Last week, we discussed how recent developments in Venezuela, and to some extent in Iran, were beginning to echo the events of 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq in the Second Gulf War (the first being Operation Desert Storm in 1992, launched by President Bush Sr.). This week, events appear to be moving even further in that direction. President Trump has made it clear that the US intends to run Venezuela together with the “puppet president” Rodríguez, signalling a desire for de facto rather than de jure regime change. Meanwhile, longstanding links between former President Maduro and Hizbollah, the para-terroristic organisation active in Lebanon and Syria, have resurfaced in press reports, which allege collusion in drug trafficking operations and illicit finance.

As the US moves to assert control over Venezuela, Trump has also turned his attention to Greenland. He has intensified his controversial campaign to bring the territory under US control, declaring that the United States will act “whether they like it or not” if no agreement is reached with Denmark and Greenland. Speaking at the White House, Trump argued that the US must take control of Greenland to prevent Russia or China from gaining influence over the strategically vital Arctic island, framing the move as essential to US national security. He said he would prefer to “make a deal” the easy way, but warned that he was prepared to pursue the objective “the hard way” if necessary.

Trump’s rhetoric has sparked strong backlash from Greenlandic and Danish leaders. Greenland’s five political parties issued a joint statement rejecting any notion of becoming part of the United States, emphasising that “we do not want to be Americans… we want to be Greenlanders,” and asserting Greenlanders’ right to self-determination. Denmark’s prime minister, along with several European allies, has also condemned Trump’s approach, warning that coercive action could undermine NATO, led by Secretary General Mark Rutte, and violate international law. Some EU officials have expressed frustration with Rutte’s silence, noting that Article 5, the security guarantee underpinning the alliance, risks becoming ineffective if a conflict emerges between two allies that are meant to defend each other. As a result, Trump’s declaration has deepened diplomatic tensions over Greenland’s future and intensified global geopolitical competition in the Arctic.

Finally, none of this bodes well for Iran, where protests now appear to have reached a point of no return. Trump has sharply escalated his rhetoric in response to the mass anti-government demonstrations sweeping the country, which began in late December over economic hardship and have since evolved into widespread demands for political change. He has publicly voiced strong support for Iranian protesters, calling them “brave people” and asserting that the “USA stands ready to help” those seeking greater freedom and rights. Trump has repeatedly warned Iran’s leadership, especially Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, against violently suppressing demonstrators, suggesting that if security forces kill protesters, the United States could respond with force. Through social media, he has signalled that Iran is in “big trouble” and that Washington could consider military options, including strikes on Iranian targets, though he has stopped short of deploying US troops.

These statements come as Iran’s government has launched a harsh crackdown, including a near-total internet blackout and mass arrests, leading to rising estimates of the death toll. Tehran has warned Washington against intervention and has threatened retaliation against US and Israeli military assets if attacked. For the first time, Iran’s opposition appears to be coalescing, at least symbolically, around Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah of Iran, who was deposed in the 1979 Islamic Revolution led by Khomeini. Some remain sceptical about Reza Pahlavi’s real influence within Iran after more than forty years in exile in the United States. Others argue that Trump may attempt to apply a “Venezuela script”: taking direct control of oil reserves, changing the leadership, while keeping the regime’s core institutions, particularly the Islamic Republic and the Revolutionary Guard, intact. As we warned several months ago, in June 2025, the problem with taking direct control of Iran, a vast country of more than 90 million people, is simple: you break it, you own it.