Gustavo de Arístegui: Geopolitical Analysis 14 January

1. Introduction
2. Iran: Starlink opens cracks in the blackout; theocracy tries to blind the protest
3. Iran: Trump calls for ‘taking over institutions’; Tehran accuses “destabilisation” and threatens with pretexts
4. Iran: the UN tightens the framework; restoring the internet becomes a political ‘red line’
5. Ukraine: massive Russian attack on energy and infrastructure; ‘saturation’ as a method
6. US: ‘Full solidarity’ of central banks with Powell; monetary independence as a strategic pillar
7. Venezuela: US seeks orders to seize dozens of oil tankers; sustained maritime coercion
8. Venezuela: Trump blocks court seizures of oil revenues in US accounts
9. Middle East: Guterres threatens to take Israel to the ICJ over measures against UNRWA
10. Indo-Pacific: China harasses a Philippine fishing boat in Masinloc Shoal; sustained grey zone
11. Arctic/Greenland: Nuuk-Copenhagen unity ahead of talks with Washington; NATO stresses Arctic urgency
12. Media Rack
13. Editorial commentary

Introduction

Today has not been ‘newsworthy’; it has been structural. Iran and Ukraine are not two separate crises: they are two laboratories of the 21st century. In Iran, a theocratic regime that knows it is illegitimate is trying to survive by shutting down reality—the internet, witnesses, traceability—and multiplying repression. In Ukraine, Russia insists on its war against civilian life: drones and missiles to punish heating, energy and logistics, with winter multiplying the damage. In between, Washington tightens the noose on Venezuelan oil and makes maritime control a political instrument; the Arctic returns to centre stage via Greenland; and in the Indo-Pacific, China pushes its ‘grey zone’ with the patience of someone who believes that time always works in its favour.

The conclusion is simple: dictatorships bet on fatigue and obscurity; democracies only win if they maintain clarity, coordination and persistence. The rest is sentimentality, and sentimentality is the luxury of those who have nothing at stake.

Iran: Starlink opens cracks in the blackout; theocracy tries to blind the protest

Facts

• Reuters confirms that some Iranians are using Starlink to circumvent the national blackout, with irregular access and criminal risk, while internet availability has reportedly plummeted to residual levels. 
• The regime declares unauthorised satellite access illegal and tightens the punishment framework. 

Implications

• The core of the crisis is not just ‘protest vs. regime’; it is regime vs. traceability. Tehran needs darkness to repress without cost. Satellite connectivity breaks its impunity, even if only partially.
• If the repressive apparatus cannot control the narrative, it will tend to compensate with more coercion. This is the classic dynamic of regimes that fear their people: when they cannot convince, they crush.
• For the West, the critical point is not to ‘condemn’ —that has already been amortised— but to raise the real cost: personalised sanctions, surveillance technology and financial networks.

Scenarios (7–14 days)

1. Selective repressive escalation: raids on communication nodes, arrests of ‘facilitators,’ exemplary punishments.
2. Growing information gaps: increased use of Starlink and other methods; the regime increases jamming and border control.
3. Outsourcing: distraction through activation of proxies or regional threats to shift focus.

Indicators to monitor

• Internet outages and “micro-openings”; patterns of interruption (times and regions).
• Signs of mass confiscation of antennas/terminals; arrests for “communication offences”.
• Messages from the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) about internal ‘terrorism’: when they repeat this, it means they are preparing to crack down.

Recommended countermeasures

• EU: sanction operational commanders and technological networks; cut off exports of surveillance tools; activate mechanisms against evasion.
• US and allies: support secure documentation and communications without theatrics that fuel the narrative of ‘interference’.
• Public diplomacy: demand restoration of the internet as a minimum condition and measure responses, not speeches.

Iran: Trump calls for ‘taking over institutions’; Tehran accuses “destabilisation” and threatens with pretexts

Facts

• Reuters reports Trump's message encouraging Iranians to ‘TAKE OVER’ institutions, and the Iranian reaction denouncing foreign incitement.
• International coverage emphasises that the blackout limits independent verification and amplifies the information war. 

Implications

• here is a strategic trap here: the easier it is for Tehran to sustain the narrative of an ‘imported revolution’, the more leeway it will have to justify extreme repression.
• That does not mean moral neutrality. It means effectiveness: pressure yes, but targeted at the regime's capabilities, not gestures that become propaganda for the executioners.
• Theocracy does not become ‘moderate’ through persuasion. It becomes vulnerable when it loses money, mobility, technology and legitimacy.

Scenarios (7–14 days)

1. Tehran intensifies accusations of a ‘pretext for intervention’ to close internal ranks.
2. Washington tightens sanctions or technological support measures; the regime responds with limited regional provocation.
3. Discreet channels are broken; replaced by public threats.

Indicators

• Messages from the Iranian Foreign Ministry alluding to ‘intervention’ or ‘coup’; these usually precede internal measures.
• Proxy activity (Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon) with low-signature attacks.
• Naval movements/security alerts in the Gulf.

Countermeasures

• US/EU: coordination of messages: condemnation, demand for internet, sanctions on commanders, and protection of evidence.
• Security services: anticipate hybrid retaliation (cyber, propaganda, network activation).

Iran: the UN tightens the framework; restoring the internet becomes a political ‘red line’

Facts

• Reuters had already reported the start of the national blackout (NetBlocks) on 8 January in the midst of the protest cycle. 
• International pressure is focused on restoring access and on the pattern of violence and arrests, in a context of disputed casualty figures due to a lack of independent verification. 

Implications

• The debate is shifting from ‘how many deaths’ to ‘why we cannot know’. And that is devastating for a regime that needs to deny.
• If the EU wants credibility, it must move from gestures to architecture: sanctions + evasion control + attack on repressive technology.
• The blackout is not a symptom: it is the tool of modern repression.

Scenarios

1. Partial and controlled restoration, to reduce external pressure without renouncing repression.
2. Sustained blackout and legal tightening, as a doctrine.
3. ‘False opening’ with propaganda: internet ‘for services’, not for organisation.

Indicators

• Statements about the ‘national internet’ and closure of social networks.
• Regulatory changes and announcements of penalties.
• Reappearance of videos/leaks from provinces: indicates operational cracks.

Countermeasures

• EU: sanctions explicitly linked to ‘internet blackout’ as a violation of fundamental rights.
• UN/OSCE/Council of Europe (where applicable): mechanisms for preserving evidence.
   

Ukraine: massive Russian attack on energy and infrastructure; ‘saturation’ as a method

Facts

• Financial Times and Reuters describe a large-scale attack: 293 drones and 18 missiles, with significant damage, civilian casualties and power cuts, even with a high interception rate. 
• Zelensky insists that energy is once again the priority target. 

Implications

• This confirms the Russian doctrine of punishment: when the front line fails to deliver victories, the power grid is attacked to hold civilian life hostage.
• Saturation (in the operational sense) seeks to break defences by volume: each interceptor costs, each failure hurts, and the system becomes fatigued.
• The West cannot allow the force to consolidate territories. If the method is rewarded, barbarism becomes normalised as foreign policy.

Scenarios (7–14 days)

1. Repeated waves every 72–96 hours to erode interceptor stocks.
2. ‘Mixed’ attacks on energy + logistics (depots, distribution centres) to multiply impact.
3. Escalation on specific cities to pressure negotiations.

Indicators

• Launch patterns (times, routes, types of drone/missile).
• Ukrenergo/DTEK statements on actual capacity, not just damage.
• Signs of anti-aircraft ammunition depletion: urgent requests and changes to rules of engagement.

Countermeasures

• NATO/EU: accelerate air defence, ammunition, radars and spare parts; reinforce substation protection.
• Ukraine: dispersion and redundancy, generators, micro-grids; physical hardening of critical nodes.
• Diplomacy: insist that attacks on civilian energy are war crimes: do not negotiate by rewarding the aggressor.

US: ‘Full solidarity’ of central banks with Powell; monetary independence as a strategic pillar

Facts

• AP reports on a joint statement by central bankers expressing ‘full solidarity’ with Jerome Powell amid the clash with the Trump administration. 
• Reuters adds the support of bank chiefs and central bankers, stressing that independence is essential for credibility and rates. 
• Le Monde reports on the content and tone of the endorsement, emphasising the international dimension of the issue. 

Implications

• This is not a domestic dispute: it is about global confidence. If the market believes that politics is capturing the Fed, it demands a premium: the cost of debt rises and the economy becomes more expensive.
• For the Western bloc, the comparative advantage is institutional. Weakening it gives oxygen to China and Russia, which sell ‘efficiency’ without controls as a virtue.
• Your position of liberal sensibility fits: the welfare state is sustained by stability, not arbitrariness.

Scenarios

1. De-escalation due to political cost and market pressure.
2. Judicial-media escalation amplifying volatility.
3. Tacit agreement: controlled tension without formal rupture.

Indicators

• Reaction of Treasuries (bonds) and interest rate expectations.
• Messages from major banks and the BIS (Bank for International Settlements).
• Leaks about the real scope of the case.

Countermeasures

• Institutions: clear defence of independence; transparency of processes; avoid gestures that appear to be retaliation.
• Markets/regulators: communicate stability and legal framework.

Venezuela: US seeks orders to seize dozens of oil tankers; sustained maritime coercion

Events

• Reuters reports that the US government has filed actions to seize dozens of oil tankers linked to Venezuelan trade, expanding its campaign to control oil flows following Maduro's capture (3 January) and the December blockade.
• Reuters previously described specific seizures, including a Russian-flagged oil tanker and the ‘shadow fleet’ associated with sanctions evasion.

Implications

• This is serious pressure: not only seizing cargo, but also the platform, route and insurance. For a mafia-style narco-dictatorship, the sea is its lifeline; closing it off is suffocating.
• Russia protests ‘illegality,’ but in reality fears the precedent: that maritime control will become a systematic tool.
• In your editorial line, there is no room for complexes here: Chavismo does not fall because of sermons; it falls when it loses money, logistics and protection.

Scenarios (7–14 days)

1. Intensification of seizures and litigation; increased use of flags of convenience.
2. Adaptation: longer routes, opaque transhipments, ‘creative documentation’.
3. Hybrid response: cyber, propaganda, low-signature maritime incidents.

Indicators

• Anomalous AIS (automatic identification system) movements: switched off, erratic routes.
• Reaction from insurers, ports and flag countries.
• Pentagon statements on ‘unauthorised transports’. 

Countermeasures

• US: sustain campaign, legal protection, coordination with allies, pressure on flags and insurers.
• EU/allies: cooperation in evasion and laundering control, and in secondary sanctions where appropriate.

Venezuela: Trump blocks court seizures of oil revenues in US accounts

Facts

• Reuters reports an order to protect Venezuelan oil revenues in US accounts from court seizures, in the context of the reorganisation of control over oil-related flows.

Implications

• This is a technical measure with strategic effect: it prevents money from being dispersed through litigation and maintains the flow under pressure architecture.
• The key question is political: is this architecture being used to weaken the regime and rebuild a sector under new rules, or to create grey areas that Chavismo can exploit?
• In wars against state mafias, consistency is everything: any loophole becomes a highway.

Scenarios

1. Consolidation of a supervised ‘box’ for authorised exports.
2. Legal clash with creditors and litigants; pressure in the courts.
3. Use as an incentive conditional on verifiable steps towards transition.

Indicators

• Creditor litigation; congressional reactions; Treasury stance.
• Changes in export volumes and destinations.

Countermeasures

• Strict conditionality, auditing, and anti-corruption mechanisms.

Middle East: Guterres threatens to take Israel to the ICJ over measures against UNRWA

Facts

• Reuters reports on a letter (8 January) in which Guterres warns that he may refer Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) if it does not reverse laws against UNRWA and return seized assets. 
• Israel responds by accusing UNRWA of links to terrorism; the UN recalls dismissals and investigations, and the agency's vital role in providing assistance. 

Implications

• Taking the conflict to court adds diplomatic fuel to the fire. The ICJ is not a magic bullet, but it is a seal of reputation.
• If UNRWA is weakened without a functional alternative, a vacuum is created. And in that region, vacuums are filled by extremists.
• Precision is needed here: unequivocal condemnation of terrorism and vetting mechanisms, but also humanitarian realism: without a credible aid channel, the ground will rot.

Scenarios

1. Partial de-escalation with administrative formulas; international pressure.
2. Legal escalation in The Hague; polarisation and campaigns.
3. Operational reconfiguration: new agencies or substitute consortia, with friction.

Indicators

• Concrete measures regarding offices, supplies, permits.
• Messages from donors and the Security Council.

Countermeasures

• Ensure humanitarian continuity with control and vetting; verifiable anti-infiltration mechanisms.

Indo-Pacific: China harasses a Philippine fishing boat in Masinloc Shoal; sustained grey zone

Events

• Philippine media report the first major harassment incident of 2026: Chinese vessels (Coast Guard and PLAN — PLA Navy) approach and block the fishing boat, with Philippine intervention.
• Philippine statements invoke UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) and the 2016 arbitration award. 

Implications

• China does not “negotiate”: it accustoms. It wants friction to become normal and normality to become de facto sovereignty.
• This is exactly the kind of pressure that erodes alliances if there is no presence, documentation, and coordinated response.
• If the West tolerates the erosion of the maritime order in Asia, it will not uphold its own anywhere.

Scenarios

1. More incidents with ‘dangerous distances’ to gauge Philippine and US reaction.
2. Installation of barriers, buoys, or de facto ‘administrative’ controls.
3. Controlled escalation by accident: collision, injuries, political reaction.

Indicators

• Frequency of incidents; distance of approach; use of water cannons or cutting manoeuvres.
• PCG communiqués and allied presence.

Countermeasures

• Joint patrols, systematic documentation, and reputational sanctions; sustained legal and diplomatic support.

Arctic/Greenland: Nuuk-Copenhagen unity ahead of talks with Washington; NATO stresses Arctic urgency

Facts

• TIME, The Guardian and WSJ report on the Greenlandic Prime Minister's message: ‘We choose Denmark... we choose NATO... we choose the EU’, ahead of contacts in Washington with senior US officials.
• Reuters reports that NATO is discussing ‘next steps’ to ensure that the Arctic ‘remains secure’ and quotes Rutte on the absence of allied disagreement on Arctic security.
• Euractiv describes the political climate prior to the talks and the narrowing margins for Copenhagen and Nuuk. 

Implications

• Greenland is not polar romanticism: it is radar, routes, critical minerals, and Atlantic projection. The melting ice opens up opportunities and vulnerabilities, and China and Russia know it.
• Atlantic cohesion is measured in crises like this: if the ally perceives excessive pressure, a rift opens up; and in a rift, Moscow and Beijing insert the lever.
• The sensible solution is strategic cooperation: critical minerals, investment, defence, infrastructure. The clumsy solution is threats, which hurt NATO more than its adversaries.

Scenarios

1. Pragmatic agreement: cooperation on minerals and security, without touching sovereignty.
2. Rhetorical escalation: transatlantic relations become tense, with political costs for Europe.
3. Internal Greenlandic reaction: independence movement exploited by third parties.

Indicators

• Messages from the Pentagon and the State Department; language about ‘options’.
• Danish announcements of Arctic presence and capabilities.
• Investment flows and mining licences.

Countermeasures

• NATO: coordination of position, reinforcement of Arctic capabilities, and narrative of unity without arrogance.
• EU: investment package and critical minerals; prevent the island from being at the mercy of Chinese money.
• US: agreements, not ultimatums; strategy of allies, not clients.

Media Rack

A) Agencies (Reuters / AP / AFP / DPA)

• Reuters dominates the day with three stories: Iran (blackout/Starlink), Ukraine (massive attack on energy) and Venezuela (seizures and court orders for dozens of oil tankers).
• AP focuses on the global institutional and financial front: support for Powell and defence of monetary independence. 
• AFP enters the Indo-Pacific strongly via local reports on the incident in Bajo de Masinloc. 

B) Economic press (FT / WSJ / The Economist)

• FT emphasises the energy-winter component of the Russian attack and the pressure on networks and logistics.
• WSJ and other major newspapers highlight Greenland as an Atlantic crisis and as a matter of sovereignty and the rule of law.
• The Economist (in line with its usual stance) contextualises Greenland as a strategic piece and underlying transatlantic tension. 

C) Generalist and European press (Guardian / Le Monde / etc.)

• The Guardian reinforces the political reading: Greenland-Denmark unity and risk to NATO cohesion. 
• Le Monde highlights international support for Powell, emphasising the dimension of Western credibility. 

D) Middle East (Al Jazeera / Israeli and regional press)

• Al Jazeera and the regional press amplify the UN-Israel-UNRWA clash and real-time coverage of Iran. 

Editorial commentary

Iran is harshly demonstrating the survival manual of a theocratic dictatorship: when it cannot convince, it shuts down; when it cannot shut down, it intimidates; when intimidation is not enough, it kills. The blackout is not a ‘technical detail’; it is the regime's confession: it knows that with light, it loses. That is why any Western response that does not attack its architecture of coercion — command, technology, money, mobility — is an aesthetic and sterile gesture.

In Ukraine, Russia insists on turning winter into a combat unit. If the world accepts that the aggressor can punish cities until it forces territorial concessions, it will have legitimised a doctrine: borders are bought with missiles. For Europe, that would be suicidal.

And Venezuela confirms that state mafias only understand one language: that of flows. If you control the sea, you control oxygen. The Chavista narco-dictatorship does not deserve contemplation; it deserves persistence and precision until it runs out of air. The opposite is to prolong the agony of a kidnapped country.

History does not reward lukewarmness. Lukewarmness is not moderation: it is a lack of will. And today, on three different fronts, will is the only thing that separates democracies from regression.