Gustavo de Arístegui: Geopolitical analysis of 13 November 2025
- United States: End of the Longest Federal Shutdown in History – Trump Prevails in the Budget Battle
- ‘Narco-boats’ in the crosshairs: Rubio defends US attacks and exposes European hypocrisy
- ‘Epstein's emails’: the Democratic counteroffensive after losing the shutdown battle
- Gaza and Israel: international stabilisation force, Turkey's role and Trump's letter asking for Netanyahu's pardon
- Iraq: al-Sudani's coalition wins elections amid apathy and mistrust
- Russia-Ukraine: Lavrov warns Washington against escalation and offers dialogue under certain conditions
- The United States and China: technological dispute, ‘tactical truce’ and room for manoeuvre for emerging economies
- Mutant jihadism: from the scars of Paris to suicide bombings in Pakistan
- Media Rack
- Internal Disorder in the US and its Global Repercussions
- The Trump Doctrine 2.0: Transactional Unilateralism
- Critical Points of Conflict and Stabilisation Efforts
- Secondary Threats and Emerging Risks Overview
- Editorial Line and Strategic Perspective
- Editorial Conclusion
United States: End of the Longest Federal Shutdown in History – Trump Prevails in the Budget Battle
Facts:
On the evening of 12 November, President Trump signed the spending package that ends the longest federal shutdown in US history: 43 days of partial government paralysis, hundreds of thousands of civil servants without pay, delays at airports and queues at food banks.
The House of Representatives approved the text by 222 votes to 209, with a very narrow Republican majority and some moderate Democrats breaking ranks. The agreement maintains most spending at previous levels until 30 January, guarantees annual funding for military construction, veterans, agriculture and Capitol security, and shields the food stamp programme (SNAP) until the end of fiscal year 2026.
The Economist's World in Brief and much of the international press open their front pages with the end of the federal shutdown and the political dimension of Trump's victory over a divided Democratic Party.
Implications:
The first effect is obvious: the immediate risk of structural damage to the US economy and the credibility of the dollar as a risk-free asset has been averted. The markets are celebrating because the shutdown had begun to erode confidence in Washington's ability to manage the world's largest budget. Politically, the balance is much less neutral.
Trump emerges from the crisis with a clear narrative: ‘I was the one who reopened the government, in the face of Democrats entrenched in their spending demands.’ The Democrats, on the other hand, appear as the party that prolonged the suffering of millions of citizens due to a miscalculation and, in the end, had to accept a less ambitious compromise than they had promised.
The battle, however, is not over; it has only changed scenery. The agreement is short-lived: it forces a renegotiation in January, just as the debate over the extension of the Affordable Care Act's enhanced subsidies approaches. That makes healthcare the next battleground in a political war that has already left deep wounds in the administration and public opinion.
On the geopolitical chessboard, the end of the shutdown gives the United States back something it should never have lost: its ability to focus. For six long weeks, the superpower was distracted by its own internal wars. Now, with Ukraine, Gaza, the Indo-Pacific and the technological standoff with China in full swing, Washington once again has – at least in theory – a free hand. Whether polarisation will allow it to use them wisely is another matter.
‘Narco-boats’ in the crosshairs: Rubio defends US attacks and exposes European hypocrisy
Facts:
At the G7 meeting in Canada, Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended recent attacks by US forces on vessels suspected of drug trafficking in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific, many of which are linked to Colombian and Venezuelan cartels.
Several allies expressed doubts about the legality of some of the strikes, particularly those carried out in grey areas of maritime law, although Washington insists that they were carried out against targets identified as part of narco-terrorism networks, with clear rules of engagement.
Meanwhile, certain European policymakers are once again wrapping themselves in the banner of ‘human rights’ to criticise operations targeting organisations that combine drug trafficking, terrorism, massive corruption and the systematic destruction of the rule of law in the region.
Implications:
Here we see clearly a double standard. No one in Europe cried foul when the Obama administration eliminated hundreds of terrorists – and more than a few collateral targets – through drone strikes on the sovereign territories of third countries, from Pakistan and Yemen to Somalia. Now, when the targets are speedboats loaded with cocaine, weapons and hitmen, selective outrage suddenly flourishes.
From a security standpoint, the US position is crystal clear: the cartels operating from the Venezuelan and Colombian coasts are considered narco-terrorists, not mere common criminals. They control territories, infiltrate institutions, corrupt judicial systems and support authoritarian regimes – such as that in Caracas – that live in symbiosis with organised crime.
Europe, which suffers directly from the consequences in the form of waves of drugs, urban violence and massive money laundering in its financial systems, should be the first to be interested in combating this criminal ecosystem. The obsession with a narrow and decontextualised reading of international law thus becomes a convenient excuse for not assuming the political cost of supporting firm measures against narco-terrorists.
If this episode proves anything, it is that the debate is not legal, but moral and political: does the West accept that boats loaded with drugs and hitmen who sow death across half the continent should be shot at, or does it prefer to express its outrage from the podium, allowing the poison to continue flowing into our streets?
‘Epstein's emails’: the Democratic counteroffensive after losing the shutdown battle
Facts:
Just as Trump claims victory in ending the federal shutdown, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee unleash their media artillery: they release a selection of Jeffrey Epstein's emails that mention the president.
In a 2011 message to Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein refers to Trump as ‘the dog that hasn't barked’ and claims that the then-tycoon ‘spent hours at my house’ with one of the victims, whose name is redacted. In another exchange with journalist Michael Wolff in 2015 and 2019, Epstein suggests that Trump ‘knew about the girls’ and discusses how to ‘prepare a response’ for a television interview in which the subject might come up.
Media outlets such as The Guardian, ABC News, Sky News and The Independent note that the emails appear to contradict the White House's version of the distant relationship between Trump and Epstein, and stress that the episode reopens pressure for the full publication of the so-called ‘Epstein files’.
Implications:
The timing is no coincidence. After losing the shutdown battle, part of the Democratic Party is clearly seeking to shift the focus of the debate from the inability to reach a budget agreement to the president's alleged ‘complicity’ with a sexual predator. The message is clear: if he cannot be defeated on economic policy, attempts will be made to erode his moral legitimacy.
Several things are worth remembering. First, the existence of compromising emails does not equate to proof of a crime; the Trump Justice Department's own memo concluded that there was no evidence of a client list or a systematic blackmail scheme by Epstein. Second, the emails released are a selection, carefully chosen by a committee controlled by the Democrats, while the Republicans are responding by releasing tens of thousands of additional pages to accuse the other side of manipulation.
Finally, the episode once again turns the tragedy of the victims into a weapon in the American political civil war. The risk is obvious: that public opinion will cease to see the fight against the sexual exploitation of minors as a common cause and perceive it as yet another front in the tribal war between blues and reds.
From a geopolitical point of view, the case feeds the narrative of autocracies: a Western democracy absorbed by sex scandals, conspiracy theories and cross-revenge, while rivals such as China and Russia project a false but effective image of cohesion and purpose.
Gaza and Israel: international stabilisation force, Turkey's role and Trump's letter asking for Netanyahu's pardon
Facts:
Turkey has reiterated that its ‘main expectation’ regarding the future International Stabilisation Force in Gaza is that it will guarantee a lasting ceasefire and respect for the fragile agreement reached after two years of devastating war. Ankara, which has denounced the Israeli campaign as genocidal, is offering to contribute troops, despite Israel's open rejection of the presence of Turkish military personnel on the ground.
At the same time, we have learned of a letter from Trump to Israeli President Isaac Herzog urging him to grant a full pardon to Prime Minister Netanyahu in his corruption cases, describing them as political persecution. Netanyahu has publicly thanked him for the gesture, while the Israeli press emphasises that this interference reinforces the perception of an almost personal bond between the Israeli leader and the US president.
Implications:
The post-war architecture in Gaza is still up in the air. The stabilisation force under negotiation – with the likely participation of moderate Arab countries under the US and UN umbrella – will only make sense if it is capable of imposing clear rules on Israel, Hamas and other militias. If it is limited to serving as a mere political shield without coercive power, it will be yet another failed experiment in a region saturated with useless international missions.
Turkey's offer reveals Ankara's ambition to consolidate itself as a central power in the Mediterranean and the Muslim world, but also its contradictions: it seeks to be both a guarantor of security, a party to the dispute and an advocate of a maximalist narrative against Israel. This generates mistrust not only in Jerusalem, but also in Arab capitals that fear Turkish hegemony over the Palestinian cause.
Trump's letter about Netanyahu, for its part, sends several messages. Within Israel, it reinforces the prime minister's narrative: his legal problems are not the result of the separation of powers, but of a conspiracy by ‘hostile elites’ similar to the one that, according to him, Trump himself is suffering in the United States. Abroad, it projects the image of a personalist axis: a US president willing to use his political weight to protect an allied leader who is being questioned by his country's justice system.
Taken together, Gaza and the Netanyahu case confirm that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is entering a new phase: less dominated by the parameters of the old Oslo process and more by the crude logic of force, limited military stabilisation and pacts between political elites nearing their own twilight.
Iraq: al-Sudani's coalition wins elections amid apathy and mistrust
Facts:
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani's coalition has come first in this week's parliamentary elections, according to the Independent Electoral Commission.
Turnout barely exceeded 23%, reflecting a disenchanted population that perceives voting as a mechanism for distributing oil revenues among the same elites as always. No bloc has achieved a clear majority, so the formation of a government will require complex pacts between Shiite factions, Kurdish parties and Sunni groups.
Implications:
Iraq remains trapped in a political system designed after the 2003 invasion which, far from pacifying the country, institutionalised patronage and the sectarian distribution of power. Al-Sudani's victory does not represent a break with the past, but rather the continuation of the status quo, with greater control by pro-Iranian militias and patronage networks linked to Tehran.
For the United States and Europe, Iraq remains an essential barometer: if citizen apathy ends up degenerating into a new wave of mass protests – such as those of 2019 – the country could experience another cycle of instability that would open the door to remnants of the Islamic State, Iranian interference and Chinese economic penetration.
At the regional level, the result consolidates a Shiite axis stretching from Tehran to the Mediterranean via Baghdad and Damascus. This strategic ‘crescent’ offers Iran territorial depth, the ability to project power into Syria and Lebanon, and thus a means of exerting permanent pressure on Israel and the US deployment in the area.
Russia-Ukraine: Lavrov warns Washington against escalation and offers dialogue under certain conditions
Facts:
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Moscow ‘hopes’ Washington will not take steps that would escalate the conflict in Ukraine, insisting that Russia is willing to talk, but on the basis of ‘the realities on the ground’.
Lavrov stressed that the Kremlin views with concern some debates in the United States about possible military aid packages that would expand the range and lethality of Ukrainian capabilities, including the delivery of systems that could strike deeper into Russian territory.
Implications:
The Russian message is the same as always, but adapted to the new context: now that Trump has achieved a ceasefire in Gaza and is talking about redirecting his attention to peace in Ukraine, Moscow is trying to set the framework for any possible negotiations. The formula is transparent: ‘we are open to dialogue, but only to ratify the territorial gains we have achieved by force’.
For Europe, the risk is twofold. First, that some partners, weary of war and concerned about their economies, will see any proposal for a ‘ceasefire’ as an honourable way out, even if it means consecrating the territorial amputation of Ukraine. Second, that the Trump administration, tempted by a quick diplomatic trophy, will decide to sacrifice part of Kiev's demands in order to reach an agreement that is presentable to its electorate.
Ukraine's ability to resist and negotiate from a position of strength depends critically on the flow of Western aid not drying up and on maintaining pressure on the Russian military-industrial complex, including strong sanctions against the channels that allow it to circumvent restrictions through third countries.
The United States and China: technological dispute, ‘tactical truce’ and room for manoeuvre for emerging economies
Facts:
Several Democratic leaders have harshly criticised Trump's decision to delay the implementation of new restrictions on exports of advanced technology to China, accusing the White House of weakness towards Beijing.
At the same time, a report on global trade points out that most emerging economies are able to reorient their trade flows to cushion the effects of US tariffs by diversifying their partners and supply chains.
Implications:
What we are seeing is a complex dialectic: on the one hand, Trump is using tariffs as a weapon to put pressure on China; on the other, he is holding back on certain technological restrictions so as not to completely fracture the value chains on which US companies and emerging markets depend. It is a ‘tactical truce’ that seeks to maximise Washington's influence without causing an abrupt derailment of global trade.
The report on emerging countries points to an underlying trend: the international system is no longer a chessboard where the major powers move passive pieces, but a network in which many intermediate players have the capacity to adapt. If India, Vietnam, Mexico or Brazil can reposition their exports and imports to avoid the impact of tariffs, the White House and Beijing's room for manoeuvre is reduced.
For Europe, the risk is that it will be caught in an uncomfortable position: too open and regulated to engage in aggressive protectionism, but too politically divided to articulate a robust industrial policy that would allow it to compete with the US and China in semiconductors, artificial intelligence and batteries.
Mutant jihadism: from the scars of Paris to suicide bombings in Pakistan
Facts:
France today commemorates the tenth anniversary of the 13 November 2015 attacks in Paris, where commandos from the so-called Islamic State killed 130 people at the Stade de France, café terraces and the Bataclan concert hall. President Macron and the victims highlight the lasting psychological impact and profound transformation of French security policy.
At the same time, the Pakistani government has confirmed that two recent suicide bombings were carried out by Afghan nationals, fuelling fears of a new cycle of cross-border instability between the two countries and the expansion of Islamic State-affiliated groups in South Asia.
Implications:
Ten years after Paris, the jihadist threat has not disappeared; it has transformed. In Europe, large-scale coordinated attacks are less likely thanks to intelligence work and police cooperation, but the risk of radicalised lone wolves is growing. In regions such as the Sahel, Afghanistan and Pakistan, however, terrorism remains a daily reality that undermines fragile states and creates a breeding ground for new waves of migration and violence.
For the European Union, this double front poses an uncomfortable dilemma. Either it limits itself to managing the symptoms – strengthening internal controls, increasing surveillance, tightening anti-terrorism laws – or it finally accepts that, without a serious strategy on development, security and governance in its wider neighbourhood, the threat will continue to regenerate.
The commemoration in Paris should serve for more than just solemn speeches: it should prompt honest reflection on the mistakes made in the Middle East, the Sahel and Afghanistan, and on the shared responsibility of elites who preferred to look the other way while the monster was incubating.
Media Rack
US and Anglo-Saxon world
AP and Reuters open with the end of the federal shutdown and describe the agreement as the conclusion of the longest shutdown in the country's history.
The Economist summarises the day in two headlines: shutdown over and Epstein emails put Trump back at the centre of the political storm.
ABC News, PBS and generalist networks detail Epstein's emails, highlighting the phrases about the ‘dog that didn't bark’ and that Trump ‘knew about the girls’, while the presidential entourage denounces a selective smear campaign.
Continental Europe and the United Kingdom
European agencies and newspapers such as the French and Italian ones are focusing today on the anniversary of the Paris attacks, highlighting the persistence of the trauma and the mutation of the jihadist threat.
British media such as The Guardian are devoting extensive coverage to Epstein's emails and their potential impact on Trump's international image.
Israeli and Arab media
Haaretz and other Israeli newspapers analyse Trump's letter asking for Netanyahu's pardon as proof of the prime minister's sense of judicial siege and as an unprecedented intrusion by a US president into Israel's institutional balance.
Al Jazeera maintains its focus on ceasefire violations in Gaza and the debate over the international stabilisation force, highlighting Turkish activism and the fragility of the truce.
Global agencies and a systemic approach
Reuters articulates an overall narrative that intersects the end of the shutdown, the possible de facto partition of Gaza, the technological struggle with China and tensions in Ukraine, drawing a map of ‘fragmented escalation’ in multiple theatres.
Governance and solvency crisis in the US
Situation: The US federal government shutdown has entered its 35th day, officially becoming the longest in the country's history. The budget default began on 1 October. As of 14 November, 1.3 million active-duty military personnel and more than 750,000 National Guard and Reserve members are expected to miss their first full paycheque, an unprecedented event in US history.
Impact: The economic impact is severe and growing. By 1 December, if the shutdown continues, approximately 4.5 million paycheques will have been withheld, equivalent to £21 billion in lost wages. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this shutdown will reduce fourth-quarter growth by 1.5 percentage points and that £11 billion in economic activity will be permanently lost. Consumer confidence has plummeted to 50.3, a historic low only seen during the pandemic, and critical programmes such as SNAP (food assistance) are at risk of running out of federal funding.
Strategic Analysis: This situation has transcended an internal partisan dispute to become an event of global systemic risk. Legislative paralysis demonstrates a fundamental inability to govern. The fact that the world's leading superpower cannot pay its armed forces while attempting to execute high-intensity military operations abroad projects an image of insolvency and strategic dysfunction. Allies and adversaries observe a ‘Broken Power’: a nation that is internally chaotic and insolvent but externally erratic and aggressive. This profound disconnect between internal capacity and external ambition makes U.S. policy dangerously unpredictable, accelerating the consolidation of a ‘G-Zero’ world.
Breakdown of Intelligence Cooperation with Key Allies
Situation: In an unprecedented escalation, the UK has suspended intelligence sharing with the US on ships suspected of drug trafficking in the Caribbean. Colombia, a key regional partner, has taken similar steps.
Impact: This decision is a direct response to the US's new lethal doctrine in the region. Since September, the US has carried out more than a dozen lethal strikes against suspected drug trafficking vessels, killing more than 76 people. The UK fears that the intelligence it provided for interdiction is now being used for lethal strikes, which would make it complicit in actions it considers violations of international law.
Strategic Analysis: This is one of the most significant fractures in the Western intelligence architecture (Five Eyes) in decades. By unilaterally redefining the ‘War on Drugs’ as a ‘war on narco-terrorism,’ the US administration has forced its closest ally to choose between cooperation and legal complicity. This ‘hard-line’ policy has produced a strategically counterproductive result: the US now has less operational visibility, as 85% of the intelligence at the Key West base came from Colombia. Drug traffickers are benefiting directly from this collapse in allied cooperation.
Imminent Collapse of Gaza Peace Plan Due to Friction Between Actors
Situation: The Trump administration's ‘20-Point Peace Plan’ has achieved a fragile ceasefire. However, ‘Phase 2’ (the day after) is paralysed.
Impact: The plan relies on an International Stabilisation Force (ISF) and a ‘Peace Board’. However, the U.S.-drafted UN resolution to authorise the ISF contains a ‘toxic’ mandate: the force is expected to use force to disarm Hamas and destroy its military infrastructure. Allies have privately communicated that they ‘do not want to send soldiers into a war zone’ for such a purpose. The United Arab Emirates has publicly stated that it will not join ‘without a clear legal framework.’
Strategic Analysis: The ‘day after’ plan is a diplomatic ‘mission impossible.’ The US has negotiated a ceasefire but created a bureaucratic architecture that asks others to take the combat risk. The ISF was not designed to succeed; it functions as a diplomatic ‘poison pill.’ It allows the White House to blame its allies for ‘unwillingness’ to contribute troops, providing a political alibi when the plan collapses and the conflict resumes. Furthermore, the plan is being vetoed regionally: Israel strongly opposes the participation of Turkey, a key mediator that helped secure Hamas' acceptance.
False US-China Détente Amid Structural Decoupling
Situation: On the surface, the ‘Busan Truce’ between Trump and Xi appears to be a success. The US has reduced tariffs related to fentanyl and suspended port fees. China has responded by suspending rare earth export controls for one year, resuming soybean purchases, and removing 31 US companies from its export control list.
Impact: However, this is a tactical truce, not a strategic peace. China's October trade data shows a 25% collapse in exports to the US. Simultaneously, General Motors (GM) has given an aggressive directive to its suppliers: remove all Chinese-sourced parts from their supply chains by 2027.
Strategic Analysis: We are witnessing a two-level game. At the presidential level, a transactional pause to ease domestic economic pain. At the corporate level, a strategic acceleration of decoupling. The C-Suite has internalised the risk of China controlling 90% of critical mineral processing and is executing a ‘resilience’ and ‘US+1’ strategy that views geopolitical risk as permanent. The private sector is driving the real policy of containment, making the 12-month political truce largely irrelevant in the long term.
The War of Attrition in Ukraine Becomes an Indefinite Conflict
Situation: The front has stalled in a brutal war of attrition in the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad ‘pocket.’ Russian forces are advancing slowly, having captured ~46% of Pokrovsk, exploiting the weather (fog) to degrade Ukrainian drones. Ukraine launches desperate counterattacks.
Impact: The Russian position is clear. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterates that any negotiations must recognise the ‘new territorial realities’.
Strategic Analysis: The Pokrovsk offensive is Russia's diplomatic policy. They are not taking territory to ‘win the war’ in a traditional sense; they are practising ‘kinetic diplomacy’. Every metre gained in Pokrovsk is a bargaining chip to create the ‘reality on the ground’ that they will demand in the peace talks that the Trump administration seeks to mediate. They are fighting for their terms of negotiation, exploiting both the climate and Western political dysfunction over aid.
Destabilisation of South Asia: Open War Afghanistan-Pakistan
Situation: Pakistan's ‘strategic patience’ is over. In response to increasing deadly attacks by the TTP (Pakistani Taliban), Pakistan launched a series of air strikes inside Afghanistan on 9 October, hitting targets in Kabul, Khost and Paktika.
Impact: The strikes killed senior TTP members. In retaliation, the Afghan Taliban launched cross-border attacks on Pakistani military posts.
Strategic Analysis: This is no longer a border skirmish; it is open interstate conflict. Pakistan's decision to attack Kabul is a massive escalation. This conflict is the ‘bitter harvest’ of the US withdrawal in 2021. Pakistan, which supported the Afghan Taliban's takeover, now realises that they will harbour and protect the TTP. Pakistan is forced to fight its own proxy in the ‘ungoverned space’ it helped to create.
Short-Term Economic Relief from the ‘Busan Truce’
Situation: China's one-year suspension of rare earth export controls and the mutual suspension of port fees provide immediate and tangible relief to global supply chains.
Analysis: For companies that cannot decouple in the short term, this truce removes an existential risk (the ‘rare earth option’) and reduces operating costs. The resumption of soybean/sorghum purchases also stabilises commodity markets. This is a managed risk, a 12-month window for companies to accelerate their strategic realignment.
Consolidation of Relative Stability in Iraq
Situation: Amid regional chaos (Gaza, Af-Pak), Iraq is experiencing a ‘rare moment of calm.’ Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani has consolidated power, and his ‘Reconstruction and Development’ coalition won the majority of seats in the recent parliamentary elections.
Analysis: Sudani has managed to navigate the balance between Iran and the US while focusing on domestic infrastructure projects (new tunnels and bridges in Baghdad). In a ‘G-Zero’ world, the emergence of a functional and stable government in Iraq is an unexpected ‘anchor.’ This provides a predictable partner in the Middle East, which is a low-risk strategic asset (Green).
Internal Disorder in the US and its Global Repercussions
Anatomy of US Paralysis (Shutdown and Politics)
The 2025 government shutdown is a self-inflicted crisis event. Congress's failure to pass a continuing resolution (CR) or appropriations bills is rooted in extreme polarisation. Proposals from both parties have failed in the Senate; Democrats insist on extending the tax credits in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), while House Republicans seek spending cuts. The rhetoric has deteriorated, with accusations of ‘sequestration’ and ‘hostage-taking.’
The cost of this paralysis is tangible. Beyond the $11 billion in permanently lost economic activity, the human impact is the real threat to security. Approximately 670,000 federal employees are furloughed and 730,000 are working without pay. The University of Michigan reports that consumer confidence has plummeted to 50.3, a near-record low. The survey director noted that concern is ‘widespread across the population, viewed across age, income and political affiliation.’
The ‘Epstein Case’ as a Double-Edged Political Weapon
U.S. domestic politics has been further consumed by the release of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, which has become a political weapon amid the shutdown crisis.
The Democratic Offensive: Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released three key emails at a politically calculated moment. These emails, though cryptic, suggest that President Trump ‘knew about the girls’ and that one victim ‘spent hours at my house with him.’ The goal is to directly link Trump to knowledge of sex trafficking activities.
The Republican and White House Defence: The White House has called the release a ‘hoax’ and a “distraction” from the government shutdown. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that the emails ‘prove absolutely nothing.’ The Republican counterattack consisted of releasing its own batch of 23,000 documents, accusing Democrats of ‘cherry-picking’ and highlighting emails where Epstein expressed dissatisfaction with Trump or mocked him.
The Trump Base Paradox: The real risk to the White House comes not from Democrats, but from its own base. Having spent years cultivating narratives about a ‘deep state’ that hides secrets, Trump's base is now demanding the full release of the files. This pressure is bipartisan; the swearing in of Representative Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) provided the 218th signature needed on a discharge petition to force a vote in the full House on the full release of the files. The administration is now caught between its desire to suppress the files and the demands for transparency from its own political movement. A Quinnipiac poll shows that 63% of voters disapprove of the administration's handling of the case.
The Trump Doctrine 2.0: Transactional Unilateralism
War in the Caribbean: The New Doctrine of ‘Narco-Terrorism’
The administration's foreign policy is defined by aggressive unilateralism. In the Caribbean, the US has deployed a ‘maritime combat force’ to carry out a campaign of ‘lethal strikes’ against suspected smugglers. This is not traditional interdiction; it is a war of elimination.
Justification and Tactics: The legal justification is that the cartels, specifically Venezuela's ‘Cartel of the Suns’ (which the US equates with the Maduro government) and the ELN, are ‘narco-terrorists.’ This, according to the administration, allows for the use of lethal military force, including air strikes, which have resulted in more than 76 civilian deaths since September. The deployment includes the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, the largest US military presence in the region since the invasion of Panama in 1989.
Fracturing Alliances: This doctrine is ‘testing the limits of the law’ and has broken the allied intelligence coalition. The EU has expressed concern, but the UK and Colombia have taken the drastic step of suspending intelligence. British officials fear being complicit in what they consider extrajudicial killings. When asked about these reports from allies, Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed them as a ‘fake story,’ indicating that the administration has no intention of backing down.
The Busan Truce (US-China): A Tactical Decoupling
The ‘Busan Truce’ is the other pillar of foreign policy: transnationalism. The agreement is a direct exchange of economic relief.
Economic Context: Both leaders needed this truce. China's October trade data was disastrous, with exports falling 1.1% overall, driven by a 25% slump in shipments to the US. Meanwhile, the US economy suffers from persistent inflation and vulnerability to China's mineral supply chains.
The Structural Trend: The true indicator of the relationship is not this 12-month agreement, but the actions of the C-Suite. General Motors' 2027 directive to remove China from its North American parts supply chain is a seismic event. It is proof that corporate capital has internalised geopolitical risk and is seeking ‘resilience’ through ‘US+1’. China is actively responding, with double-digit growth in exports to ASEAN (+22.5%) and Africa (+25.9%), offsetting the loss of the US market.
Critical Points of Conflict and Stabilisation Efforts
Gaza - ‘The Day After’
The 20-Point Peace Plan has successfully achieved its ‘Phase 1’: a ceasefire, the release of living hostages and Palestinian prisoners, and a partial withdrawal of the IDF. However, ‘Phase 2,’ the governance of ‘the day after,’ is designed to fail (see Table 2).
The Bureaucratic Architecture: The plan envisions a Palestinian Technocratic Committee for civil administration, an international ‘Peace Board’ for oversight, and a Civil-Military Coordination Centre led by CENTCOM. Field reports on this CENTCOM centre suggest that it is an empty shell, with ‘lots of computers and lots of uncertainty’ but ‘no money’.
The Point of Failure (ISF): The security component, the International Stabilisation Force (ISF), is the ‘poison pill’ of the plan. The US draft UN resolution gives the ISF a mandate to ‘demilitarise the Gaza Strip’ and ‘permanently dismantle the weapons of non-state armed groups’. No country, Arab or NATO, will send troops for this combat mission. The UAE has already stated this publicly.
Regional Vetoes: The situation is complicated by vetoes from key players. Israel strongly opposes Turkey's participation in the force, even though Turkey (along with Egypt and Qatar) was instrumental in brokering the agreement with Hamas.
Presidential Interference and Allied Sovereignty
In an unprecedented move, President Trump has directly intervened in the judicial system of an ally. He has sent a formal letter to Israeli President Isaac Herzog requesting a ‘full pardon’ for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Netanyahu is in the midst of a corruption trial for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, which began in 2020 and entered the defence phase in December 2024. Trump, in his letter, calls the trial ‘political and unjustified persecution,’ echoing the language he uses for his own legal problems.
President Herzog's office issued a polite but firm refusal, noting that pardon requests must follow the channels established by law and can only be considered after a conviction and admission of guilt. Analysis by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz suggests that this ‘clumsy’ intervention is a sign that ‘the legal noose is tightening’ on Netanyahu.
Ukraine - The Pokrovsk Pocket and Lavrov's ‘Reality’
The war in Ukraine has become a high-intensity war of attrition, symbolised by the battle for the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad pocket.
The Battlefield: Reports indicate that the situation is ‘difficult.’ Russian forces, exploiting the fog that inhibits Ukrainian drones, have managed to capture approximately 46% of Pokrovsk and 10% of Myrnohrad. They control the lines of communication (GLOCs) as Ukraine attempts to counterattack.
Kinetic Diplomacy: This military offensive is directly linked to Russia's diplomatic stance. Foreign Minister Lavrov and other officials insist that any peace negotiations must be based on ‘realities on the ground.’ The Pokrovsk offensive is Russia's means of creating those realities, improving its negotiating position for talks that the Trump administration wishes to mediate. Meanwhile, US aid to Ukraine remains politically volatile, with Congress investigating unilateral ‘pauses’ in arms shipments by the Department of Defence.
Afghanistan-Pakistan: A New Interstate War
The simmering conflict between Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban has turned into open warfare. On 9 October, Pakistan, frustrated by cross-border attacks by the TTP (Pakistani Taliban), launched air strikes inside Afghanistan, including Kabul, Khost and Paktika. These strikes killed senior TTP members. In retaliation, the Afghan Taliban attacked Pakistani military border posts.
This is the beginning of a new regional war. It is a direct consequence of the power vacuum left by the US. Pakistan has realised that its former proxy, the Afghan Taliban, will not control (and in fact will harbour) the TTP, forcing Pakistan to adopt offensive tactics.
Secondary Threats and Emerging Risks Overview
The Legacy of Bataclan and the Metamorphosis of Jihadist Terrorism
As France commemorates the tenth anniversary of the 13 November 2015 attacks in Paris, the nature of the terrorist threat has evolved.
The Inherited Threat: The Bataclan attack was a ‘complex and coordinated terrorist attack’ (CCTA). The Islamic State (IS), although without territory, remains the world's deadliest organisation and persists as a lethal ‘hybrid organisation.’ The attack on Crocus City Hall in Moscow in 2024 demonstrated that the CCTA threat remains viable.
The New Threat: However, data from 2024-2025 shows an alarming new trend. While the threat from organised cells is declining in the West, attacks overall have doubled. Demographic change is key: in Europe, ‘one in five terrorism suspects’ is now under the age of 18, with teenagers accounting for the majority of IS-linked arrests. The threat has mutated from organised cells to viral radicalisation of youth.
Relative Stability in Iraq
In stark contrast to regional volatility, Iraq has emerged as a point of ‘calm’. Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani has successfully consolidated power after his ‘Reconstruction and Development’ coalition won a landslide victory in parliamentary elections. His success is based on a domestic focus on tangible infrastructure (bridges and tunnels in Baghdad) and maintaining a delicate balance between his allies in Iran and his security partner, the US.
Editorial Line and Strategic Perspective
The 13 November 2025 analysis reveals a global landscape defined by the ‘G-Zero’ Paradox: Internal Paralysis in the US versus External Hyper-Aggression.
The world has officially entered ‘G-Zero’. There is no longer a global hegemon providing stability; there is only a large and erratic power. The US administration is at war with itself. Internally, the historic government shutdown, the inability to pay its own military, the collapse of consumer confidence, and bitter internal political struggles (such as the Epstein case) demonstrate an inability to provide basic governance.
Externally, this internal paralysis is offset by unilateral hyperaggression. The administration is pursuing a ‘zero-sum’ and ‘go it alone’ foreign policy, defined as the ‘Rule of Don’. This includes lethal strikes in the Caribbean that break key alliances; unprecedented personal interventions in the judicial sovereignty of an ally (the Netanyahu case); and the imposition of peace plans (Gaza) that lack fundamental allied support because they are designed to fail.
The ‘victories’ of this foreign policy (the ‘Busan Truce’ and the ‘Gaza Peace Plan’) are illusory. Both lack institutional sustainability. The ‘Busan Truce’ is not a strategic peace, but a tactical pause in a structural geo-economic war. True decoupling is being driven by the C-Suite (e.g., General Motors), not the White House. The ‘Gaza Peace Plan’ is not sustainable peace, but a mediated ceasefire built on an architecture (ISF) designed to collapse, allowing the administration to blame its allies for its failure.
The Implications: The strategic implications of this ‘every man for himself’ or ‘Beggar-thy-World’ world are clear:
- For Allies (UK, EU): Strategic diversification away from US dependence is now imperative. The breakdown of UK intelligence is the canary in the coal mine.
- For Adversaries (Russia, TTP): US dysfunction is an opportunity. Russia exploits it with ‘kinetic diplomacy’ in Pokrovsk. The TTP exploits it to incite regional war in the Afghan power vacuum.
- For Corporations (GM): ‘Geopolitical Risk’ has supplanted ‘Market Risk.’ ‘Resilience’ — a euphemism for the costly but necessary decoupling of supply chains from China — is the only rational strategy.
Editorial Conclusion
The world has witnessed the end of the longest federal shutdown in US history, but not the end of the mental shutdown of elites who confuse governance with trench warfare. Washington reopens its doors as politics sinks a little deeper into the quagmire of permanent scandal: today it is Epstein's emails, tomorrow it will be another file selected with a magnifying glass to feed the media bonfire.
At the same time, the Middle East continues to smoulder: Gaza seeks peace monitored by blue helmets that do not yet exist, Iraq remains trapped between militias and apathy, Netanyahu clings to power with the encouragement of a Trump willing to sign even a pardon for someone else. Europe remembers its dead in Paris while watching, with a mixture of weariness and fatalism, the Ukrainian border and the growing pressure of jihadist migration.
Today's geopolitical chessboard shows a disturbing feature: the great powers are too preoccupied with their internal battles to offer leadership, and revisionist actors – autocrats, narco-terrorists, extremists of all stripes – are taking advantage of every crack. The challenge for democracies is not just to win elections or pass budgets: it is to regain the ability to see beyond tomorrow's headlines and act as they claim to be, guardians of an open but not suicidal international order.