Gustavo de Arístegui: Geopolitical Analysis 30 January
Below is an analysis of current global events, structured around key topics for clear and direct understanding, followed by a summary of coverage in the mainstream media
- Introduction
- Trump nominates Kevin Warsh to chair the Federal Reserve
- Last-minute agreement to avoid partial federal government shutdown
- Venezuela opens its oil sector to foreign companies
- The European Union designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation
- Xi Jinping decapitates Chinese military leadership with purge of General Zhang Youxia
- Trump warns the UK against closer trade ties with China
- Maximum tension: is a US attack on Iran imminent?
- New nuclear arms race after the expiry of the New START treaty
- Panama's Supreme Court annuls Chinese port contracts in the Canal
- Landmark elections in Japan to strengthen the front against China
- Media Rack
- Editorial Commentary
Introduction
The day of 30 January 2026 has been marked by events of extraordinary geopolitical significance that highlight the profound transformations of the international order. From Washington, President Trump announces the appointment of Kevin Warsh as the new chairman of the Federal Reserve, signalling a shift towards more accommodative monetary policies that could redefine the global financial architecture. On Capitol Hill, the Senate reaches a last-minute agreement to avoid a partial shutdown of the federal government, although the immigration crisis and the actions of federal agents keep the country on edge.
Caracas is at the centre of one of the most significant shifts in Latin American energy policy with the parliamentary approval of a law that opens the Venezuelan oil sector to foreign companies, reversing two decades of Chavista nationalism. Meanwhile, the European Union takes the historic—and long-delayed—decision to designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation in response to the brutal repression of protests that has cost thousands of lives.
In Asia, Xi Jinping continues his relentless military purge with the fall of General Zhang Youxia, demonstrating an unprecedented concentration of power that raises questions about the operational capacity of the People's Liberation Army. Trump warns the United Kingdom about the dangers of strengthening trade ties with Beijing, while Keir Starmer seeks to rebalance Sino-British relations. Scenarios of maximum tension are looming on the horizon: a possible US attack on Iran, a new nuclear arms race following the expiry of the New START treaty, and crucial elections in Japan that could strengthen the front against Chinese expansionism in the Pacific.
Trump nominates Kevin Warsh to chair the Federal Reserve
Facts
President Donald Trump has confirmed that he will announce on Friday his decision to nominate Kevin Warsh as the new chairman of the Federal Reserve, replacing Jerome Powell when his term expires in May. Warsh, a former Fed governor between 2006 and 2011 during the George W. Bush administration, was already a finalist in 2017 when Trump ultimately chose Powell. Prediction markets give Warsh more than an 80% chance of being nominated after his visit to the White House on Thursday. The nomination must be confirmed by the Senate, where Republican Senator Thom Tillis has threatened to block any candidate until the Justice Department's investigation into Powell is resolved.
Implications
Warsh's appointment represents a turning point in US monetary policy. Unlike Powell, who has maintained a cautious approach to inflationary pressures stemming from Trump's tariffs, Warsh is known for favouring lower interest rates, aligning himself with the president's demands for aggressive cuts to stimulate economic growth and reduce the cost of servicing the national debt.
However, Warsh is also in favour of reducing the central bank's balance sheet, which introduces a factor of complexity into his profile. This nomination undermines the independence of the Federal Reserve, one of the fundamental pillars of US economic stability for decades. Trump has intensified his attacks on Powell, even going so far as to use a Justice Department investigation into the renovation of the Fed's headquarters to put pressure on the current chairman.
Outlook and scenarios
If the nomination is confirmed, we can expect a more accommodative monetary policy that could boost stock markets in the short term but increase inflationary risks in the medium term, especially in a context of tariff protectionism. The credibility of the Federal Reserve as an independent institution will be seriously questioned, which could have repercussions on bond markets and the international perception of the dollar as a reserve currency.
The confirmation process will be a crucial test for the balance of power in Washington and for the Senate's ability to defend institutional autonomy in the face of pressure from the executive branch.
Last-minute agreement to avoid partial federal government shutdown
Facts
Democratic and Republican senators have reached an agreement to separate funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from the package of five other budget appropriation bills, thus avoiding a partial federal government shutdown that was due to take effect on 30 January.
The five bills will be voted on before the weekend, while the DHS will receive a temporary two-week extension to allow for negotiations on restrictions on immigration operations. The House of Representatives, which is in recess until Monday, will have to approve these measures, so a brief technical shutdown over the weekend seems inevitable, albeit with limited consequences.
Implications
The budget crisis comes in the context of two fatal shootings by federal agents in Minneapolis, including the killing of Alex Pretti, a nurse at the veterans' medical centre, by a Border Patrol agent. Democrats are demanding structural reforms in immigration agencies, including a ban on roving patrols, mandatory use of body cameras, uniform codes of conduct for the use of force, and a ban on the use of masks by agents.
The Trump administration has rejected these conditions, arguing that its crusade against illegal immigration is a national priority. This confrontation highlights the clash between Trump's hard-line immigration strategy and concerns about police excesses and civil rights violations.
Outlook and scenarios
The temporary agreement does not resolve the underlying differences. Over the next two weeks, the White House and Congress will have to negotiate mechanisms for controlling and supervising immigration agencies.
If no compromise is reached, we could see a prolonged shutdown of the DHS, affecting thousands of federal employees and compromising critical national security functions. Political polarisation around immigration makes it difficult to foresee a lasting solution. Trump could try to govern by executive order, which would trigger legal battles and exacerbate the institutional crisis.
Venezuela opens its oil sector to foreign companies
Facts
The Venezuelan Parliament, controlled by Chavismo, unanimously approved a legislative reform that allows foreign companies to manage oil fields in the country with the largest proven crude reserves on the planet. The reform, backed by interim President Delcy Rodríguez, dismantles the monopoly of the state oil company PDVSA and authorises concessions at the risk and cost of private companies.
The measure was immediately signed by Rodríguez at a ceremony with oil workers. The reform modifies the emblematic Hydrocarbons Law of 2001, a symbol of Chávez's nationalist project, and incorporates models from the Anti-Blockade Law of 2020 that favour private investors. The United States has responded by partially lifting oil sanctions against Venezuela.
Implications
This reform constitutes one of the most spectacular shifts in recent Latin American history. Chavismo, which for more than two decades flew the flag of oil nationalism as its ideological banner, is capitulating to pressure from Washington and the country's economic devastation. The measure is a direct consequence of the US military capture of Nicolás Maduro in early January, an unprecedented operation that left Delcy Rodríguez at the head of a puppet government. Trump has been explicit in his demand that US companies be given access to Venezuelan resources, even proposing the deployment of private military contractors to protect oil facilities.
However, executives such as the CEO of ExxonMobil have expressed reservations about investing in Venezuela, describing the country as ‘uninvestable’ in its current state. The reform establishes a maximum ceiling of 30% on royalties, allowing the executive to adjust the percentages according to the needs of each project.
Outlook and scenarios
Venezuela's oil opening raises fundamental questions about national sovereignty and the country's political future. While it could attract foreign capital to revitalise a collapsed industry, it also consolidates Venezuela's subordination to US interests. Washington's control over Venezuelan oil exports — with revenues channelled through US-supervised banks in Qatar — reduces Caracas to the status of a client of the empire.
This situation is unacceptable from any perspective that defends national dignity and the right of peoples to decide on their resources. What Trump presents as ‘peace diplomacy’ is in reality the brutal imposition of draconian terms on a devastated nation. The Venezuelan democratic opposition, led by figures such as María Corina Machado and Edmundo González, has been sidelined from this process, demonstrating that Washington prioritises access to resources over the democratisation of the country.
The European Union designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation
Facts
The European Union's foreign ministers have unanimously agreed to designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation, a measure that will formally take effect in the coming days. The decision, announced by High Representative Kaja Kallas, responds to the brutal repression of anti-government protests that have rocked Iran since late December, leaving an official death toll of 3,117 according to Tehran, although independent sources estimate at least 6,221 fatalities and are investigating more than 12,900 additional cases.
France, the last country to remain reluctant, changed its position on Wednesday, allowing the necessary consensus to be reached. The designation involves asset freezes, financing bans and travel bans for all IRGC members, many of whom were already subject to individual sanctions. At the same time, the EU has imposed sanctions on 15 individuals and six entities responsible for human rights violations, including Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni and Attorney General Mohammad Movahedi-Azad.
Implications
It is frankly incomprehensible that it has taken Europe 47 years to adopt a measure that should have been obvious since the IRGC was founded after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Few organisations in the world embody brutality, fanaticism and utter unscrupulousness like this praetorian force that reports directly to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The IRGC is not merely a military arm of the Iranian state; it is the main instrument of internal repression and regional destabilisation, controlling nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, financing and arming terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza and pro-Iranian militias in Iraq.
With between 125,000 and 190,000 personnel, the IRGC has become a ‘state within a state,’ controlling vast sectors of the Iranian economy and exerting pervasive influence in all aspects of the country's political and social life. The European decision follows similar designations by the United States (2019), Canada, and Australia.
Outlook and scenarios
The designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation has operational and symbolic implications. It will facilitate European police cooperation through Europol, allow IRGC members to be arrested on EU territory and simplify the freezing of assets by requiring only proof of affiliation and not participation in specific terrorist acts.
However, it seems clear that the IRGC has been directly involved in the planning, training, arming and execution of terrorist attacks in the Middle East and other parts of the world. Hezbollah would not have been able to reach Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Buenos Aires (attacks on the Israeli embassy and the AMIA Jewish Cultural Centre) or Madrid (El Descanso restaurant) with its filthy claws without the support of the Revolutionary Guard.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar has described the decision as ‘historic’, noting that Israel had been working towards this outcome for years. Tehran has responded virulently, calling the move a ‘major strategic mistake’ and accusing Europe of fanning the flames of regional conflict. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has denounced Europe's “hypocrisy” for acting against Iran while remaining silent in the face of Israeli ‘genocide’ in Gaza.
Despite fears of a total diplomatic breakdown, Kallas has indicated that diplomatic channels with Iran will remain open. The move comes at a time of heightened tension between Washington and Tehran, with Trump deploying what he has described as a ‘massive armada’ to Iranian waters and warning that ‘time is running out’ for the regime to negotiate on its nuclear programme.
Xi Jinping decapitates Chinese military leadership with purge of General Zhang Youxia
Facts
The Chinese Ministry of Defence announced on Saturday the opening of investigations against General Zhang Youxia, vice-chairman of the Central Military Commission and the highest-ranking uniformed officer after Xi Jinping, accusing him of ‘serious violations of discipline and law’, a common euphemism for corruption and political disloyalty. At the same time, General Liu Zhenli, head of the Joint Staff Department, was also investigated.
With these new purges, five of the six uniformed members of the Central Military Commission appointed in October 2022 have been expelled or are under investigation, leaving only General Zhang Shengmin, head of the anti-corruption campaign, in office. Zhang Youxia, a decorated veteran of the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War and son of a founder of the PLA in the Mao era, was considered ‘untouchable’ and a sworn brother of Xi Jinping due to family ties between the two families dating back decades.
Implications
This purge constitutes the largest decapitation of the Chinese military leadership since the Mao era, surpassing even the upheavals of the Cultural Revolution. Xi Jinping has completed one of the most systematic purges in the history of the People's Republic, affecting more than 200,000 officials and at least 17 generals of the People's Liberation Army since 2012. The fall of Zhang Youxia — despite her revolutionary pedigree and personal ties to Xi — shows that no one is safe in the current system.
The timing of the purge is significant: January 2026 marks the last annual training cycle before the 2027 deadline Xi has set for the PLA to be ready for an invasion of Taiwan. Analysts speculate that Zhang may have been purged not for personal corruption but for professional disagreements with Xi's accelerated timeline for joint operations. Zhang had implemented conferences on basic training in 2023 and combined training in 2024, but had not finalised a joint training model for January 2026, suggesting that China's military machinery is not ready for the 2027 target.
Outlook and scenarios
The absolute concentration of power in Xi Jinping's hands creates a strategic paradox: while the Chinese leader seeks to ensure unconditional loyalty by systematically eliminating any potential sources of dissent, he is simultaneously dismantling the operational capacity of the armed forces. With the Central Military Commission effectively reduced to Xi and an anti-corruption official, military decision-making has been concentrated to an unprecedented degree, eliminating institutional checks and balances and increasing the risk of miscalculation.
US Ambassador to China David Perdue has noted that Xi seeks ‘total control’ of the military apparatus. For Taiwan, this situation offers a temporary window of strategic relief as the PLA focuses on internal discipline rather than operational readiness, but in the long term a more formidable, albeit unpredictable, threat could emerge once Xi rebuilds the command with ideologically vetted successors. The internal instability of the Chinese system and doubts about the cohesion of the PLA increase the risks of unwanted confrontations in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.
Trump warns the UK against closer trade ties with China
Facts
President Donald Trump warned on Thursday that it is ‘very dangerous’ for the UK to deepen its trade ties with China, following an 80-minute meeting between Prime Minister Keir Starmer and President Xi Jinping in Beijing. Starmer, who is making the first visit by a British prime minister to China in eight years, is seeking to re-establish a ‘strategic partnership’ with Beijing after years of tense relations.
Trump was even more blunt about Canada, where Prime Minister Mark Carney also visited China this month, reaching preliminary agreements to reduce tariffs on selected products: ‘It's even more dangerous, I think, for Canada to get into business with China.’ Before his trip, Starmer told Bloomberg that the UK would not have to choose between the US and China, arguing that it can strengthen economic ties with Beijing without angering Trump or damaging relations with Washington.
Implications
Trump's warnings expose the contradictions inherent in the British strategy of ‘rebalancing’ between the two superpowers. Starmer is attempting to navigate an impossibly fine line: maintaining the strategic alliance with the United States in defence and security while expanding trade relations with China, the world's second largest economy. This position is structurally unsustainable in a context of growing Sino-American rivalry. During the meeting in Beijing, Xi warned that if the major powers do not respect international law, the world risks sliding into a ‘jungle’, in a clear reference to Trump's unilateralism.
Starmer raised concerns with Xi about human rights, including the imprisonment of Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Jimmy Lai and the treatment of the Uighur minority, although Downing Street declined to provide details of these conversations. The Prime Minister also requested Xi's assistance in disrupting the supply of Chinese-made boat engines used to smuggle people across the English Channel.
Outlook and scenarios
Trump is right to point out the dangers of uncritical trade ties with China, but he must recognise and respect the sovereignty of his allies. The United Kingdom, like any nation, has the right to manage its own economic relations. However, allies also have a responsibility to be sensible in their foreign policy and to limit their agreements with China to strictly economic and commercial matters, without blessing or whitewashing Chinese aggression and expansionism in the South China Sea, the Pacific, Africa and Latin America.
China defines itself as an enemy of the West — not an adversary, not a rival, not a competitor, but an enemy — which requires strategic consistency from Western democracies. This is not the most propitious moment to legitimise, through uncritical agreements, the foreign and geo-economic policy of a regime that knows no limits to its ambition. Analysts such as Gabriel Wildau of Teoneo suggest that Starmer is seeking a ‘rebalancing’ rather than a ‘structural reset’ with China, aware that any overly close approach would attract ‘unwanted attention’ from Western allies. A comprehensive UK-China trade agreement seems unlikely, but even limited sectoral agreements will create tensions with Washington in the Trump era.
Maximum tension: is a US attack on Iran imminent?
Facts
Arab and Muslim powers have launched a last-minute diplomatic effort to avert a military conflict between the United States and Iran, as Washington deploys what Trump has described as a ‘massive armada’ to the region with ‘great power, enthusiasm and purpose’. The US president warned last week that ‘time is running out’ for Tehran to negotiate an agreement on its nuclear programme, although on Thursday he moderated his rhetoric, expressing his hope to avoid military action and his preference for further talks.
Tension has skyrocketed following the brutal crackdown on protests in Iran and growing pressure on the regime. Arab officials are seeking to mediate before the situation reaches a point of no return, aware that an armed conflict between Washington and Tehran would have devastating consequences for the entire region.
Implications
The world is on the brink of a conflict that could redefine the regional order in the Middle East and have global ramifications. Trump has oscillated between explicit military threats and expressions of preference for a diplomatic solution, a pattern characteristic of his ‘maximum pressure’ negotiating style. However, the build-up of US military forces in the region is not merely rhetorical: it indicates real preparations for possible operations against Iranian nuclear facilities and IRGC command centres.
The Tehran regime, weakened by the repression of protests that has cost thousands of lives and facing devastating economic sanctions, could be tempted to respond through its regional proxies—Hezbollah, Houthis, Iraqi militias—triggering a regional conflagration that would drag in Israel, Saudi Arabia and other actors. The European designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, announced on the same day as these diplomatic manoeuvres, adds pressure on the regime but also reduces its options for an honourable exit.
Outlook and scenarios
Three scenarios are plausible in the coming weeks. The first, diplomatic, would require Iran to accept significant limitations on its nuclear programme in exchange for the gradual lifting of sanctions, an unlikely outcome given the regime's nationalist pride and its perception that nuclear weapons are the ultimate guarantee of survival. The second scenario, limited surgical strikes against Iranian nuclear infrastructure, could satisfy Trump's domestic demands for a show of force without triggering all-out war, although Iranian retaliation through proxies would be inevitable.
The third scenario, open war, would be catastrophic: massive US attacks on Iran would lead to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz (through which a third of the world's oil passes), sending global energy prices skyrocketing, while Iran would activate all its regional proxies, plunging the Middle East into unprecedented chaos. Arab mediators are working around the clock, knowing that a US-Iran conflict would have no clear winners, but would devastate economies and populations throughout the region.
New nuclear arms race after the expiry of the New START treaty
Facts
The United States and Russia are on the brink of a new nuclear arms race after the failure of negotiations to renew the New START (New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), which is due to expire soon. This agreement, signed in 2010 and limiting the number of deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550 for each party, has been the last surviving pillar of the Cold War arms control architecture.
Without a new treaty, both Washington and Moscow will be free to expand their nuclear arsenals without restrictions for the first time in decades. The situation is complicated by China's growing nuclear modernisation, which has significantly expanded its arsenal in recent years without being subject to any arms limitation treaties with the traditional superpowers.
Implications
It is imperative to distinguish between two distinct, yet related phenomena: on the one hand, the urgent need for Europe to take charge of its own defence after 80 years of dependence on the US nuclear and military umbrella; on the other, the dangerous race for next-generation nuclear weapons combined with technologies such as hypersonic missiles that destabilise the strategic balance. The former is a long-delayed process of political maturation that the Trump administration has accelerated by questioning Washington's unconditional commitment to European security. The latter represents an existential threat to humanity.
The expiration of New START eliminates mutual verification mechanisms, on-site inspections, and data sharing that for decades allowed both superpowers to monitor rival arsenals, significantly reducing the risks of misunderstanding or accidental escalation. Without these safeguards, the world returns to a situation of strategic uncertainty comparable to the most dangerous moments of the Cold War.
Outlook and scenarios
The prospect of a three-way arms race between the United States, Russia and China—with expanded nuclear arsenals, hypersonic delivery systems and integrated cyber warfare capabilities—is deeply disturbing. The economic costs will be astronomical, diverting resources from urgent social needs to the production of instruments of destruction.
The risks of accident, misunderstanding, or inadvertent escalation will multiply exponentially in the absence of channels for communication and verification. China, which has never been party to bilateral nuclear arms control agreements, complicates any future solution by demanding to be treated as an equal in any tripartite negotiations, something Washington has historically rejected.
Europe, caught between these dynamics and aware of its strategic vulnerability, faces the paradox of needing to increase its conventional defence capabilities precisely when the global nuclear balance is disintegrating. The international community lacks effective institutional mechanisms to curb this trend, and the United Nations has proven powerless on issues of nuclear disarmament.
Panama's Supreme Court annuls Chinese port contracts in the Canal
Facts
Panama's Supreme Court has annulled the port contracts of CK Hutchison Holdings, a Hong Kong-based conglomerate controlled by tycoon Li Ka-shing, which operated strategic port facilities at both entrances to the Panama Canal. The court ruling is a significant blow to China's attempts to consolidate strategic positions in this vital artery of world trade, through which approximately 6% of global maritime trade and 16% of US trade passes.
The ruling complicates CK Hutchison's plans to sell the port operations, which had been under negotiation. Panama broke diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 2017 to establish ties with Beijing, a move that raised concerns in Washington about Chinese influence on critical infrastructure near the United States.
Implications
This court decision represents an important victory in containing Chinese expansionism in the Western Hemisphere. Control of port facilities in the Panama Canal gives Beijing the potential to disrupt or monitor maritime traffic in times of crisis, as well as providing intelligence on US trade patterns. Washington has repeatedly expressed concern about China's presence in strategic Panamanian infrastructure, fearing that in the event of a conflict over Taiwan or in the South China Sea, Beijing could use its port control as a tool for pressure or retaliation.
The Panamanian Supreme Court's decision—regardless of its specific legal grounds—evidences a growing awareness in Latin America of the risks of allowing China to control strategically important assets. This trend is part of the broader context of Sino-US geopolitical competition in the region, where Beijing has aggressively expanded its influence through massive loans, infrastructure investments, and trade agreements.
Outlook and scenarios
The cancellation of the Chinese port contracts raises questions about the future of Canal management and Panama-China relations. Beijing will likely pressure the Panamanian government to reverse the court's decision or negotiate new agreements that safeguard its interests, using its considerable economic influence in the country. The United States, for its part, will seek to take advantage of this opportunity to reduce China's presence in the area, possibly by offering alternative investments or pushing for port operations to be transferred to the United States or trusted allies.
The case illustrates a broader trend in Latin America where several countries—including Argentina, Brazil, and Chile—are re-evaluating their relations with China amid concerns about unsustainable debt, the environmental impact of Chinese projects, and excessive strategic dependence. However, the economic reality is that China has become the main trading partner for many Latin American countries, limiting the room for manoeuvre of governments that need investment and access to markets. The challenge for Latin America is to navigate this geopolitical competition while protecting its sovereignty and national interests without becoming caught up as a pawn in the confrontation between superpowers.
Landmark elections in Japan to strengthen the front against China
Facts
Japan is holding crucial parliamentary elections that could give Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi a strengthened mandate to consolidate her bold foreign policy of confrontation with Chinese expansionism. Takaichi, who recently took office, has taken a significantly tougher stance than her predecessors towards Beijing, aligning herself closely with Washington in containing China in the Indo-Pacific. The elections come as the Chinese Coast Guard has dramatically stepped up its patrols around the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu in Chinese), territories under Japanese administration but claimed by China, with 134 patrols organised in the last five years and an almost daily presence during 2025. This escalation highlights China's growing assertiveness in disputed waters and Beijing's determination to change the status quo through constant presence and gradual coercion.
Implications
A solid election victory would allow Takaichi to deepen the strategic transformation of Japan that began in recent years. Tokyo has abandoned decades of post-war constitutional pacifism, increasing defence spending to 2% of GDP (equivalent to more than $100 billion annually), developing pre-emptive strike capabilities and forging closer security alliances with the United States, Australia, India (the Quad) and Southeast Asian countries.
The quasi-permanent presence of Chinese Coast Guard vessels in Senkaku waters is not merely symbolic: it represents a deliberate ‘grey zone’ effort to erode Japan's effective administration of the territories without resorting to direct military force that would trigger a US response under the mutual defence treaty. China seeks to establish a new normal in which its constant presence becomes accepted, setting a precedent for future territorial expansion.
Outlook and scenarios
A strengthened electoral mandate would allow Takaichi to accelerate Japanese remilitarisation and deepen coordination with regional allies to contain Chinese expansion. Japan could further increase its military presence in the Senkaku Islands by installing permanent radars and increasing patrols by its own Coast Guard and Self-Defence Forces. Tokyo would also seek to expand its defence ties with the Philippines, Vietnam and other countries facing Chinese pressure in the South China Sea. However, this growing confrontation increases the risks of incidents at sea that could inadvertently escalate.
A clash between Chinese and Japanese vessels, especially if it results in casualties, would trigger a major diplomatic crisis and possibly drag the United States into the fray under mutual defence treaty obligations. China, embarked on its biggest military purge in decades and with the People's Liberation Army in a state of internal turmoil, could be particularly unpredictable in its response to perceived challenges. The fundamental question is whether Japan and its allies can maintain effective deterrence against Chinese aggression without crossing thresholds that lead to accidental or deliberate armed conflict. The Indo-Pacific has become the most dangerous geopolitical theatre on the planet, where rivalry between established and emerging powers could trigger the next major war.
Media Rack
U.S. MEDIA: The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal lead coverage of Kevin Warsh's nomination to the Federal Reserve, highlighting the implications for the central bank's independence. CNN and CNBC analyse financial markets ahead of the prospect of more accommodative monetary policy. Fox News emphasises Chinese military purges as evidence of instability in Xi Jinping's regime. Politico and The Hill provide extensive coverage of the budget crisis in the Senate and the role of the shootings in Minneapolis as a catalyst for the confrontation over DHS funding.
BRITISH MEDIA: The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian and Financial Times prominently feature Trump's warnings about Starmer's rapprochement with China, with divergent analyses on the viability of the British strategy of balancing between superpowers. The BBC provides detailed coverage of the EU's designation of Iran's IRGC as a terrorist organisation, contextualising the decision in the brutal crackdown on protests.
CONTINENTAL EUROPEAN MEDIA: France's Le Monde and Le Figaro cover the Macron government's decision to finally support the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation after years of resistance. Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Die Welt analyse the Chinese military purges and their implications for European security in the face of Beijing's expansionism. Italy's Corriere della Sera contextualises the decision on the IRGC within the broader framework of US-Iran tensions.
INDO-PACIFIC MEDIA: The Times of India and Hindustan Times highlight the Japanese elections as crucial to the regional balance of power vis-à-vis China. Yomiuri Shimbun and other Japanese media outlets provide extensive coverage of Chinese patrols in the Senkaku Islands. Hong Kong's South China Morning Post provides perspective from Chinese territory on Xi's military purges. Singapore's Strait Times analyses the regional implications of the US-China-Western allies triangle.
LATIN AMERICAN MEDIA: Clarín in Buenos Aires, El Mercurio in Santiago and Reforma in Mexico cover Venezuela's opening up of its oil sector as a capitulation by Chavismo to US pressure. The prevailing analysis highlights Washington's control over Venezuelan resources and the implications for national sovereignty. The Panamanian Supreme Court's decision on Chinese ports receives significant coverage as an example of Latin American resistance to Beijing's expansionism.
MIDDLE EAST MEDIA: Al Jazeera, Al-Arabiya, and Arab media provide extensive coverage of diplomatic efforts to avert a US-Iran war, highlighting the role of regional intermediaries. The Jerusalem Post and Israeli media celebrate the European designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, vindicating years of diplomatic pressure from Tel Aviv. Lebanese media such as L'Orient-Le Jour analyse the implications for Hezbollah of the growing pressure on its Iranian sponsor.
RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN MEDIA: Russia Today, TASS, and Kremlin-controlled media downplay the significance of the New START treaty's expiration, blaming the West for the collapse of arms control. Ukrainian Pravda, Kyiv Independent, and Ukrainian media contextualise the nuclear arms race within the framework of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and Moscow's nuclear threats.
INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES: Reuters, AFP, Associated Press, and DPA provide factual and balanced coverage of all major events, serving as primary sources for media outlets around the world. Their coverage is notable for its rigorous verification and appropriate historical context.
Editorial Commentary
The events of 30 January 2026 crystallise the fundamental trends that are redefining the international order in this quarter-century. We are witnessing the definitive decline of the Atlanticist era as we have known it for eight decades, not because the United States is abandoning its global leadership—Trump maintains an aggressively interventionist foreign policy—but because the nature of that leadership has been radically transformed. The appointment of Kevin Warsh to the Federal Reserve symbolises the subjugation of traditionally independent institutions to presidential whims, eroding fundamental pillars of global economic stability.
Europe, with its belated but welcome designation of Iran's IRGC as a terrorist organisation, is demonstrating its capacity for autonomous action when moral outrage overrides diplomatic considerations. It is incomprehensible that it has taken 47 years and thousands of deaths on the streets of Tehran to recognise the obvious: that the Revolutionary Guards are a terrorist organisation that perpetrates atrocious crimes against its own people while sowing instability from Lebanon to Yemen. This belated but correct decision must be complemented by a coherent European policy towards all autocratic regimes that threaten international security.
The situation in Venezuela is particularly painful. The capitulation of Chavismo to US demands, formalising the surrender of national oil resources under the euphemism of ‘opening up to foreign investment’, is a national tragedy that no democrat can celebrate. That the despicable Chavista regime—a vast criminal organisation dedicated to drug trafficking and repression—must fall is indisputable. That it should fall through US military intervention followed by the imposition of a puppet government that auctions off national resources to the highest bidder is unacceptable. Venezuelans deserve to regain their democracy and dignity, not simply to change masters.
Xi Jinping's military purges reveal the inherent fragility of autocratic systems where the absolute concentration of power breeds paranoia and instability. By systematically eliminating competent officers for fear that they will challenge his authority, Xi weakens the operational capacity of the People's Liberation Army precisely when he needs it most robust for his territorial ambitions. This self-inflicted paradox of despotism offers a temporary window of respite for Taiwan and its allies, but it also increases the risks that a cornered and unpredictable regime will resort to military adventure as an escape valve for internal pressures.
Trump's warning to the UK about its ties with China is fundamentally correct in its diagnosis – autocratic regimes are not neutral trading partners but strategic adversaries who will use economic interdependence as a geopolitical weapon – but problematic in its delivery. Democratic allies are not vassals who must ask Washington's permission for every foreign policy decision. The challenge is to forge a Western consensus on how to engage with China: maintaining trade channels for non-strategic sectors while blocking Chinese access to critical technologies, sensitive infrastructure and national security sectors. This differentiation requires diplomatic sophistication that seems to be in short supply in the era of the presidential tweet.
The tension between the United States and Iran requires a calm analysis that distinguishes between viable strategic options and catastrophic scenarios. A US military operation against Iran does not have to lead to regional conflagration if it is executed with surgical precision, focusing exclusively on the regime's nerve centres of power: the office of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the headquarters of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, the Ministry of the Interior, the Islamic Republic's Public Prosecutor's Office, and other key institutions of the repressive apparatus. The key is to avoid innocent civilian casualties that would allow the regime to use the suffering of its own people to consolidate itself through nationalist narratives and quell the protests that threaten it.
If Washington opts for the military route—a decision that must be carefully weighed against diplomatic alternatives—it must do so with impeccable intelligence, precision weaponry, and objectives strictly limited to dismantling the regime's repressive capacity without providing Tehran with propaganda ammunition. Europe's belated designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation—shameful in its delay, particularly due to French resistance—marks a diplomatic turning point that should not be squandered by disproportionate military actions that would allow the regime to portray itself as a victim to its people. The goal must be to empower the Iranian people by removing the instruments of their oppression, not to unite the country under a nationalist banner in the face of perceived external aggression.
The nuclear arms race looming after the collapse of the New START treaty represents a collective failure of the international community. For decades, arms control prevented the uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear arsenals and significantly reduced the risks of accidental nuclear war. That patiently constructed edifice is crumbling as the great powers prioritise marginal military advantages over the collective survival of the human species. Europe, caught between rival nuclear superpowers, must urgently develop robust conventional defence capabilities without being seduced by the illusion that more nuclear weapons equal greater security.
The cancellation of Chinese port contracts in Panama and the crucial elections in Japan show that resistance to Chinese expansionism is taking shape in multiple theatres simultaneously. China has overextended its influence through aggressive tactics that are generating defensive reactions even among countries that initially sought constructive relations with Beijing. China's ‘wolf warrior diplomacy,’ combined with debt trap practices and flagrant violations of international law, is producing the opposite of its intended result: rather than intimidating neighbours and competitors into submission, it is forging increasingly cohesive coalitions of resistance.
In this turbulent landscape, Western democracies face an existential test. We must defend our values and interests against autocratic regimes without abandoning the principles that distinguish us from them. This requires military strength, yes, but also ethical consistency, respect for international law, and solidarity among allies. The temptation to respond to authoritarianism with authoritarianism of our own, or to sacrifice democratic principles for the sake of short-lived tactical advantages, must be resisted. The battle for the world order of the 21st century will not be won simply by accumulating military or economic power, but by demonstrating that liberal democratic systems can face complex challenges while maintaining their moral integrity and delivering prosperity and security to their citizens.
The world that is emerging is more dangerous, multipolar and unpredictable than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Old certainties have evaporated. The institutions that regulated international relations for decades are eroding. Balances of power are constantly being reconfigured. In this fluid context, the temptation of isolationism or fatalism must be rejected.
Western democracies retain formidable advantages—economic, technological, military, and moral—if we have the clarity to use them strategically and the will to maintain unity in the face of adversity. The challenge of our era is not simply to win the geopolitical competition against rival autocracies, but to forge an international order that is both robust enough to preserve peace and flexible enough to accommodate the legitimate interests of all nations. That difficult but essential balance is the task that calls us together.