Uncategorized
America’s “Trump Doctrine” Will Reshape International Relations
By HENRY SREBRNIK Donald Trump’s return to the White House marks the beginning of a new era on the global stage and is expected to bring significant changes to the international balance of power.
Trump capitalized on a sense of discontent that had been building since the end of the Cold War in the 1990s and was galvanized by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan that followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Many of his advisers are part of a foreign policy movement on the Republican Party right who call themselves “restrainers” and are against what they consider America’s 21st century involvement in “forever wars.” For them, the neoconservative interventionists have overextended the country’s commitment abroad.
President Trump’s policy in his second term will continue to concentrate on distinct American interests. His America First emphasis means Trump is likely to reduce involvement in international institutions, while demanding that NATO and other allies take greater responsibility for their own defence.
The Middle East today features dangers and opportunities that were not present when he first took office eight years ago. The greatest danger remains Iran’s advances toward acquiring nuclear weapons. The best opportunities have emerged from Israel’s decimation of Hezbollah and Hamas, its successful attacks on Iran, and the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.
A year and a half ago, Iran’s foreign policy could possibly have been considered enormously successful. But since then, Israel has turned the tables. Hamas will not again pose a serious military threat to Israel. The Israelis have wiped out Hezbollah’s leadership and given Lebanon a chance to reclaim its sovereignty. And Assad’s regime is gone.
Weakening Iran will be a priority. Trump is expected to intensify the “maximum pressure” policy on Iran, including imposing additional severe sanctions and making a concentrated effort to ensure their enforcement. To stop Tehran’s nuclear ambitions may also require the credible threat of military action. He is likely to seek to strengthen the regional front against Iran, including close cooperation with Israel and the Gulf states.
Trump’s proposal that the United States “take over” and rebuild Gaza while its residents live elsewhere is far-fetched. But it might better be seen as a reflection of the fact that no realistic plan for Gaza exists. Since 2005, when the Israelis withdrew from Gaza, Washington has tried to buy off Hamas – and this culminated in the 2023 attacks. While the administration may continue to oppose Israel’s annexation of the West Bank, any future participation of Hamas in Palestinian self-government is unacceptable.
Trump will continue efforts to stabilize Lebanon, particularly following the election of Washington’s preferred candidate, Joseph Aoun, as its president. The U.S. will demand that the Lebanese armed forces prevent a renewed Hezbollah presence in the south and guard Lebanon’s borders to stop Iranian arms supplies from entering.
As for Turkey, relations may continue to be contentious, particularly regarding Ankara’s antagonism to the Kurds in northern Syria, its hostility toward Israel and support for Hamas, and growing closeness to Russia and China. Washington might try to influence the new Syrian regime, which, after all, seeks to consolidate its power and present itself as striving for a more Western-oriented approach. It will also be U.S. policy to maintain Washington’s partnership with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces until the militia’s status and future safety are secured.
Finally, Trump’s policies will involve expanding the Abraham Accords, a highlight of his first term, by having Israel focus on advancing normalization with Saudi Arabia. Trump has also again designated the Houthis in Yemen as a foreign terrorist organization, which President Biden had revoked.
The confrontation with China will remain a central focus of Trump’s global policy, particularly in economic and technological aspects. Trump has sought to confront China over what he says is a number of economic abuses: intellectual property theft, currency manipulation, export and other subsidies, and economic espionage. He says aggressive action is required to protect American workers and to reduce the United States’ large bilateral trade deficit.
Tensions over Taiwan will continue to threaten regional stability in East Asia. It is likely that Trump does not want to be perceived as abandoning Taiwan and U.S. commitments to the island, but at the same time, he does not want Taiwan to drag the United States into a military conflict. He has observed that “Taiwan is 9,500 miles away” from the United States, while it’s “68 miles away from China.”
Trump has long been critical of American support for Kyiv and has moved to end Russia’s war against Ukraine. His statements suggest that he is not necessarily committed to preserving Ukrainian sovereignty within its internationally recognized borders and may be open to a deal that allows Russia to maintain its presence in occupied Ukrainian territories as well as legitimizing its possession of Crimea. He has told Europe that it cannot depend indefinitely on the United States and must do more to aid Ukraine.
He also wants Ukraine to supply the United States with rare earth minerals as a form of payment for financially assisting the country’s war efforts against Russia.
The world will be a very different place over the next four years. After all, as one newspaper put it, Trump was elected to “be a wrecking ball to the Beltway elites.”
Henry Srebrnik is a professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.
Uncategorized
Oil Prices Likely to Move Higher on Venezuelan Turmoil, Ample Supply to Cap Gains
FILE PHOTO: The Guinea-flagged oil tanker MT Bandra, which is under sanctions, is partially seen alongside another vessel at El Palito terminal, near Puerto Cabello, Venezuela December 29, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Juan Carlos Hernandez/File Photo
Oil prices are likely to move higher when benchmark futures resume trading later on Sunday on concern that supply may be disrupted after the United States snatched Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from Caracas at the weekend and President Donald Trump said Washington would take control of the oil-producing nation.
There is plentiful oil supply in global markets, meaning any further disruption to Venezuela’s exports would have little immediate impact on prices, analysts said.
The US strike on Venezuela to extract the country’s president inflicted no damage on the country’s oil production and refining industry, two sources with knowledge of operations at state oil company PDVSA said at the weekend.
Since Trump imposed a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuelan waters and seized two cargoes last month, exports have fallen and have been completely paralysed since January 1.
That has left millions of barrels stuck on loaded tankers in Venezuelan waters and led to millions more barrels going into Venezuelan oil storage.
The OPEC member’s exports fell to around 500,000 barrels per day in December, around half of what they were in November. Most of the December exports took place before the embargo. Since then, only exports from Chevron of around 100,000 bpd have continued to leave Venezuela. The global oil major has US authorization to produce and export from Venezuela despite sanctions.
The embargo prompted PDVSA to begin cutting oil output, three sources close to the decision said on Sunday, because Venezuela is running out of storage capacity for the oil that it cannot export. PDVSA has asked some of the joint ventures that are operating in the country to cut back production, the sources said. They would need to shut down oilfields or well clusters.
Trump said on Saturday that the oil embargo on Venezuelan exports remained in full effect. If the US government loosens the embargo and allows more Venezuelan crude exports to the US Gulf, there are refiners there that previously processed the country’s oil.
The weekend’s events were unlikely to materially alter global oil markets or the global economy given the US strikes avoided Venezuela’s oil infrastructure, said Neil Shearing, group chief economist at Capital Economics.
“In any case, any short-term disruption to Venezuelan output can easily be offset by increased production elsewhere. And any medium-term recovery in Venezuelan supply would be dwarfed by shifts among the major producers,” he said in a note.
Trump also threatened on Friday to intervene in a crackdown on protests in Iran, another OPEC producer, ratcheting up geopolitical tensions. Trump on Friday said “we are locked and loaded and ready to go,” without specifying what actions he was considering against Tehran, which has seen a week of unrest as protests over soaring inflation spread across the country.
“Prices may see modest upside on heightened geopolitical tensions and disruption risks linked to Venezuela and Iran, but ample global supply should continue to cap those risks for now,” said Ole Hansen, head of commodities research at Saxo Bank.
On Sunday, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and their allies agreed to maintain steady oil output in the first quarter, OPEC+ said in a statement. Both Venezuela and Iran are members of OPEC. Several other members of OPEC+ are also embroiled in conflict and political crises.
The producer group has put increases in production on pause for the first quarter after raising output targets by around 2.9 million barrels per day from April to December 2025, equal to almost 3% of world oil demand.
Brent and US crude futures settled lower on Friday, the first day of trading of 2026, as investors weighed oversupply concerns against geopolitical risks. Both contracts closed 2025 with their biggest annual loss since 2020 marked by wars, higher tariffs, increased OPEC+ output and sanctions on Russia, Iran and Venezuela.
VENEZUELA
“The political transition in Venezuela adds another major layer of uncertainty, with elevated risks of civil unrest and near-term supply disruptions,” said Jorge Leon, head of geopolitical analysis at consultancy Rystad Energy and a former OPEC official.
“In an environment this fragile, OPEC+ is choosing caution, preserving flexibility rather than introducing new uncertainty into an already volatile market.”
Trump said on Saturday that the US would control the country until it could make an orderly transition, but an interim government led by vice president and oil minister Delcy Rodriguez remains in control of the country’s institutions, including state energy company PDVSA, with the blessing of Venezuela’s top court.
A top Venezuelan official said on Sunday that the country’s government would stay unified behind Maduro amid deep uncertainty about what is next for the Latin American country.
Trump said that American oil companies were prepared to reenter Venezuela and invest billions of dollars to restore production there.
Venezuela is unlikely to see any meaningful boost to crude output for years even if US oil majors do invest the billions of dollars in the country that Trump has promised, analysts said.
“We continue to caution market observers that it will be a long road back for the country, given its decades-long decline under the Chávez and Maduro regimes, as well as the fact that the US regime change track record is not one of unambiguous success,” Helima Croft, RBC Capital’s head of commodities research, said in a note.
Uncategorized
US Pushes Oil Majors to Invest Big in Venezuela if They Want to Recover Debts
A demonstrator uses a megaphone during a protest against US military action in Venezuela, at Lafayette Square in front of the White House, following US President Donald Trump’s announcement that the US military has struck Venezuela and captured its President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 3, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Tyrone Siu
White House and State Department officials have told US oil executives in recent weeks that they would need to return to Venezuela quickly and invest significant capital in the country to revive the damaged oil industry if they wanted compensation for assets expropriated by Venezuela two decades ago, according to two people familiar with the outreach.
In the 2000s, Venezuela expropriated the assets of some international oil companies that declined to give state-run oil company PDVSA increased operational control, as demanded by late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
US oil major Chevron was among companies that negotiated to stay in the country and form joint ventures with state-run PDVSA, while rivals Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips left and filed for arbitration.
President Donald Trump said on Saturday that American companies were prepared to return to Venezuela and spend billions to reactivate the struggling oil sector, just hours after President Nicolás Maduro was captured and removed by US forces.
In the recent US administration discussions with oil executives in the scenario that Maduro was out of power, officials have said that US oil companies would need to front the investment money themselves to rebuild Venezuela’s oil industry. That would be one of the preconditions for them eventually recovering debts from the expropriations.
That would be a costly investment for firms such as ConocoPhillips, the sources said. Conoco for years has tried to recover some $12 billion from the Chavez-era nationalization of its Venezuela assets. Exxon Mobil also filed international arbitration cases, trying to recover $1.65 billion.
Trump began making public reference to the Venezuelan expropriations when he ordered a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers last month.
CONDITIONS FOR A RETURN
Whether or not the companies return would depend on how executives, boards and shareholders evaluate the risk of renewed investment in Venezuela, the sources said.
“ConocoPhillips is monitoring developments in Venezuela and their potential implications for global energy supply and stability. It would be premature to speculate on any future business activities or investments,” a company spokesperson said in emailed comments to Reuters on Saturday. The company reiterated the statement on Sunday when asked about discussions with administration officials for this story.
Exxon did not immediately respond to questions from Reuters on Sunday.
Politico first reported on the recent discussions on Saturday.
Even if companies do agree to return to the country, it could be years before there is a meaningful boost to oil output. The South American country has one of the largest estimated reserves in the world, but production has plummeted over past decades amid mismanagement, lack of investment and US sanctions.
Besides uncertainty surrounding the contract framework for any operations there, companies considering a return would also need to deal with security concerns, poor infrastructure, questions about the legality of the US operation to capture Maduro and the possibility of long-term political instability, analysts have told Reuters.
Venezuela, a founding member of OPEC, produced as much as 3.5 million barrels per day in the 1970s, which at the time represented over 7 percent of global oil output. Production fell below 2 million bpd during the 2010s and averaged around 1.1 million bpd last year, or just 1 percent of global production.
Uncategorized
Latvia Police Board Vessel After Baltic Sea Telecom Cable Breach
Latvia’s Prime Minister Evika Silina attends a press conference on the day of the Eastern Flank Summit in Helsinki, Finland December 16, 2025. Lehtikuva/Heikki Saukkomaa/via REUTERS/File Photo
An undersea telecoms cable was damaged in the Baltic Sea on Friday and Latvian investigators on Sunday boarded a ship in connection with the incident, the country’s state police said in a statement.
The Baltic Sea region is on high alert after a string of power cable, telecom link and gas pipeline outages since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, and the NATO military alliance has boosted its presence with frigates, aircraft and naval drones.
Lithuania’s National Crisis Management Centre said the cable runs from Sventoji in Lithuania to Liepaja in Latvia, two coastal towns some 65 km (40 miles) apart, and that it was not immediately clear what caused the incident.
“At this time, neither the vessel nor its crew is detained, they are cooperating with the police, and active work continues to clarify the circumstances,” Latvian police said on X.
Latvia’s Prime Minister Evika Silina said the damage had occurred near Liepaja.
“The incident has not affected Latvian communications users,” she wrote on X.
The latest incident is made public five days after Finnish police seized a cargo vessel en route from Russia to Israel on suspicion of sabotaging an undersea telecoms cable running from Helsinki across the Gulf of Finland to Estonia.