The current Trump administration of the USA gave its word that it wouldn’t start any war which would have implications for the whole world. Donald Trump repeatedly mentioned his past tenure during his campaigns regarding the fact that other presidents started many wars unlike him. He also promised that he would settle the Gaza and Ukraine crises. Thus, the people of the USA and the whole world got some relief, though there was skepticism about his ‘Make America Great Again’ campaign.
After assuming the Oval Office, Donald Trump and his administration initiated several talks to resolve many conflicts. They criticised their allies for their hypocritical nature. Trump threatened to take Greenland, raised tariffs for every country, even the allies. Suddenly, warm relations turned cold. However, Trump wanted the American superiority back at a reduced cost and control over the components and resources needed for serving American interests. This is the America First Doctrine of Trump.
From January of 2025 to January of 2026, a lot of discussions, blame and calls for change emerged, all of these happened only because Trump began to attack other countries both verbally and with soft actions. Amid all these, a military operation against Venezuela and later a large-scale attack on Iran took place. In both cases, the USA was accused of directly violating international norms and rules, threatening the international rules based order to collapse, which was created by them after the Second World War.
In both cases USA gave some justifications of their actions with some political contexts. The Trump administration had launched attacks on merchant ships at the coast of Venezuela accusing these were containing illegal drugs. They called it narco terrorism. Many ships were taken into custody by the USA. However, Venezuela repeatedly denied all of these accusations. Afterwards, the USA attacked with broader military actions that changed the regional balance of power.
Behind these events, the actual objectives appear deeper and more strategic than the official explanations. The first and most important objective is maintaining hegemonic power. The America First doctrine is not isolationism in practice. Rather, it is a recalibration of global dominance at a reduced financial burden. If American hegemony is secured, its political, economic and military power will grow without direct large-scale occupation everywhere. The message is simple. The United States wants to remain the central decision making force in global politics.
To remain hegemon, control over strategic resources becomes essential. Energy remains one of the most critical components of global influence. Countries like Iran and Venezuela possess vast oil and gas reserves. Whoever influences these resources can shape global markets, energy prices and industrial stability. By targeting these states, the United States strengthens its leverage over global energy supply chains. Control does not always mean formal ownership. It means influence over production, distribution and political alignment. If adversarial governments control major resources independently, they can resist American pressure. Therefore weakening their control serves long term hegemonic objectives.
The ongoing case of Iran reflects this objective more clearly. Iran is the only country in the Middle East with huge natural resources that maintains openly adversarial relations with the United States. A joint military operation by the United States and Israel against Iran demonstrates that the issue is not only about nuclear concerns or regional instability. It is about restructuring the balance of power in the Middle East. If Iran is weakened or brought under a new political arrangement, the United States secures influence over one of the most resource rich and strategically located states in the region.
Israel joined this operation for its own strategic calculation. A weakened Iran removes the strongest regional challenger to Israeli security and influence. If Iran’s power declines significantly, Israel emerges as the uncontested regional hegemon in the Middle East. Thus, the joint action serves dual purposes. For Washington, it secures resource influence and limits adversarial resistance. For Israel, it reshapes the regional hierarchy in its favour.
Another objective is regime change in resource rich adversarial states. Governments that resist American influence often become targets of economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation or military intervention. In the case of Venezuela, pressure on the government of Nicolás Maduro has been consistent for years. In Iran, the Islamic government has long been positioned as a strategic rival. Removing or destabilising such governments creates opportunities for leadership that aligns more closely with American interests. Regime change does not always mean direct occupation. It can mean political weakening, internal division or forced negotiation under pressure. Resource wealth makes these governments more resilient. That is precisely why they become primary targets.
A further dimension of these conflicts is strategic competition with China. The People’s Republic of China has expanded its economic and diplomatic presence in Latin America and the Middle East. China is a major importer of oil from both Iran and Venezuela and has invested heavily in infrastructure and energy partnerships in these regions. If China secures stable long term access to these resources, its global rise accelerates. For the United States, preventing China from consolidating influence in resource rich regions is essential. By intervening in these areas, Washington not only pressures adversarial governments but also disrupts Beijing’s expanding footprint. Keeping China away from strategic resources limits its economic growth and geopolitical leverage.
All these objectives are interconnected. Maintaining hegemony requires resource influence. Resource influence requires limiting adversaries. Limiting adversaries requires containing rival great powers such as China. If these goals are achieved simultaneously, the United States strengthens its unmatched global position. No rival would be able to challenge it economically, militarily or politically.
Unlike earlier eras that openly articulated doctrines such as the Monroe Doctrine, this strategy operates more through direct action rather than declared principles. Instead of simply warning external powers to stay away, the current approach demonstrates power through tariffs, sanctions, naval operations and military strikes. Even traditional allies are criticised for depending too much on American security guarantees. The administration argues that the United States spends excessively to protect others. Therefore allies are pressured to contribute more or face economic consequences.
In this context, recent conflicts appear less about immediate security threats and more about structural power competition. The rhetoric may focus on narcotics, terrorism or regional instability, but the broader pattern reflects a struggle over dominance in a transforming global order. Preserve hegemony, control strategic resources, reshape adversarial regimes, contain China and reduce the financial burden of global leadership. In that sense, the recent conflicts are not isolated incidents. They are components of a larger design aimed at restoring and securing American primacy in an increasingly competitive world order.
