From Venezuela to Iran-and Beyond?
Resource Politics, Strategic Coercion, and the New Trump Doctrine
Dr Shabir Choudhry | 03 January 2026
In recent years, U.S. policy toward resource-rich but politically defiant states has revealed a discernible pattern: economic coercion, regime pressure, and strategic isolation aimed less at ideology or democracy promotion and more at control over critical resources and geopolitical positioning. President Donald Trump’s approach to Venezuela offers a revealing case study—and raises an unavoidable question: is Iran next, possibly with Israel’s assistance? And could Pakistan—or even Greenland—eventually fall within the same strategic logic?
This is not primarily about democracy. It is about minerals, leverage, and power.
Venezuela: The Prototype
Trump’s Venezuela policy was unusually blunt and transactional. Through sweeping sanctions, recognition of an alternative government, asset seizures, and pressure on oil exports, Washington sought to neutralise Caracas without direct military intervention.
Venezuela possesses:
- The world’s largest proven oil reserves
- Strategic access to the Caribbean
- Growing ties with China, Russia, and Iran
The message was unmistakable: states that control vital resources but resist U.S. strategic alignment become targets of coercive containment.
Is Iran Next?
Iran presents a far more complex—and dangerous—case.
Why Iran Matters
Iran controls or influences:
- Major oil and gas reserves
- Critical maritime chokepoints, especially the Strait of Hormuz
- Regional supply chains linked to China and Russia
- Increasingly important mineral resources relevant to advanced technology
Trump’s Iran policy during his presidency was overtly confrontational:
- Withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)
- “Maximum pressure” sanctions
- Economic strangulation
- Targeted killings, most notably that of General Qassem Soleimani
Israel views Iran as an existential threat. A renewed Trump–Israel alignment against Iran would likely emphasise:
- Cyber warfare
- Covert sabotage
- Proxy escalation
- Diplomatic and economic isolation
A full-scale invasion remains unlikely. Managed destabilisation, however, cannot be ruled out—particularly amid Iran’s internal economic pressures and recurring protests. Any serious escalation would carry enormous risks.
Implications of an Iran Confrontation
- Energy market shocks
- Regional escalation across the Middle East
- Intensification of proxy wars
- Greater Chinese and Russian involvement
- Global economic instability
Iran is not Venezuela. A miscalculation here could ignite a regional—or even global—crisis.
After Iran: Pakistan?
At first glance, Pakistan appears an unlikely comparison. It is formally a U.S. partner, a nuclear-armed state, and deeply embedded in global financial institutions. Yet its vulnerabilities lie elsewhere.
Why Pakistan Could Become Strategically Relevant
Pakistan possesses:
- Significant rare-earth and mineral resources, especially in Balochistan
- Strategic transit routes connecting South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East
- Proximity to China and Iran
- Chronic economic fragility
Recent discussions and reports point to growing external interest in:
- Rare-earth extraction
- Strategic positioning in Balochistan
- Reducing China’s monopoly over critical minerals
Unlike Iran, Pakistan is unlikely to face overt hostility. Pressure would more plausibly take subtler forms:
- IMF conditionalities
- Security cooperation frameworks
- Strategic “assistance”
- Quiet leverage over civilian and military elites
The risk is not invasion, but strategic dependency—Pakistan becoming a managed resource frontier rather than a sovereign strategic actor.
Greenland: The Blunt Truth
Trump’s public interest in purchasing Greenland shocked diplomatic circles—but it was not irrational.
Greenland offers:
- Rare-earth minerals
- Strategic Arctic positioning
- Growing military value as ice recedes
- A check on Russian and Chinese Arctic ambitions
Trump articulated openly what earlier administrations implied quietly: territory and minerals still matter.
Greenland illustrates the doctrine clearly:
If it is strategically vital and resource-rich, it is negotiable.
The Common Thread: Minerals, Not Morality
Across Venezuela, Iran, Pakistan, and Greenland, one theme dominates:
control of future resources.
- Rare-earth minerals
- Energy
- Strategic geography
Trump’s worldview is unapologetically transactional:
- Allies are assets
- States are balance sheets
- Sovereignty is conditional
- Power flows to those who control extraction and supply chains
This is 21st-century mercantilism, enforced through sanctions, financial dominance, and military reach.
Global Implications
- Weak states become bargaining chips
- Resource nationalism invites external pressure
- U.S.–China rivalry intensifies around minerals
- Middle powers risk strategic erosion
- Global instability increasingly stems from supply chains, not ideology
Conclusion: A New Great Game
What we are witnessing is not chaos but the emergence of a new Great Game—fought over minerals, routes, and leverage rather than colonies and flags.
Venezuela demonstrated the method. Some analysts argue it served as a rehearsal for more consequential confrontations—possibly Iran, where the risks are exponentially higher.
Pakistan could be drawn quietly into strategic dependency, as history shows how quickly sovereignty can be compromised under pressure. Greenland reminds us that even territory is no longer off the table.
In this environment, survival depends not on rhetoric or alliances but on strategic clarity, economic autonomy, and political coherence.
States that fail to define their national interest will inevitably find it defined for them. END
Dr Shabir Choudhry is a London-based political analyst, author, and expert on South Asian affairs, with a focus on Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Kashmir.
Email: Drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment