The Dawn of a New Era: Trump’s Return to Power

Opinion – Editorial

Donald Trump’s return as the 47th President of the United States marks a turning point in American foreign policy. Central to his geopolitical vision is the concept of the "American Island," an ambitious strategy aimed at consolidating the United States' dominance over North America while expanding its influence into resource-rich regions like the Arctic. This approach reflects Trump’s broader aspiration to recalibrate global power dynamics and secure America's position as the world’s preeminent superpower.

Trump’s Arctic and American Vision

What happens when a superpower sets its sights on controlling a region rich in untapped resources and strategic routes? For Donald Trump, the Arctic represents the new frontier of global influence. With the region estimated to hold 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of its natural gas, Trump’s ambition to dominate the Arctic is more than a bold vision, it’s a high-stakes geopolitical strategy.

The "American Island" strategy is a bold reinterpretation of US regional dominance. Trump envisions an integrated North America, where Canada and Mexico are brought closer under Washington’s orbit. This notion, underpinned by shared history and economic interdependence, sees the United States as the epicenter of a hemispheric bloc capable of countering external threats and challenges.

Trump’s rhetoric frames Canada as a natural ally, bound by Anglo-Saxon heritage, and positions Mexico as an essential partner for economic and security integration. His vision extends to rebranding the Gulf of Mexico as the 'American Gulf,' a symbolic assertion of US dominance over the region. Trump has also hinted at transformative projects in Mexico, such as constructing a canal in a delta region reminiscent of the Panama Canal. While not formally proposed, this idea aligns with his broader ambition to consolidate control over North American maritime routes, evoking the strategic depth of past monumental undertakings like the Panama Canal.

Beyond the American continent, Trump’s Arctic strategy emerges as a critical pillar of his geopolitical agenda. The Arctic, with its untapped reserves of rare earth minerals, oil, and natural gas, has become a focal point for global competition, particularly as climate change opens new shipping routes and resource opportunities.

Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland underscores the strategic value of the Arctic. With Greenland accounting for 16% of the Arctic Ocean's coastline and Canada contributing 28%, a US-led consolidation of these territories would position Washington as a dominant player within the Arctic Council. This reorientation aims to counter Russia’s existing 53% share of Arctic territory and China’s growing investments in the region, such as nuclear-powered extraction platforms in the Chukchi Sea.

Greenland’s rich rare earth resources position it at the heart of the US’s Arctic ambitions. However, the population has overwhelmingly rejected merging with the US, and Denmark has reinforced its sovereignty, symbolically redesigning its royal crest to prominently feature Greenland. Trump’s vision extends beyond Greenland; he envisions a unified 'American Island' encompassing Canada, Mexico, and Greenland, a modern-day reinterpretation of Pax Britannica as Pax Americana. This bold vision reaffirms Trump’s belief in consolidating North America to secure geopolitical leverage in the face of China’s rise.

Implications for Global Power Dynamics

As the balance of global power shifts, can the United States adapt to maintain its leadership? China’s Belt and Road Initiative now spans over 140 countries, and Russia’s strategic alignment with Iran challenges Western influence. Trump’s response to these seismic changes reveals a geopolitical strategy rooted in transactionalism and disruption, one that seeks to counter rivals while reshaping alliances.

Further intensifying global competition, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian recently signed a 20-year strategic partnership agreement, solidifying military and security ties between their nations. The agreement includes enhanced cooperation in military drills, warship port visits, and joint officer training, as well as a commitment not to allow their territories to be used for actions threatening the other. This deepening alliance aims to counter shared military threats and marks a significant shift in regional power dynamics. While Trump seeks to reassert American dominance, such partnerships highlight the growing influence of US rivals and the challenges of countering their coordinated strategies.

Simultaneously, the US has deepened ties with Armenia, signing a Strategic Partnership Agreement in Washington. These geopolitical shifts reflect an increasingly fragmented world order that will test Trump's ability to recalibrate alliances and respond to emergent threats effectively.

Trump’s Arctic aspirations are not merely about resources; they symbolise a broader effort to reclaim geopolitical primacy. The Arctic’s new shipping lanes, like the Northern Sea Route, have already demonstrated their potential to revolutionise global trade. For example, a Russian vessel recently completed a journey from Saint Petersburg to Shanghai in just three weeks, halving traditional shipping times. This development is a direct challenge to US-dominated trade routes and highlights the urgency of America’s Arctic strategy.

China’s declaration as a "Near-Arctic State" in 2012 and its subsequent investments reflect its long-term ambitions in the region. Trump’s policies aim to curtail this influence while fostering alliances with Arctic stakeholders to reinforce American dominance. His administration’s alignment with Canada and Greenland is a strategic counterbalance to the Sino-Russian partnership, which has reshaped Arctic geopolitics through joint infrastructure projects and energy initiatives.

While Trump’s Arctic strategy presents opportunities for economic growth and enhanced geopolitical leverage, it also faces significant hurdles. Greenland’s population, along with Denmark’s government, has resisted American overtures. Additionally, the environmental and indigenous rights issues associated with Arctic resource extraction pose reputational risks.

Domestically, Trump’s vision requires significant investments in Arctic infrastructure, including ports, icebreakers, and military installations. These initiatives demand bipartisan support, which may prove challenging given the polarised political climate in Washington.

Trump’s "American Island" strategy and Arctic ambitions encapsulate his broader approach to redefining America’s role on the global stage. By consolidating North American influence and asserting dominance in the Arctic, Trump seeks to establish a legacy of American preeminence in a multipolar world. However, the success of this vision hinges on navigating the complexities of international alliances, environmental stewardship, and domestic consensus.

As the world transitions into a multipolar era, Donald Trump’s geopolitical strategy represents a calculated response to shifting global power dynamics. His approach focuses on addressing the rise of China, recalibrating the US-Russia relationship, and redefining alliances to sustain American influence. Trump’s methods, rooted in transactionalism and strategic disruption, challenge conventional paradigms of global governance.

China’s Rise: Confronting the Challenge

Trump views China’s rise as the central challenge to American hegemony. With its GDP (measured in purchasing power parity) surpassing that of the US and its middle class growing by hundreds of millions annually, China’s economic ascendancy represents a fundamental shift in global power. Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure and investment project spanning over 140 countries, underscores its ambition to reshape global trade networks and supply chains.

During his first term, Trump initiated trade wars and imposed economic sanctions to counter China’s influence. These measures disrupted supply chains, pressured Beijing’s export-reliant economy, and underscored the US’s intent to contain China’s technological and economic reach. Yet, these actions also highlighted the deep interdependence between the two nations, particularly in technology and manufacturing.

Under Trump’s renewed leadership, this rivalry is expected to intensify across emerging arenas, including space exploration, digital technologies, and rare earth minerals. China’s dominance in green energy technologies and its control of critical resources like lithium place it at the forefront of the 21st-century energy transition. Trump’s emphasis on securing access to rare earth materials, evident in his interest in Greenland and Arctic strategies, reflects his determination to curtail China’s resource monopoly.

The geopolitical chessboard extends to the Arctic, where a Russian vessel recently navigated the Northern Sea Route from Saint Petersburg to Shanghai in just three weeks, slashing traditional shipping times by nearly half. This development demonstrates the strategic importance of Arctic access for trade. China, declaring itself a 'Near-Arctic State' in 2012, has heavily invested in the region alongside Russia, including constructing the first nuclear-powered natural gas extraction platform in the Chukchi Sea. Trump’s strategy must address these growing alliances while preparing for potential tensions between China and Russia over Siberia’s vast natural resources, where disputes over discounted oil and gas hint at deeper frictions.

The competition over rare earth materials, vital for green energy and electric vehicles, is already well underway. China has cemented its dominance in this arena, controlling over 80% of the global rare earth supply chain and sweeping aside decades of Western initiatives. Trump’s interest in Greenland and partnerships with Canada highlight the urgency of diversifying supply sources. Yet, the challenge is steep, China’s advancements in lithium extraction and battery technology leave the US lagging in the green energy race.

This extends into the digital and space domains, where Trump has kept Elon Musk close. Musk’s leadership in revolutionary fields like space exploration and satellite communications is pivotal to maintaining US dominance. However, privatising such strategic assets carries inherent risks, as seen during the Ukraine war, where Musk’s deactivation of satellite systems demonstrated how private control could conflict with national interests. These emerging battlegrounds in technology and resources epitomise the multipolar competition that Trump seeks to navigate.

Balancing the US-Russia Equation

Russia’s geopolitical manoeuvring remains a key variable in Trump’s foreign policy calculus. The newly signed 2024 strategic agreement between Russia and Iran, involving energy, infrastructure, and defence collaboration, signals Moscow’s intent to deepen its partnerships outside the Western sphere.

Despite historical tensions, Trump’s pragmatic approach suggests the possibility of recalibrating US-Russia relations. His administration may seek areas of cooperation, particularly in countering China’s expanding influence. This echoes the argument put forth by Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard, which posited that a US-Russia partnership could serve as a counterbalance to China’s rise.

However, any rapprochement with Moscow would require navigating contentious issues, including the Russia-Ukraine conflict and NATO’s expansion. Trump’s transactional nature may prioritise practical gains over ideological commitments, potentially leading to a more flexible stance on Ukraine and sanctions in exchange for Russian cooperation in other domains.

Trump’s foreign policy is marked by a transactional view of alliances, where partnerships are valued primarily for their immediate utility. This perspective has led to demands for greater burden-sharing among NATO members, as evidenced by his insistence on increased defence spending and direct financial contributions from allies. European nations, under pressure to align with Washington’s security priorities, have colectively spent $185 billion on American arms over the past three years, illustrating the economic underpinnings of transatlantic ties.

However, this approach has strained traditional alliances. Trump’s rhetoric and policies often highlight Europe’s dependency on American security, framing it as a liability rather than a strength. By contrast, he views emerging alliances, such as the Quad (comprising the US, India, Japan, and Australia), as more strategically valuable in countering China’s Indo-Pacific ambitions.

Trump’s return also signals potential shifts in US policy toward the Global South. The rise of BRICS, with recent additions like Indonesia, underscores the growing clout of developing nations in global affairs. Trump’s administration must navigate this changing landscape, balancing coercion with engagement to maintain influence in regions increasingly gravitating toward alternatives to Western-led institutions.

Trump’s recalibration of alliances reflects an effort to counter the growing influence of BRICS, which has recently expanded to include Indonesia—the world’s fourth most populous country and Southeast Asia’s largest economy. Despite Trump’s threats to impose 100% tariffs on BRICS-affiliated nations, Indonesia’s decision to join the bloc highlights the shifting balance of power in global alliances. This development poses a direct challenge to US leadership, further complicating Trump’s attempts to maintain influence in the Global South and counter the economic sway of China and Russia.

The West’s diminishing influence is further reflected in the expansion of BRICS, with Indonesia, the world’s fourth most populous country, joining the bloc just a week before Trump’s return to power. Despite Trump’s threats to impose 100% tariffs on BRICS-affiliated nations, Indonesia’s decision signals the increasing allure of alternative alliances. This development highlights the broader realignment underway, as Global South nations seek to reduce reliance on Western-led institutions in favour of emerging powers like China and India. Trump’s challenge lies in countering this trend without alienating potential allies in these regions.

American Credibility at a Crossroads

Trump inherits a geopolitical environment where America’s moral authority has significantly waned. The US’s reliance on sanctions, military interventions, and unilateral actions has alienated many nations, particularly in the Global South. Its unwavering support for Israel, even in the face of widespread international condemnation for its actions in Gaza and beyond, has further strained its global standing, particularly among Muslim-majority countries. This was underscored when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received standing ovations in the US Congress during a recent visit, despite the International Criminal Court (ICC) having issued an arrest warrant against him. At the same time, Washington has openly debated imposing sanctions against the ICC, a move that further undermines its credibility as a defender of international justice.

The contrast between the US’s rhetoric of democracy and its actions, such as vetoing United Nations resolutions critical of Israel and other allies, undermines its global standing. This inconsistency has created opportunities for rivals like China and Russia to position themselves as champions of a more equitable global order, appealing to countries disillusioned with the Western-led status quo. Their growing influence reflects the global desire for alternative leadership amid America’s perceived moral decline.

The overarching theme of Trump’s geopolitical strategy is managing the US’s transition from unipolar dominance to a multipolar reality. As global power becomes increasingly fragmented, the recalibration of alliances becomes an indispensable tool in navigating this new order. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East, where shifting alliances and entrenched rivalries offer both challenges and opportunities for advancing American interests.

China’s economic leadership, Russia’s strategic positioning, and the emergence of regional powers like India and Brazil challenge the US to adopt a more nuanced approach. Trump’s transactionalism, while effective in certain contexts, may require recalibration to address the complexities of a fragmented global order.

Trump’s approach to global power dynamics reflects his broader ethos of disruption and pragmatism. By focusing on countering China, recalibrating relations with Russia, and redefining alliances, he seeks to sustain American influence in an era of profound geopolitical change. However, the success of this strategy depends on his ability to balance competing priorities and navigate the tensions inherent in a multipolar world.

Alliances and Middle Eastern Policy

Is peace in the Middle East a realistic goal or a fleeting ambition? Under Trump, the Abraham Accords brought unprecedented normalisation between Israel and Arab nations, yet the Palestinian issue remains unresolved. As Trump deepens ties with Gulf states and counters Iran, his second term faces the daunting challenge of navigating this complex, volatile region.

In the Middle East, Trump’s commitment to recalibrating alliances and asserting American influence takes centre stage. This region’s pivotal role as a nexus of energy resources, ideological rivalries, and strategic chokepoints highlights the complexities and stakes of maintaining US leadership in an increasingly fragmented world.

Trump’s first term was marked by the Abraham Accords, a series of agreements normalising relations between Israel and several Arab nations, including the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco. These accords, touted as a milestone for regional peace, aimed to create a “peace belt” around Israel while fostering economic collaboration. However, the accords were not without controversy, as they bypassed the Palestinian question and reinforced the perception of US bias toward Israel.

In his second term, Trump seeks to expand this framework by encouraging Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to formalise relations with Israel. This strategy reflects a shift in US priorities from direct military involvement to fostering alliances that serve as stabilising forces in the region. By aligning Israel and Sunni Arab states against shared adversaries like Iran, Trump aims to consolidate a regional bloc capable of countering Tehran’s influence.

However, this approach risks exacerbating sectarian divides and alienating key actors like Türkiye and Qatar, who view such alignments as threats to their regional ambitions. Furthermore, the Palestinian cause, sidelined under the accords, remains a significant flashpoint that could ignite broader instability.

Containment Without Confrontation: Iran

Iran continues to be a central focus of Trump’s Middle Eastern policy. During his first term, he withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and imposed stringent sanctions, aiming to cripple Iran’s economy and limit its regional influence. In his second term, Trump appears committed to maintaining this hardline stance, viewing Iran as the primary threat to regional stability and a counterweight to US interests.

Tehran’s deepening alliances with Russia and China, as evidenced by the recent strategic agreement, complicate Trump’s containment strategy. Iran’s integration into BRICS and its growing role in energy and defence cooperation challenge the effectiveness of unilateral US sanctions. Trump’s response is likely to involve leveraging regional allies, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, to pressure Iran indirectly while avoiding direct military confrontation, a hallmark of his “peace through strength” philosophy.

Trump’s transactional approach to alliances is evident in his dealings with traditional Middle Eastern partners. His insistence on increased financial contributions and military burden-sharing has reshaped the nature of US partnerships in the region. For example, Gulf states have been pushed to purchase billions of dollars in American weapons, reinforcing their dependency on US security guarantees while contributing to the American defence industry.

Yet, this approach has also exposed cracks in traditional alliances. Türkiye, a key NATO member and regional power, has grown increasingly estranged due to policy differences over Syria, Kurdish groups, and energy exploration in the Eastern Mediterranean. Trump’s administration must navigate these tensions carefully, as Türkiye’s strategic location and influence remain critical to US interests in the region.

The Middle East’s vast energy reserves continue to be a focal point of Trump’s strategy. The region’s oil and natural gas resources, coupled with its geographic significance as a hub for global energy transit, ensure its continued importance in global geopolitics.

Trump’s administration has shown a keen interest in controlling strategic infrastructure, such as ports, pipelines, and shipping lanes. For instance, the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb remain chokepoints for global energy supplies, making their security a top priority. Trump’s emphasis on leveraging US naval power to safeguard these routes underscores his commitment to maintaining energy dominance.

The war over rare earth metals and mining is also intensifying, with China leading aggressive expansions in Africa and Southeast Asia. Rare earth materials like lithium and cobalt are indispensable for green energy technologies, electric vehicles, and defence systems. As China consolidates its dominance, Trump’s efforts to secure alternative sources, such as Greenland and Canada, reflect a broader strategy to reduce reliance on Beijing. However, Western efforts have struggled to match China’s pace, underscoring the urgency of addressing this growing dependency.

However, the rise of renewable energy and the global shift toward green technologies present challenges to the traditional resource-centric approach. China’s leadership in green energy and its investments in Middle Eastern infrastructure, such as ports and railways under the Belt and Road Initiative, threaten to erode US influence in the region.

Trump’s Middle Eastern policy reflects a delicate balancing act between securing Israel’s safety, countering Iranian influence, and fostering regional stability. This balancing act is complicated by broader geopolitical shifts, including the growing role of China and Russia in the region and the fragmentation of traditional alliances.

One notable challenge is managing the US’s moral and strategic credibility. While Trump positions himself as a pragmatic dealmaker, critics argue that his administration’s overt alignment with Israel and disregard for Palestinian rights undermine America’s standing as a neutral arbiter. This perception, coupled with the US’s controversial role in conflicts like Yemen and Syria, limits its ability to engage with a wider range of regional actors.

As Trump’s second term unfolds, his vision for the Middle East hinges on leveraging alliances to establish a new regional order that aligns with American interests. The expansion of the Abraham Accords, coupled with efforts to contain Iran and secure strategic resources, forms the backbone of this vision. However, the success of these initiatives depends on their ability to navigate the region’s complex dynamics, address underlying grievances, and adapt to global trends.

Trump’s Middle Eastern strategy, like his broader geopolitical vision, is defined by a blend of pragmatism, disruption, and ideological alignment. By fostering alliances, prioritising strategic infrastructure, and maintaining a hardline stance on adversaries, he seeks to consolidate US influence in a region that remains critical to global stability. Yet, the long-term viability of this approach depends on its ability to balance competing priorities and address the region’s deep-seated challenges, from sectarian divides to the shifting energy landscape.

Technology and Indo-Pacific Strategy

Can the United States outpace China in the race for technological dominance? Beijing leads the world in green energy and artificial intelligence, and its investments in global 5G infrastructure are transforming telecommunications. Trump’s Indo-Pacific strategy hinges on not just countering China’s rise, but ensuring America’s technological supremacy in the most contested region of the 21st century.

One of the most defining aspects of Donald Trump’s second term is the emphasis on technological supremacy. Recognising that leadership in innovation is pivotal to global influence, Trump’s administration aims to secure and expand America’s edge in critical technological domains, including artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, and 5G telecommunications.

Building on policies from his first term, Trump is expected to tighten restrictions on Chinese tech companies, notably Huawei, to curb their influence in global telecommunications. By limiting access to American technology and markets, Trump seeks to weaken China’s ability to dominate sectors critical to national security and economic competitiveness.

Trump’s strategy also focuses on revitalising domestic research and development (R&D). Increased government funding for emerging technologies, coupled with public-private partnerships, will play a crucial role. By aligning resources with private innovators, the administration aims to counterbalance China’s state-directed approach to technological advancement.

Space exploration, green energy, and rare earth materials have become central to the Indo-Pacific rivalry. China’s Belt and Road Initiative has extended its influence into Africa and Southeast Asia, regions rich in rare earth reserves. Trump’s administration has sought to counter this by strengthening partnerships with nations like Canada and Australia, both key players in rare earth mining.

Yet, the US faces a historical challenge in adapting to the paradigm shift brought about by China’s rise. Since the 1600s, Western powers have dominated global trade through ventures like the Dutch West India Company and the British East India Company. However, this colonial legacy is eroding, as emerging powers like China and India assert themselves on the world stage. BRICS exemplifies this transformation, with Indonesia’s recent membership underscoring the shifting alliances in the Indo-Pacific region.

Promoting alternatives to Chinese-led telecommunications infrastructure in developing countries has emerged as a critical focus. These efforts are part of a broader strategy to counter Beijing’s dominance in 5G and other emerging technologies, ensuring that global networks are not solely reliant on Chinese systems.

While these initiatives aim to solidify US technological leadership, they carry risks. Alienating allies, particularly in Europe, who prefer engagement with China could undermine global collaboration. Additionally, China’s ability to innovate domestically may reduce the long-term impact of US restrictions.

Trump’s focus on the Indo-Pacific underscores his broader vision of reasserting American leadership in an increasingly contested global order. Recognising the region as the fulcrum of 21st-century geopolitics, Trump views military posturing not just as a deterrence mechanism but as a strategic cornerstone for maintaining US dominance in a multipolar world.

The South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, key arenas of China’s territorial ambitions, have become central to Trump’s geopolitical calculus. Through a robust Indo-Pacific strategy, his administration seeks to counter Beijing’s expansionism by deepening alliances with regional powers such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia. The Quad framework, which includes India, represents Trump’s vision of a coalition capable of balancing China’s influence and securing maritime security in the region.

By deploying additional naval assets and conducting joint military exercises in contested waters, the US signals its unwavering commitment to defending international norms, particularly freedom of navigation. Taiwan, a critical flashpoint in US-China relations, is pivotal to this strategy, with arms sales aimed at bolstering its defence capabilities while reinforcing America’s economic and military ties to the region.

This assertive posture reflects Trump’s belief in ‘peace through strength,’ yet it also raises the spectre of unintended conflicts. As military activities intensify in the Indo-Pacific, the risks of miscalculation grow, necessitating a delicate balance between deterrence and diplomacy to avoid escalation. Trump’s vision for the region ultimately ties back to his broader geopolitical ethos: securing America’s position as a dominant power by forging resilient alliances and asserting strategic control in contested arenas.

Europe continues to play a critical role in Trump’s foreign policy, with his second term marked by efforts to redefine the transatlantic relationship. His transactional approach focuses on strengthening NATO while asserting American interests over collective European priorities.

Trump’s insistence on equitable burden-sharing within NATO is likely to intensify. His demands for increased defence spending have already prompted many European nations to allocate more resources, but disparities in military capabilities persist.

The US has solidified its role in Europe’s energy market, reducing dependence on Russian imports. Europe’s energy dependency on the US consolidates Washington’s leverage in broader transatlantic negotiations.

Trump’s unilateralist policies have fuelled calls for greater European strategic autonomy, championed by leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron. However, internal divisions within the EU and continued reliance on US security guarantees complicate this vision.

Trump’s approach to Russia remains divisive. While his administration has supported NATO’s eastern flank, his perceived warmth toward Vladimir Putin raises questions about long-term US commitments. 

Securing American Dominance in a Fragmented World

Donald Trump’s second term introduces a nuanced approach to managing global power shifts through technological competition, military posturing, and recalibrated alliances. While his strategies reflect a determination to maintain American dominance, their success depends on balancing assertiveness with diplomatic finesse in an increasingly multipolar world.