اخبار اليمن – وطن نيوز
اخبار اليمن اليمن الان – اخبار اليمن اليوم
W6nnews.com ==== وطن === تاريخ النشر – 2026-04-27 19:27:00
Donald Trump’s experience provides a condensed example of a qualitative shift in American political discourse, as the official language moved from the space of moral justification for interventions, to a direct declaration of the capitalist ambitions behind the country’s foreign policy! In the past decades, American military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere were presented under the titles of “spreading democracy” and “protecting international security,” while the reality on the ground demonstrated the contradiction of these slogans with the actual results. Interventions in internal affairs were covered by: “nurturing democracy, protecting human rights, defending minorities, and advancing economic reforms towards peace and prosperity.” As for the Trump era, this cover was no longer necessary to the same degree, as the discourse moved to a more crude level, in which the president himself expressed aggressive foreign policies linked to the plundering of people’s resources, relations with allies based on economic returns, and a military policy with the threat of using force or actually using it, to absorb wealth from the world to the American center, and to protect the American economy from competition in the global market. Gasping for oil: Trump redefined the relationship between war and oil rents in a direct way, as he repeated – on more than one occasion – that the United States “should have taken Iraq’s oil,” linking this to the amount of military spending and the human losses it incurred during the invasion that began in 2003. This statement – which seemed shocking on its face – is inseparable from a long context of effective control over the Iraqi energy sector after the occupation, where Western companies played a central role in reorganizing production and export. The difference is that the previous American speech presented this control over Iraqi oil as part of ensuring the “rebuilding of the state” because the Iraqis “do not have sufficient maturity to dispose of their wealth,” while Trump’s speech presented this control as legitimate compensation for the losses of the aggressive war that led to the destruction of Iraq! In the Syrian case, the same logic was repeated more clearly. Trump announced in 2019 – in the presence of journalists – that American forces were in eastern Syria “for the sake of oil, and any journalist who does not realize this fact is stupid and foolish,” referring to the fields of Deir ez-Zor and Hasakah, which represent one of the country’s most important energy sources. This statement did not link the American presence in Syria to any talk about a “political settlement or the protection of civilians,” as was the pretext provided during the era of Obama or Biden. Rather, it focused on the issue of plundering resources and preventing other parties from accessing them, including preventing the people themselves from enjoying their goods, including the Syrian government itself. When the idea of involving major American companies such as “ExxonMobil” in investment was raised, it seemed closer to turning military control into a long-term economic contract, and now, under the government of Takfiri groups in Damascus, American companies can plunder this wealth without hindrance. As for Venezuela, Trump expressed a vision based on the possibility of reorganizing the oil sector under direct American supervision in the event of a change in power, which was linked to attempts to support the opposition and weaken the government through sanctions targeting the national oil company, leading to direct American aggression with the arrest of President-elect Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026, and containing the new government in the country. In these three cases, oil appears as the focus of American policy, which clearly seeks to plunder it, in any country, as long as the United States is capable of aggression and use of force against this country. America and the plundering of peoples’ wealth The Trump era witnessed an extreme expansion in the use of economic tools, not only for political pressure, but also to plunder resources and topple countries. The sanctions imposed on Iran since the United States withdrew from the nuclear agreement in 2018, and on Venezuela in the same period, were not limited to restricting financial transactions, but rather directly targeted oil revenues, by preventing exports, prosecuting tankers, and imposing restrictions on the international banking system. In multiple cases, oil shipments have been detained at sea, confiscated, or their proceeds redirected to opposition parties, as happened with Venezuelan assets frozen abroad. This type of action turned the economy into an arena of open confrontation, where the issue was no longer about changing the behavior of a country, but rather about directly controlling its resources and preventing it from accessing markets. This shift is related to an increasing overlap between global financial institutions and American policy, as the international financial system, based on the dominance of the dollar, has become an effective tool in imposing this type of control. In this sense, military force alone is no longer the primary means, but rather it is integrated with financial and commercial tools capable of achieving similar results at a lower cost. Declaration of war crimes! In the context of the aggression against Iran, Trump issued statements that included threats to destroy cultural and historical sites and “end Iranian civilization,” in addition to threatening to destroy energy infrastructure. This expansion in the language of threats reflects a shift in the nature of the conflict, as it is no longer limited to military balances between countries, but rather has expanded to include social and cultural structures, in contradiction with international humanitarian law and all systems and customs known after World War II. If the United States had previously violated these rules and denied doing so, with Trump the United States no longer denies war crimes, but rather threatens them publicly! Geopolitics The frank discourse extended to include clear sovereignty issues, such as the proposal to invade Greenland, an island of strategic importance due to its location and natural resources, in addition to talking about restoring American control over the Panama Canal, whose management was transferred to Panama in 1999 according to previous agreements, and appointing himself as governor of Gaza within what he called the “Peace Council.” These statements bring into consideration the idea of “living space” in geology, which was developed by the Nazi school, where geography is viewed. As an open field governed by the balance of power and the ability to occupy, annex and annex as long as that is possible and it performs a geopolitical function, that is, apart from understanding the vital field in a way based on international cooperation and partnership, the internal function of the discourse, in addition to the actual threat to other countries, which was implemented as in the aggression against Venezuela and Iran, there is another dimension to the discourse, which is the internal context, where the state of political polarization has escalated in recent years, popular confidence in official institutions has declined, and economic issues have emerged. And social pressures, such as unemployment and the decline of industry in some states. In this context, Trump’s rhetoric, which links foreign policy to direct economic gains – such as jobs and energy prices – has gained greater influence. Trump presented himself as a “leader” capable of “recovering” what he considers “lost rights,” whether by renegotiating trade agreements, or by plundering resources abroad, under the slogan “America First,” which frees the United States from all laws, considerations, and even alliances. In the forefront, every means is legitimate! This link between the outside and the inside has made international politics part of the electoral discourse and daily post-election propaganda as part of an ongoing populist campaign to excite the American public. At the same time, this method has contributed to transferring internal crises abroad, through the world’s portrayal of the American people as an open field to compensate for American economic losses, which puts other peoples in the position of the direct recipient of these policies, and the Gulf countries are an explicit example of this dealing, as Trump believes that the United States has the right to dispose of its wealth, in exchange for “security protection.” The king “will not be able to protect his ass,” as Trump once said mocking King Salman, in the context of the economic crisis and Trump’s impudence. The escalation of frank rhetoric comes in the context of deeper transformations within the American economy and politics, as the United States’ ability to dominate the international system has declined with the same smoothness that characterized the post-Cold War era, and the global financial crisis in 2008 AD, and then the repercussions of the Corona pandemic in 2020 AD, weakened the structure of growth and raised debt levels. And the widening of social gaps within the United States, which was reflected in its ability to finance external influence in the same way. In this context, it is no longer possible to rely on traditional tools, such as stable alliances or international institutions, to manage global balances, so the need has emerged for a more direct speech that reflects the extent of the pressures. Trump’s statements about oil, sanctions, the use of force and the policy of aggression are not separate from this context, but rather represent one of its expressions, as frank language is used to compensate for the decline in the ability to impose policies on energy and trade. Energy and trade issues have turned from technical issues into elements Central to the international conflict. During the first Trump administration, and the second to a greater extent, policies such as the trade war with China emerged, which actually began in 2018 with the imposition of mutual customs duties, and targeted sensitive industrial and technical sectors, in an attempt to restore the trade balance in favor of the United States. The trade war and customs duties included the world, bypassing China in the energy file. The sanctions on Iran and Venezuela took a direct nature targeting production and export, which led to fluctuations in global markets, and increased the sensitivity of sea lanes, all the way to the issue. The existing blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, as these economic mechanisms are used directly as weapons of war that harm the world, while Trump appears happy that his country has enough oil and will not be harmed by what he is doing in the Strait of Hormuz! He ignores the alliances, friendships, and relations that unite the United States with the countries affected by Washington’s policy. Within the logic of the deal, Trump’s speech and behavior are not limited to opponents and countries that he sees as geographical pieces full of wealth without people. Trump’s speech has reshaped the nature of the relationship with the allies. Traditionalists, especially in Europe and Japan, where there was pressure to increase defense spending within NATO, and to impose duties on steel and aluminum imports from allied countries, in a move that broke previous rules based on economic coordination within the Western camp in the Arab region and West Asia. This logic appeared in dealing with the Gulf states, where security protection was linked to huge arms deals, estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars, as in Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia in 2017. This method transformed the alliance from a long-term strategic relationship This transformation has led many countries to seek to diversify their international relations, by strengthening cooperation with powers such as China, Russia, Pakistan, and India, or opening channels of communication with former adversaries, as was demonstrated in the Saudi-Iranian reconciliation sponsored by China. The continuity of logic and the change in style. The fundamental change in American behavior and discourse under the first and second Trump administrations affects the style of expression more than the essence of the imperialist system, as it uses economic and military power to achieve success. Influence has been a constant feature in American politics for decades, even since it was founded on the ruins of indigenous civilizations and peoples. But what has changed is the degree of frankness in declaring these colonial policies, and the appearance of the logic of the rogue state with which Chomsky always described the United States of America. The American discourse that previously relied on terms such as “the rules-based international order” and “humanitarian intervention” has disappeared in favor of an excessive discourse of political realism, which directly links aggression and wealth, and with Trump it is no longer there. The need exists to the same extent to encapsulate interventionist policies against the peoples of the world in moral language. In this sense, a new regime is not emerging in the United States, but rather the features of an existing regime are revealing, which concealed plunder and war crimes through diplomatic language and flashy terminology that anesthetizes the people and deceives the allies. The bottom line: The escalation of frank rhetoric during the era of Donald Trump reveals a defining moment in the history of international relations, where internal crises intersected with global transformations, and produced a clear imperialist discourse that directly expresses the interests that were there. Previously hidden: controlling resources and plundering peoples, using economic tools to harm countries and societies, and putting profit above alliances…etc. This clarity did not go unnoticed, as it prompted countries and peoples to re-evaluate their positions towards the United States, and opened the way for a broader search for alternatives that reduce the cost of these imperialist policies. At the same time, this speech placed limits on the Trump administration’s ability to continue, as the clarity of its criminal nature led to its rejection and peoples’ resistance to it, and allies and friends placed precautions in the relationship with it.
