed to Tehran’s use of ships operating
under false flags in violation of international regulations, arguing that such
practices could render those vessels legitimate targets should Washington
decide to overcome logistical hurdles.
Divisions Over International Law
Trump’s dismissal of international legal frameworks has deepened divisions among analysts.
Radwan Ziadeh, a researcher at the Arab Center, Washington, DC, warned that the United States risks shifting from a guarantor of international law to an obstacle to it.
He cautioned that sidelining global norms could embolden Russia in Ukraine and China in Taiwan by effectively permitting them to violate sovereignty.
Clawson countered that view with sharp realism, noting, “breaches of international law long predate Trump.”
For Shafaq News, Mostafa Hashem, Washington, DC.
