In November 2025, the U.S. administration released its National Security Strategy (NSS) aimed at "preventing the global domination of other nations". It singled out China and assesses that the past three decades of U.S. policy—which focused on opening its markets to China, investing there, and encouraging it to join the "rules-based international order"— were "mistaken." Accordingly, the NSS announces a historic change: The U.S. will now adopt a "combined approach" of achieving economic independence from China while building military strength to deter it. The document also explicitly states how this change will guide U.S. global policy.
Many discussions regarding recent and current developments in Venezuela, Greenland, Iran, Syria, and Palestine did not consider this significant shift in depth. They focused on surface-level events or concepts such as anti-imperialism and the right to self-determination. This analysis presents a reading of the global situation based on the U.S.'s declared strategy with the intent of confronting it. We offer these observations not as absolute truths, but as a call for coordinated action and discussion among like-minded political actors.
U.S. policy change in the American continent and Western Asia
The NSS prioritizes the Western Hemisphere, seeking to "deny non-Hemispheric competitors [such as China] the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets". To achieve this, the U.S. plans to enlist regional powers and expand its local network.
Interestingly, the U.S. will support capitalist actors but also "not overlook governments with different outlooks" if they share common interests. The administration claims its strategy is "not rooted in ideology," asserting that it has "spread liberal ideology for far too long". Notably, while the U.S. still seeks strategic resources, it states that seeking energy sources like fuel "no longer holds" due to its own energy sovereignty. This shows that aggression toward Venezuela and Greenland is driven by a desire for continental preeminence rather than oil.
Resources will consequently be shifted away from other theaters, leading to a historic deprioritization of the "Middle East". While the U.S. will maintain military intervention capabilities, it intends to avoid long wars and regime change, instead "accepting regional nations as they are". Now that the U.S. estimates it has succeeded in subjugating the region, including through the existing regimes' prioritizing U.S. interests, its primary objective there is "stability". Although Iran is identified as a "chief destabilizing force," the U.S. assesses that Iran and its allies are severely weakened, making the region a less constant "irritant". The U.S. will now "shift the burden" to local states to "combat radicalism and build peace".
This move to a low-interference policy will decrease foreign-caused identitarian fragmentation but will involve harsher actions against elements that threaten stability. Revolutionary and democratic actors must understand these new opportunities and obstacles and adjust their courses.
What this means for local political actors
The change in the U.S. administration's policy explains why it abandoned the "Syrian Democratic Forces" in favor of a united Syria, a move that conflicts with the colony's support for separatist Druze and Alawite movements. Negotiations between the Syrian government and SDF leaders suggest that non-HTS elements will join the administration in a Lebanon-style identitarian arrangement. While far from ideal, this shift could provide a margin for pluralistic politics; local forces should use this to advance non-identitarian visions, particularly by pushing for confrontations centered on citizens' rights.
Regarding Iran, the U.S. focuses on stopping the regime from being a "destabilizing force." This means it will only consider imposing regime change there if it estimates that the regime's continued existence is more destabilizing than its fall. This does not align with the interests of the colony, which seeks to eliminate belligerent regimes regardless of U.S. resource shifts. Current negotiations likely center on how much power the Iranian regime will concede and if it will engage in normalization for its own survival. Given Iran's history of tactical coordination with the U.S. and the colony during crises, such as the Contra Affair and Operation Seashell, such a scenario is possible. Up until now, China has not expressed a willingness to support Iran economically or militarily in a way that significantly burdens U.S. resources in the area. Whether this will change remains to be seen. Iranian anti-imperialist and democratic forces must take note of these shifts.
Regional powers such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Pakistan have refused to support military action against Iran, as they are also interested in stability, and understand that weakening the Iranian regime serves the hegemony of the colony, which has recently targeted or threatened them. The U.S. "burden shifting" policy serves as a green light for these countries to strengthen themselves. Conversely, continued U.S. support for Gulf regimes leaves little room for local democratic forces, who may find covert work and the infiltration of institutions in anticipation of future opportunities to be their best strategic choice.
In Lebanon, some political organizations support the U.S. plan for normalization with the colony, while Hezbollah has declared itself to be "under the orders" of Iranian Supreme Leader. Local anti-imperialist forces must remain outside this dichotomy, presenting an anti-Zionist discourse based on the colony's threat to Lebanon rather than religious affiliation. They should take advantage of the U.S. non-interference policy to push for policies that free citizens from sectarian leaders and build sovereign decision-making capacity.
In Palestine, the U.S. continues its support for settler colonization and seeks to end "instability" by calling for the disarmament of the resistance. This requires a united Palestinian front to refuse the relinquishment of sovereignty. On the other hand, the U.S.-imposed "ceasefire"—or "slower genocide"—is also a product of this focus on stability and may thwart the colony's plans for ethnic razing in the West Bank. Palestinian organizations should use the resulting cap on Zionist violence to initiate nonviolent confrontations with the colony, without relinquishing the right to armed resistance, including civil and popular resistance, leading global efforts to isolate the colony politically, economically and academically, legal warfare and—crucially—narrative warfare focused on the historical Palestinian vision for one democratic state instead of a Jewish one.
