Washington and Brussels still share the same core goals in the Middle East: prevent nuclear proliferation, avoid regional war, stabilize energy flows, and suppress jihadist networks. But they now pursue those goals with different playbooks, shaped by diverging political cultures, institutional habits, and strategic priorities.
Trump’s second‑term push to rename landmarks, erect monuments, and stamp his name onto federal institutions is running into a wall of public rejection. Polling shows Americans oppose every major renaming or construction project — and in most cases, so do Trump’s own voters. The White House is pursuing a legacy in marble and signage while the electorate is signaling, loudly, that it wants something else entirely.
The Democratic Party’s post‑2024 identity crisis is not a messaging problem. It’s an infrastructure problem. The party cannot pivot to the center because the mechanisms that shape political careers — endorsements, funding pipelines, activist networks, and primary gatekeepers — are controlled by ideological actors who punish deviation long before a candidate reaches national office.
The newest research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York confirms what every serious economist already knew: tariffs function as a domestic tax, and American households and businesses pay almost all of it. Between early 2024 and late 2025, roughly 90% of tariff costs stayed inside the United States, mirroring the pattern from the 2018–2019 trade war.
Operation Metro Surge was supposed to be a demonstration of federal strength. Instead, it became a demonstration of how quickly a city can mobilize when it already has the muscle memory of protest, mutual aid, and decentralized coordination. Minneapolis didn’t defeat ICE — but it did something more important: it created a template.
The global economy is now fully multipolar in production and consumption, yet its financial backbone still runs through a single national currency. That mismatch — a 21st‑century world running on 1944 plumbing — is what BRICS is trying to correct. Not by dethroning the dollar with the renminbi, but by building a neutral clearing system that avoids the trap of replacing one hegemon with another.
The revival of the India–Arab Foreign Ministers’ Meeting after a decade isn’t just a diplomatic reunion. It’s a sign that both India and the Arab world are trying to position themselves in a world where the Western-led order is cracking from within — and where Washington’s reliability can no longer be assumed.
For decades, Europe treated American digital infrastructure and financial networks as neutral utilities. That illusion has collapsed. The combination of extraterritorial U.S. laws, sanctions used as administrative weapons, and the growing willingness of Washington to threaten allies has forced European governments to confront a simple truth: dependency equals vulnerability.
BRICS has evolved from a clever acronym into a geopolitical project large enough to unsettle Washington. Trump’s 2025 tariff threats — and the panic triggered by his Spain “BRICS” gaffe — reveal how seriously the U.S. now treats the bloc. With 20 members and partners, BRICS+ represents a demographic and economic mass that rivals the G7, even if its internal cohesion remains uneven.
In early 2026, Haiti has reached a critical juncture where the expiration of the Transitional Presidential Council (TPC) mandate has paved the way for a more overt U.S. military presence in the Caribbean. The arrival of warships in the Bay of Port-au-Prince on February 4, 2026, underscores a century-long pattern: when Haitian institutions falter, Washington resorts to “Gunboat Diplomacy.”
In early 2026, the structural logic of regional hegemony has moved from theoretical debate to high-stakes reality. While major powers (the U.S., China, and Russia) are doubling down on their geographic cores, the “exhaustion of expansion” is becoming the defining theme of the year.
U.S. decision‑making on Iran is increasingly shaped not by structured interagency analysis but by a feedback loop of emotional validation. When a leader repeatedly asks a narrow circle of loyalists whether an action is a “winner,” the question itself becomes a self‑fulfilling prophecy. The result is a foreign policy environment where impulse, affirmation, and narrative gratification override strategic caution.
