Empire Strikes Back: Imperialism as the Final Frontier of the United States

PHOTO: Christopher Skor on Unsplash

As the ashes of World War II settled, a new hegemon rose to fill the power vacuum – bearing the stars of red, white and blue. 

The 20th century marked a new era of liberal international order, wherein the United States (US) emerged as the uncontested hegemon, an authority anchored in economic scale, technological leadership and military capabilities. However, the US’ erosion of its domestic productive base, the outward expansion of its capital, and the imposition of “Liberation Day” tariffs have presented a critical threat to its global hegemonic position. 

In order to understand the recent US interventions under the second Donald Trump presidency, following its failed 2003 Iraq-Intervention, one must first understand why the United States President Donald Trump and his administration are deploying imperialist tactics, defined as extending power by territorial acquisition or political strategy. 

After the capture of Venezuelan President Maduro, Trump announced:

“We are reasserting American power in a very powerful way in our home region. The American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.”

But to reassert power, there must have been a challenge in the first place. 

Enter China.

PHOTO: US President Donald Trump shaking hands with PRC President Xi Jinping, Daniel Torok (White House) on Wikimedia Commons

The rise of China’s hegemonic challenge

The United States has long been losing global power to China, as Beijing challenges Western dominance by leveraging strategic pressure points such as Venezuela, Greenland, and Iran. 

China’s President Xi Jinping said, “We should maintain that all countries, regardless of size, strength and wealth, are equal participants, decision-makers and beneficiaries in global governance”, vowing to “oppose unilaterism” of power, 

This shift accounts for the Trump administration’s loss of diplomatic stability and the dependence of its allied nations, as isolationism was deployed as a tool to revive the American domestic economy. But how, and why focus on Venezuela, Greenland and Iran? 

The US-China rivalry has flexed power over international affairs for years. However, in recent years, the balance has shifted. China’s transformation from a manufacturing hub into a global manufacturing superpower has shaken the economic foundations that once underpinned American hegemony. 

The US, once having the strongest “buying power” compared to the cost of living, has been surpassed by China since 2016 as they supersede US’ market exchange rates. Such growth has enabled China to have one of the fastest expansions by a major economy in history, with annual gross domestic product (GDP) growing by 5.0% in 2024. Conversely, the US’ GDP growth has slowed significantly, falling to 2.3% in 2024. This posed a critical threat to Washington’s diplomatic power as the dominant economic powerhouse, with the reweighting of global economic order amplifying Beijing’s bargaining power in trade, finance, and regulatory standards. 

PHOTO: PRC President Xi Jinping shaking hands with Philippine President Bongbong Marcos, Cheloy Velicaria-Garafil on Wikimedia Commons

A militaristic challenge

In conjunction with the economic challenge, China’s militaristic evolution created a capability to disrupt US military dominance, especially in the Indo-Pacific, a key trade route. China’s acquisition of Russian weaponry and its improved missile capabilities have complicated US’ naval operations that had maintained regional stability. 

This is evidenced through US’ concern over China’s blue-water naval construction and A2AD (anti-access/area-denial capabilities) in the South China Sea. By disrupting US’ naval dominance and limiting freedom to act through A2AD, the US’ ability to maintain control in maritime South East Asia is constrained. 

The Trump Administration as the final straw

Consolidating this shift in power balance, the US’ internal constraints – particularly its failure to maintain a dynamic industrial base – have undermined its hegemonic capacity, diluting focus of its dependent nations and creating a power vacancy to be filled by Beijing.

Take Trump’s departure from UNESCO. Once its largest financial backer accounting for nearly 25% of funding, Washington’s increasingly unstable relationship with the organisation – especially since Trump’s first presidency – has enabled China to assume the role of financial benefactor, exploiting the immense cultural and technological soft power opportunity. As such, Beijing was able to displace US influence over UNESCO, expanding its sway over educational curricula, historical designations and even artificial intelligence – key ideological domains through which US hegemony has traditionally been sustained under the perception of a dominant, uncontested hegemon. 

This is further demonstrated through the temporary January 2026 ban of TikTok, wherein US users turned to Chinese alternative RedNote. The reinstatement of TikTok following this diversion of US cultural power and UNESCO dominance structures indicate China’s dissatisfaction with the status quo, as well as the country’s capacity and incentive to increase its relative authoritative power.

PHOTO: Under President trump, the US have faced numerous challenged to their hegemonic position, Geralt on Pixabay

Liberation Day: The beginning of the end

The U.S “Liberation Day” tariffs altered prices and wages  across nations with irreversible impact, although the most prominent change was in diplomacy itself.

An international understanding grew that an isolated hegemon was no hegemon at all. 

The tariffs placed on US’ traditional allies, in tandem with the demand for higher defence spending from partners were seen to exacerbate market instability, encouraging regional allies in the Indo-Pacific to turn to China, who had already begun to capitalise on US protectionism concerns. 

This is evidenced by Xi Jinping positioning China as a free-market stronghold – urging Indo-Pacific unity – a stance echoed by Malaysia’s deputy minister calling for a trade structure overhaul amid Washington’s unreliability.

As signals of US isolationism encouraged regional leadership to reduce their reliance on the US and seek diverse partnerships.

Present Day

Amidst China’s diplomatic and economic ascent, compounded by US’ internal constraints and departure from soft-power influences, the destruction of US’ power as the global leader loomed on the horizon. A new tactic to recover power was needed. 

Enter Venezuela.

Venezuela and the Imperial Reflex of a Falling Hegemon

Against the backdrop of this hegemonic instability, the US-Intervention in Venezuela may be claimed as the act of a nation upholding justice, but instead it should be interpreted as the imperial reflex of a falling powerhouse. 

Venezuela represents to the US a premonition of its imminent fall, as a Latin American state that simultaneously resists their authority and invites China specifically as a rival power into the hemisphere. 

This is evidenced by China’s $106 billion contribution in loans to Venezuela. Debt arrangements have historically been China’s diplomatic strategy, as a nation in debt is a nation who owes loyalty. Those loans were being repaid in oil, with China being the largest purchaser of Venezuelan oil, purchasing between 50 and 89 percent. China wanted an oil contract existing outside of Western Control, in order to challenge US dominance in the Americas and reduce reliance on the US dollar. 

By rejecting US-backed political and economic reforms, and aligning with China through oil deals and Russia for militaristic evolution, Venezuela fragmented the Western Hemisphere, triggering the US towards action.

Unable to stabilise its dominance in its perceived regions of control, the US was forced to revert to direct intervention to reestablish dominance: the Trump administration’s seizure of Nicolas Maduro. Reflecting a classic turn to imperialism, critics argue the administration is sending an international message.

State sovereignty is dependent upon compliance with US power, and even in decline, the US will impose such power on those who defy it.. 

PHOTO: Former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was overthrown in a US-led military intervention in January 2026, Prensa Presidencial – Government of Venezuela on Wikimedia Commons

Greenland as a second attack

“We are going to do something in Greenland whether they like it or not. If we don’t do it, Russia or China is going to take over Greenland.”

– US President, Donald Trump

Greenland is not just a nation; it represents  the most significant geo-political consequence of climate change. The Arctic Ocean surrounding Greenland has been frozen for hundreds of years, used by the US to spy on the Soviets during the Cold War, and abandoned thereafter. Now, due to the rapidly melting ocean, Greenland is a strategic location close to the US, with a deposit of rare earth minerals and a valuable trade route.

With Russia claiming military bases through the Arctic frontier, and Canada asserting its claim over the North-West passage for shipping, China, a non-Arctic nation, was forced to exert its influence to stay in the game. In 2017, Greenland, under Danish sovereignty, sought to expand infrastructure and build more airports. China, utilising their soft-power diplomacy strategy of economic leverage, offered to fund the infrastructure of airports with Chinese construction companies. This worried the US, who are aware of China’s debt-diplomacy history, and forced Denmark to not only close the deal, but funded the infrastructure instead and began military training in the Arctic. 

Such intervention reflects how the US perceive the threat of China, as they did not take action against Canada, or Russia. Indeed, the US sees China as a threat to its hegemony – a stance emphasised by efforts to counter  its participation in Arctic geopolitics. Yet, its power is falling in the face of China’s strong multilateralism. 

PHOTO: Wikideas1 on Wikimedia Commons

Iran as the final frontier

In 2025, a massive armada of military fleets were on route to Iran, in an effort to subdue China. Iran sits in the middle of China’s most successful soft diplomacy venture: the Belt and Road Initiative. 

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a global infrastructure development strategy adopted by Beijing as a diplomatic tactic to shift regional alliances and achieve multilateralism.

The BRI includes strengthening regional cooperation, unimpeded trade and financial integration. However, it is widely seen as an instrument for Beijing to overtake the US as the Indo-Pacific leader. By funding critical infrastructure such as pipelines, railways and ports, critics argue the BRI may aim to extend China’s financial influence and foster economic dependency, entrenching its governing power. As a result, recipient countries are potentially limited in their policy autonomy, increasing Beijing’s political leverage. 

This implicitly challenges US hegemony in the region in a number of ways. The shift in agenda from the Bretton Woods complex to a China-shaped regulatory system erodes the US’ capacity to condition capital and standards, as well as forces it into a reactive position that raises the cost of maintaining primacy. 

Furthermore, China remains Iran’s top trade partner as they buy Iran’s oil through BRI, which is a system outside of US’ control; a system designed to move money, energy, and goods without touching the US dollar. This is a massive issue for the US in the Arab region, as it reduces its ability to hold economic sanctions over states that do not fall in line.

As the US dollar is backed by nothing, not gold, not silver, and certainly not stability, China’s alternative to the current system can be seen as an alarming threat to the US, and it may be time we no longer have to wait for the penny to drop. 

As of the 1st of March, the United States and Israel have attacked Iran with a military strike.  Trump cites Iran’s nuclear weapons as the reason for this attack, the Omani foreign minister came forward to declare Iran had agreed to “zero stockpiling” with an unprecedented deal to avoid war. 

This represents the US again militarily intervening to counter Chinese influence and reassert their control in the Middle East, one of the world’s most important geopolitical regions.

PHOTO: Sepehr Aleagha on Unsplash

The Iraq War as historic Imperialism

Finally, in the context of the US decline, the intervention in Venezuela is both a symbolic and strategic action aimed as a predatory display of power. By targeting a state long resistant to economic penetration, the move acts as a deterrent to rivals, displaying the US’ willingness and power to use force to maintain global dominance. 

Such a political action is not historically unprecedented, mirroring the 2003 invasion of Iraq not physically, but ideologically. Parallel to the era, the “intervention” occurred following a time of American weakness and waning legitimacy. In both cases, imperial action functioned less as a path to stability, and more as an assertion of dominance. 

Both interventions arose in a climate of manufactured urgency, with Iraq framed as an imminent threat to global security, and Venezuela as a narco-state of authoritarianism, legitimising imperialist action to uphold justice. The Iraq intervention followed the Cold War’s Unipolar movement, as did the Venezuelan intervention amid a rising multipolar order shaped by China. Iraq’s oil reserves and geostrategic location advantages mirror Venezuela’s energy and diplomatic ties. In both cases, policy outcomes align with material motives. 

Through a critical lens, Venezuela is Iraq adapted to a hegemonic world, with a demonised leader, economic sanctions and a US escalation to reassert dominance at moments of perceived decline. 

---

The final defence

Imperialism becomes the final frontier of a falling hegemon, a move arising out of diplomatic insecurity, not power. As such, it can be concluded that such an intervention sends a single message across nations, about the uncertain fate of the global order. 

The United States power can no longer be maintained without force.