The US – a threat?
Reidar Kaarboe
Hva Mener Partiene
What arguments lead some to say that the US is a threat to world peace? The US has gone from being a stabilizing big brother to a source of unpredictability and economic pressure. Here are the main arguments that have emerged in the debate among Western allies:
1. Unpredictability and security guarantees
● “Transactional” politics: The argument is that under the Trump administration, the US views alliances as business deals. If a country does not “pay enough” (i.e., the 2% target), it is implied that the US may not defend it. This creates uncertainty that Russia can exploit.
● US interest in Greenland has caused deep friction. When Denmark recently added the US to its list of national threat assessments, it was precisely because of fears of US pressure or “gunboat diplomacy” aimed at securing control over Arctic resources.
2. Economic warfare against allies
The US is increasingly using its economic power to exert influence, even against its friends.
● Tariffs and customs duties: The argument here is that the US is using tariff barriers as a punishment or leverage to get its way in completely different political issues. This undermines the free world market that the West has built together.
● Sanctions: The US has a tradition of imposing sanctions that also affect European companies (so-called “secondary sanctions”). This is perceived as an attack on the sovereignty of allies and their right to pursue their own trade policies.
3. Ideological and democratic instability
There is growing concern that the US's internal political divisions pose a threat to stability in the West.
● Export of polarization: Many European politicians fear that the extreme polarization in the US will “spread” and destabilize their own democracies.
● Retreat from shared values: When the US withdraws from climate agreements (such as COP) or international institutions, it leaves a vacuum. The argument is that a US that no longer believes in multilateral cooperation effectively becomes a threat to the world order that has ensured peace in Europe since 1945.
4. Going it alone in security policy
Allies often react strongly when the US makes major decisions without consulting them. Examples that are often cited include the abrupt withdrawal from Afghanistan and recent moves to end the war in Ukraine on terms that European countries believe threaten their security.
In summary
The US has become so unpredictable and nationalistic that its allies no longer trust it. This is forcing Europe to talk about its ability to manage on its own, without being dependent on Washington.
Why are we uncertain about the US?
Today's skepticism toward the US is based on a long list of historical events that have led allies to wonder whether the US follows its own rules or whether it is actually fighting for a common order. Here are the tip of the iceberg:
1. Interventionism and international law
Throughout the Cold War and up to the present day, the US has carried out hundreds of military interventions. For allied countries that base their security on international agreements (such as the UN Charter), certain events have caused deep concern:
● The Vietnam War (1955–1975) was the first major breach of trust. Many European countries (such as Norway during the Vietnam demonstrations) believed that the US was fighting an unjust war that caused enormous suffering without a clear moral basis.
● The invasion of Iraq (2003): This is perhaps the most frequently cited example. The US invaded without a UN mandate and based on evidence of weapons of mass destruction that turned out to be false. This created a deep rift in NATO, with countries such as France and Germany refusing to participate and accusing the US of violating international law.
2. Support for authoritarian regimes
One of the strongest arguments against the US's role as a “defender of democracy” is that it has historically supported dictatorships when it suited its own interests:
● Chile (1973): The CIA supported the coup against the democratically elected Salvador Allende in order to install the dictator Augusto Pinochet.
● Iran (1953): The US (and the UK) overthrew the popularly elected Mossadegh to secure control of oil and reinstate the Shah.
● Israel's genocide would not have been possible without massive support (money, weapons, bombs) from the US. Several countries are uncomfortable with this.
● The argument today: Critics point to this and say, “The US is not concerned with democracy; they are concerned with control.”
3. “America First” – A historical comeback
Many people forget that the current nationalism in the US is not new, but part of a historical pendulum.
● Isolationism before 1941: The US long refused to enter both World War I and World War II. This “self-sufficient” attitude is deeply rooted in American history.
● Withdrawal from agreements: The US has a history of withdrawing from or refusing to ratify important international agreements, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Kyoto Protocol (climate), and, most recently, the Iran agreement. To its allies, the US appears to be a partner that participates only when it stands to gain 100% from doing so.
4. Economic dominance and surveillance
● The Suez Crisis (1956): When Britain and France attacked Egypt, the US forced them to withdraw by threatening to crash the British economy (the pound). This was a brutal reminder to Europe of who was really in charge.
● The Snowden revelations (2013): The revelations that the US was monitoring allied leaders, including Angela Merkel, created a breach in trust that has not yet fully healed. Many wonder whether surveillance has only gotten worse since then.
Why does it feel different now in 2026?
The difference between then and now is that these events were often viewed as “accidents” or necessary evils in the fight against communism. Today, especially with developments in Venezuela and increased pressure on Europe, many fear that the US no longer has an overarching idealistic plan, but is operating as a purely selfish superpower.
When the US now uses military action or rhetoric about military action to take control of resources (as in the Arctic or Venezuela), many Europeans see similarities with the old imperialism they thought we were done with.
From rhetoric to aggression
The recent events in Venezuela (January 2026) have shaken the world and constitute a major breach of the rules that have governed the international system since 1945.
1. Breach of the UN Charter
According to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, any use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state is strictly prohibited.
● No right to self-defense: The US has been unable to prove that it was under direct military attack from Venezuela. Without a mandate from the UN Security Council, such an invasion is considered an illegal war of aggression.
Sovereignty: By physically removing a leader from their own territory, one ignores the principle that states are equal and sovereign in their “own house.”
2. Immunity for heads of state
In international law, there is a principle called immunity ratione personae. This means that a sitting head of state has absolute immunity from the courts of other countries.
● By bringing Maduro before a US court (as they did with Manuel Noriega of Panama in 1989), the US is effectively claiming that its national laws take precedence over international law.
● This sets a dangerous precedent: if the US can do this, what is to prevent other superpowers from doing the same to leaders they dislike?
3. The “Ker-Frisbie” doctrine vs. international law
The US has a special legal tradition (the Ker-Frisbie doctrine), which states that a US court can try a person regardless of whether they were brought to the country legally or through kidnapping.
The conflict: While this is “legal” within the US, it is considered a human rights violation and illegal abduction internationally. UN experts recently (January 2026) condemned the action in Venezuela as a “normalization of lawlessness.”
4. Historical parallels
Many draw parallels to the 1989 invasion of Panama. At that time, General Manuel Noriega was abducted and transported to the US to stand trial for drug trafficking.
The difference today is that the US under the Trump administration is more explicit. By calling the 2026 operation part of a new plan to take control of resources (oil), they have removed the “moral veil” that was often used before.
Why does this feel like a threat
For small countries like Norway, international law is the only protection we have against superpowers. When our closest ally chooses to ignore these rules as fundamentally as they have done in Venezuela, it creates an enormous dilemma: Can we trust a partner who believes that “might makes right”?
Interventions
Have US interventions been aimed at promoting democracy or at self-interest? We see a pattern: When US security or economic interests have clashed with another country's democratic choices, the US has chosen its interests.
1. Threat to American companies
When Clinton ordered missiles to be fired at the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998, the claim was that it was a “chemical weapons facility.” However, the factory was known as the sole source of 90 percent of basic medicines for one of the world's poorest countries.
2. Countries that took “land from the rich”
This is perhaps the most cynical chapter. In the 1950s, several democratic attempts in Latin America were crushed because they threatened American companies.
Guatemala (1954): President Árbenz was democratically elected and wanted to give uncultivated land to poor farmers. The problem was that the land belonged to the American company United Fruit Company. The CIA organized a coup, overthrew the legitimate government, and installed a military dictatorship that led to decades of civil war. Here, a democrat who prioritized his own poor over American profits was crushed by the US.
3. Countries with resources they wanted to control themselves (oil and copper)
When countries have tried to nationalize natural resources in order to spend the money on their own people (schools, hospitals), the US has often responded with force.
● Iran (1953): Prime Minister Mossadegh sought to nationalize Iran's oil, which was under British control. The CIA and British intelligence overthrew him and gave power to the Shah (a dictator). The result was 25 years of oppression before the Islamic revolution in 1979.
● Chile (1973): Salvador Allende was elected on a platform of nationalizing the copper mines (owned by the American companies Anaconda and Kennecott). The US supported General Pinochet's brutal coup. Here, a functioning democracy was replaced by a regime that tortured thousands, because “economic freedom” for American companies was prioritized over political freedom for Chileans.
4. The new normal in 2026: Venezuela
What we are seeing now in January 2026 with Operation Absolute Resolve in Venezuela fits right into this pattern, but with more overt rhetoric.
● Resources vs. Democracy: In January 2026, President Trump has been unusually candid, stating that the US will “rule” Venezuela until its oil infrastructure is rebuilt.
● Taxes and debt: The invasion is officially justified on the grounds of drug smuggling (as in Panama in 1989), but critics point out that control over the world's largest oil reserves and securing the claims of US creditors are the real driving forces.
Conclusion: Is this consistent?
No, the US has not been consistent in its “democracy building.” It built strong democracies in countries such as Germany and Japan after 1945 because it served its security interests against the Soviet Union.
But in the global south (Latin America, the Middle East, Africa), the pattern has been different: countries that challenge American companies, reclaim land, or nationalize resources have been defined as “threats” regardless of whether they were democratic or not.
Do more countries have reason to fear the US?
There is something “off” – something that is now (in January 2026) shared by an increasing number of heads of state, including in the West. The US has gone from being a “rule-based superpower” to what many call a “predatory superpower.” Here are the reasons why countries in both the West and the rest of the world now feel a real fear of the US:
1. From “Police” to “Judge and Executioner”
Previously, the US defended its actions by saying that it was maintaining international order. Now the mask has been thrown off:
● The new “Monroe Doctrine”: The Trump administration has declared that it has the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the Western Hemisphere to protect American interests. The invasion of Venezuela and the abduction of Maduro are prime examples.
● Threats to allies: Denmark's recent decision to add the US to its official threat list, driven by pressure on Greenland, is historic. It means that even our closest neighbors now consider American aggression to be a risk on par with Russian sabotage. Other countries have had to deal with this new situation.
2. Economic weaponization (the tariff war)
The US is now using its control over the global financial system (the dollar) and its enormous market as a means of blackmail:
● Tariffs as punishment: In 2026, we have seen extreme tariffs imposed not only on China but also on Mexico, Canada, and the EU. This is no longer just trade policy; it is a form of economic warfare that creates poverty and instability among the US's own partners.
● Sanctions pressure: Countries such as Norway and Germany are being forced to comply with US sanctions against third countries, even when it damages their own economies. If we refuse, our banks risk being shut out of the dollar market.
3. The internal “revolution” in the US
The Eurasia Group recently (January 2026) ranked “The American Political Revolution” as the biggest global risk this year.
● Unpredictability: When a country with 5,000 nuclear weapons and the world's largest army is in deep internal strife, and where the rule of law (checks and balances) is weakened, the country becomes dangerous to the outside world.
● Termination of agreements: The US has recently withdrawn from almost all international cooperation, including the last remnants of nuclear disarmament agreements and climate cooperation (COP). This leaves the world in a lawless vacuum.
What does this mean for the world?
Many countries in the “global south” (such as Brazil, Indonesia, and South Africa) feel that the US is now operating with “hyper-imperialism.” They see the US taking what it wants (resources) and punishing those who do not comply.
The risk picture in 2026:
Countries that feel threatened include Venezuela, Mexico, Cuba, Denmark (Greenland), Canada, China, and Colombia. For the whole world: Termination of nuclear agreements (increased nuclear risk).
What is jarring, then, is that the US no longer behaves like a partner seeking to build a better world, but like a giant player that cares only about short-term self-interest. For small countries, this means that the “protection” we thought we had has now become a source of uncertainty.
Tyrannosaurus Rex
The word “predatory” brings to mind a tyrannosaurus snapping at everything around it, a frighteningly apt metaphor for how many countries perceive the US in 2026. A T. rex is the apex predator – the largest, strongest, and most fearsome creature in its ecosystem. But as a metaphor for today's US, there are three things that make the image particularly apt:
1. The need for constant nourishment (resources)
A T. rex must eat enormous amounts to keep its machinery running. When we look at US policy in January 2026, we see a superpower that no longer talks about “ideals” but about “needs.”
● They see the oil in Venezuela and “gobble” it up to secure their own energy and economic dominance.
● They see the minerals in Greenland and pressure Denmark because the “predator” needs raw materials for its own industry.
2. Everything that moves is prey.
The problem with a hungry T. rex is that it doesn't distinguish between enemies and friends; it only sees calories.
● In the past, the US was like a “shepherd dog” protecting the flock (the West).
● Now it is perceived more as a predator that can suddenly turn on its own allies (such as Canada or the EU) with tariff barriers and economic sanctions if it feels that they can “eat” into its market share.
3. “Might makes right.”
A dinosaur does not negotiate. It uses its size and teeth to get what it wants.
When the US now physically removes leaders from other countries (Maduro) or ignores the court in The Hague, it is just like the predator trampling down the fences. They do it because they can, not because it is legal or morally right.
Why it sounds strange to us
What makes this particularly uncomfortable for countries like Norway is that we have built our entire house (our security and prosperity) inside the “enclosure” of this dinosaur.
As long as the T. rex was calm and focused on the monsters outside (the Cold War), we felt safe. But in 2026, when it starts knocking on our own door, demanding our resources or ignoring our laws, we realize that we have no way to stop it. Should we try to appease the predator by giving it what it wants (more money, more control, support for invasions), or should we join forces with other “prey” to try to build a new fence (strategic autonomy)?
So far, Norway has been extremely cautious about criticizing the US.
Who is next?
Based on the data we have as of January 2026, we see that the “predator” is not just attacking randomly, but following a pattern that combines resource needs with geopolitical cleansing. The success of Operation Absolute Resolve in Venezuela (January 3, 2026) has served as a shot in the arm for this strategy. Here are the countries that, based on troop movements, rhetoric, and economic sanctions, are most vulnerable right now:
1. Cuba: The next “fruit”?
After Maduro was taken, Cuba is extremely vulnerable.
● Rhetoric: Trump has already (January 11, 2026) announced that they must “make a deal or face the consequences.”
● Action: The US has promised to cut off all oil supplies from Venezuela to Cuba. Without this oil, the Cuban economy will collapse completely.
● Threat: The strategy here seems to be to create economic chaos and then intervene militarily under the guise of “supporting the people against a regime in collapse.”
2. Iran: Economic strangulation
Iran finds itself in an extremely dangerous position in January 2026.
● Sanctions/Tariffs: The US recently (January 9, 2026) threatened to impose a 25% punitive tariff on all countries that do business with Iran. This is a form of economic siege that directly affects China, India, and Turkey.
● Military threat: Following last year's attack on Iran's nuclear program, Trump has stated that the US will intervene directly if the Iranian regime uses violence against the demonstrators who are now filling the streets in all 31 provinces. Here, “humanitarian concern” is being used as a lever for possible regime change.
3. Mexico: Pressure on the border
Mexico is now experiencing a US that is using “Big Stick” diplomacy more than at any time since the 1900s.
● Rhetoric: Trump has warned Mexico that it “could be next” if they do not stop the flow of migrants and drug cartels immediately.
● Punitive tariffs: Mexico faces tariffs of up to 30% on goods that do not comply with the new US requirements.
● Troops: There have been reports of increased activity along the border, and the rhetoric that “the cartels are terrorists” opens the door to US missile strikes or special operations on Mexican soil without permission.
4. Denmark (Greenland): The Arctic front
This is perhaps the most disturbing for us in the Nordic region.
● Sanctions against allies: The fact that the US is using economic pressure and threats against a NATO country to gain control of resources (Greenland) shows that no one is safe.
● Status: Denmark has recently upgraded the US to a security threat. This is no longer just a joke about “buying an island,” but real geopolitical pressure that is dividing the West.
The analysis behind
The US now operates according to a template where they first isolate a country economically (tariffs/sanctions), then create internal chaos, and finally use their military superiority to “clean up” – just as they did in Venezuela two weeks ago. They often have a potential new government or president “up their sleeve,” ready to be brought in if the regime falls.
The old rule that “we are allies, so we are safe” no longer seems to apply fully.
And of course, if anyone speaks out against the US or dares to sanction the US in the same way that the US sanctions others, then...
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Image: © N/A. Translation: DeepL + Copyread: Grammarly In line with our policies, we address notices of alleged violations under the United States "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA). If you believe that your copyright has been infringed on our site, please contact us, and we will promptly remove your photo from display. AWIP: https://a-w-i-p.com/index.php/aW9y