By early 2026, US foreign policy appears less anchored in the language of rules and more openly framed in the language of leverage. The past year has seen escalating tensions in Venezuela, renewed territorial rhetoric over Greenland, mounting friction within NATO, and an increasingly securitized posture in the Middle East. These are not isolated episodes. Together, they suggest a shift in how Washington understands the preservation of its global position.

The Venezuela crisis illustrates this transition most clearly. Following the sharp deterioration of relations in late 2025 and direct confrontation with Nicolás Maduro’s government, US policy has moved beyond traditional sanctions into overt pressure tactics that blur the line between economic coercion and geopolitical brinkmanship. The episode reinforced a broader message: Washington is prepared to stretch legal and diplomatic norms when strategic credibility is perceived to be at stake. Regardless of how one evaluates Maduro’s rule, the optics of escalation matter. They reinforce a perception particularly in the Global South—that power, not procedure, is once again central.

The rhetoric surrounding Greenland has had a similar symbolic effect. While strategic competition in the Arctic is not new, the reappearance of territorial acquisition discourse has unsettled European allies. At the same time, tensions inside NATO have deepened. Public disputes over burden-sharing, implicit threats of strategic disengagement, and repeated assertions that NATO’s strength depends primarily on American will have altered the psychological foundation of the alliance. When security guarantees begin to sound conditional, allies begin to hedge.

READ: Trump says Iran deal clarity coming ‘in 10 days,’ warns of further action

Nowhere are the consequences of this shift more sensitive than in the Middle East.

The region sits at the intersection of energy security, great power rivalry, and unresolved conflicts. The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most critical chokepoints, with roughly a fifth of global oil flows passing through it. Even though approximately 80 percent of Gulf energy exports are directed toward East Asian economies China, India, Japan, and South Korea—their economic interdependence with Europe means that any disruption in the Gulf rapidly translates into global inflationary pressure. After Europe’s structural decoupling from Russian energy, the stability of maritime routes in the Gulf has become even more strategically important for European economic security.

In this environment, the United States frames its military presence as indispensable. The message to Gulf Arab states is implicit but clear: American security guarantees deter regional threats and maintain stability. Yet the tone has increasingly incorporated elements of psychological leverage. Statements suggesting that without US backing, regional rivals would dominate the Gulf contribute to a politics of dependency. The more insecurity is emphasized, the more American protection appears non-negotiable.

Israel plays a central role in this equation. Since the Gaza war and subsequent regional escalation cycles, Israeli security concerns have been tightly interwoven with US regional posture.

Washington’s deterrence signaling toward Iran, its force deployments, and its diplomatic calculations cannot be separated from its commitment to Israeli strategic security. For many in the region, however, this alignment reinforces the perception that US engagement is not neutral stabilization but selective power projection.

Washington’s deterrence signaling toward Iran, its force deployments, and its diplomatic calculations cannot be separated from its commitment to Israeli strategic security. For many in the region, however, this alignment reinforces the perception that US engagement is not neutral stabilization but selective power projection.

Iran’s reading of these developments is shaped by this broader context. Mohsen Rezaei, an Iranian politician and member of the Expediency Discernment Council who also serves as an adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, has argued in recent remarks that the United States has entered a phase in which it relies increasingly on coercive tools military signaling, sanctions expansion, and strategic intimidation to preserve its hegemonic position. Given his institutional proximity to Iran’s decision-making structures, such statements are widely interpreted as reflecting elements of the Iranian establishment’s strategic thinking.

From Tehran’s perspective, if Washington is shifting from rule-based legitimacy to leverage-based dominance, then negotiations are no longer existential turning points but tactical instruments.

From Tehran’s perspective, if Washington is shifting from rule-based legitimacy to leverage-based dominance, then negotiations are no longer existential turning points but tactical instruments.

Engagement with the United States whether over sanctions, nuclear issues, or regional security—becomes one pathway among several in a diversifying global order. The assumption is that American pressure is designed not only to extract concessions but also to demonstrate continued primacy in a world where alternatives are expanding.

READ: Trump warns Russia, China could take over Greenland if US does not act

This broader systemic anxiety intersects with financial realities. US sovereign debt has continued to rise, while discussions of de-dollarization within BRICS frameworks, bilateral currency agreements, and regional financial mechanisms have intensified. If sanctioned states seek alternatives, and even US partners quietly diversify, the structural foundations of dollar dominance face gradual erosion. In such a context, projecting military and strategic indispensability serves a dual function: it deters adversaries and reassures markets that American centrality remains intact.

But power anchored primarily in fear has limits. If allies perceive unpredictability and adversaries perceive overextension, the long-term effect may be accelerated diversification rather than restored confidence.

But power anchored primarily in fear has limits. If allies perceive unpredictability and adversaries perceive overextension, the long-term effect may be accelerated diversification rather than restored confidence.

The Middle East, positioned between energy flows, Israeli security calculations, Iranian deterrence doctrine, and great power competition, is where this experiment is most visible.

By February 2026, the question is not whether the United States remains powerful. It does. The deeper question is whether the method of maintaining that power—through heightened coercion, conditional alliances, and strategic intimidation—ultimately stabilizes or fragments the order it seeks to preserve. For regional actors, including Iran, this uncertainty reinforces a cautious logic: adapt, diversify, and treat engagement with Washington not as destiny, but as one option within a transforming global landscape.

OPINION: From Waltz to Hormuz: Why a Gulf escalation would backfire systemically

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor