Geopolitical Analysis & Commentary by Gustavo de Arístegui

Edit Content
Click on the Edit Content button to edit/add the content.

GEOPOLITICAL REPORT

By Gustavo de Arístegui, as published by Negocios.

19 January 2026

1. BRIEF INTRODUCTION

The international chessboard is entering a phase of permanent friction in which, rather than isolated crises, we are witnessing a chain reaction of shocks: Washington is hardening its economic standoff with Europe and redrawing the map of power in the Middle East; Moscow is intensifying its punishment of Ukrainian civilian infrastructure; Tehran is responding to the largest wave of protests in its recent history with massive repression; and Latin America is returning to the center of the strategic radar following the capture of Nicolás Maduro and discreet maneuvering with the hard core of Chavismo.[1][2][3][4][5]

Europe, trapped between the tariff pressure of a United States that no longer disguises its policy of force and the brutality of Russian aggression, is now reacting in the only language that Trump’s White House seems to understand: figures and large-scale trade retaliation. At the same time, the so-called “Global South” is becoming contested ground between revisionist powers — China, Russia, Iran — and a West that arrives late, fragmented, and burdened by a left more concerned with woke catechism than with the defense of representative liberal democracy.[6][7][1]

In this context, the risk dashboard is turning red on three fronts: the war in Ukraine, explosive instability in the Middle East, and the advance of authoritarianism — whether Bolivarian, Islamist, or populist — in spaces where the rule of law is fragile. Everything else, from Houthi attacks (Iranian proxies) in the Red Sea to political fragmentation within the EU, forms part of the same narrative: global strategic disorder and the suicidal renunciation by certain Western elites of unapologetically defending the order of freedoms that made the West the benchmark of the free world.

II. THE 10 MOST IMPORTANT NEWS ITEMS OF THE LAST 24 HOURS

1. Trump threatens massive tariffs on eight European countries over the Greenland standoff; Brussels prepares €93 billion in retaliation

Facts

  • Eight European countries have issued a joint statement denouncing as “intimidation” Washington’s new tariff threats should they block Trump’s strategy regarding Greenland and Arctic strategic resources.[1][6]
  • The EU is studying a retaliation package worth approximately €93 billion in tariffs, in a climate in which leaders such as Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer openly speak of a “dangerous spiral” for the transatlantic relationship.[1]

Implications

  • Trump maintains a force-based policy consistent with his worldview: the defense of U.S. strategic interests above multilateral consensus, particularly regarding raw materials, energy, and geoeconomic control of sensitive areas such as the Arctic. From an Atlanticist perspective, the problem is not firmness but the risk of a rupture with natural allies.[6]
  • Europe’s response arrives late and without real political coordination: Brussels resorts to the instrument it knows best — trade — but still lacks a security and defense strategy commensurate with the challenge, while the European radical left dreams of a disarmed “strategic autonomy.”

Outlooks and scenarios

  • Scenario 1 (likely): Controlled escalation of measures and countermeasures, followed by technical negotiations that mitigate the impact without resolving the underlying disagreement over Greenland, the Arctic, and Europe’s green industrial policy.
  • Scenario 2 (risk): A deeper rupture with a Trump convinced that certain European governments act as a brake on U.S. power, potentially pushing Washington toward an even more transactional policy with Moscow and Beijing on other fronts.
  • Scenario 3 (opportunity): If European capitals finally accept that the Atlantic bond requires greater defense spending and a firmer stance toward China and Russia, the tariff crisis could paradoxically become a catalyst for a more mature and less rhetorical Atlanticism.

2. Iran: Khamenei acknowledges thousands of deaths and blames Trump and Israel for the bloodiest uprising since 1979

Facts

  • Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has publicly acknowledged that “thousands” of Iranians have died in the protests that began on December 28, while NGOs such as Human Rights Activists in Iran already report more than 3,000 verified deaths, with other sources placing the figure far higher.[2][8][9]
  • Khamenei directly accuses the United States and Israel of orchestrating the uprising, labels the protesters “enemies of God,” and issues an unequivocal threat: the “criminals” will not go unpunished.[9][2]

Implications

  • The Tehran regime stands exposed: reformism is impossible; there is only a theocratic power willing to massacre its own people to survive. The narrative of “manipulated protests” is the familiar pretext used to justify mass crimes against the civilian population.[10][2][9]
  • Repression will strengthen the hardest-line apparatuses — the Revolutionary Guards, the Basij, and intelligence services — and intensify the logic of exporting crises abroad: increased Hezbollah activity, greater Houthi aggression, and more covert operations in Iraq, Syria, and the Sahel.

Outlooks and scenarios

  • Scenario 1: Temporary freezing of protests due to fear and exhaustion, coupled with a further deterioration of the regime’s internal legitimacy, increasingly dependent on organized terror and oil revenues constrained by sanctions.[11][2][10]
  • Scenario 2: Increased international pressure with a stronger focus on crimes against humanity, but without real impact in terms of effective sanctions due to European ambiguities and the cynical calculations of Russia and China.
  • Scenario 3 (medium term): If fractures among elites deepen — particularly between technocrats and the security apparatus — an internal power struggle could weaken Tehran’s ability to sustain its proxies, a development vital for the security of Israel, the Gulf, and Europe.

3. Syria: Advance of Damascus’s army in the northeast and integration deal with Kurdish forces; containment of ISIS or maneuver against the Kurds in Turkey’s interest?

Facts

  • Forces loyal to President Ahmed al-Sharaa have rapidly advanced east of Aleppo, capturing localities previously under the control of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the Kurdish-Arab coalition that served as the West’s main ally against ISIS.[3]
  • Simultaneously, a “broad” integration agreement between Kurdish units and the Syrian army has been announced, including recognition of Kurdish as a “national language” and restoration of citizenship to stateless Kurds, formally aimed at ending recent clashes.[3]

Implications

  • The move can be read in two ways: on the one hand, preventing ISIS cells from filling a power vacuum in the northeast; on the other, diluting Kurdish autonomy under structures controlled by Damascus — and by extension Moscow and Tehran — in response to Ankara’s anti-Kurdish obsessions.
  • A genuine weakening of the SDF would be disastrous for counterterrorism efforts: they guard thousands of Al Qaeda and ISIS detainees who, if released or escaped, could reconfigure the jihadist map of the Middle East and Europe itself.

Outlooks and scenarios

  • Scenario 1: Partial, supervised integration of Kurdish forces with minimal guarantees to prevent reprisals, preserving their role in guarding detainees and conducting anti-ISIS operations, under Russian oversight and limited Iranian involvement.
  • Scenario 2 (high risk): A gradual operation to strip the Kurds of real power, satisfying Turkey, weakening the actor that has fought ISIS most effectively, and increasing the risk of mass escapes and terrorist regrouping.
  • Scenario 3: Renewed Western engagement in northeastern Syria with a clearer mandate — currently unlikely — to secure jihadist detention facilities and prevent Syria from once again becoming the epicenter of global terrorism.

4. Russia launches a new massive wave of drones and guided bombs against Ukraine, again striking energy infrastructure in mid-winter

Facts

  • Over the past week, Russia has launched more than 1,300 attack drones, approximately 1,050 guided aerial bombs, and nearly thirty missiles of various types against Ukrainian targets, focusing on critical energy and logistics nodes.[12][13][3]
  • In the last night alone, more than 200 drones struck the regions of Sumy, Kharkiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, Khmelnytskyi, and Odesa, killing at least two people, injuring dozens, and causing new power outages amid a cold wave.[13][12][3]

Implications

  • Moscow continues to use energy as a weapon of terror against civilians, “weaponizing winter” to break Ukrainian resilience, in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.[12][3]
  • Reconstruction costs for electrical and energy infrastructure continue to soar, deepening Ukraine’s dependence on Western aid, while some European voices call for a capitulation peace that would only reward Russian aggression.

Outlooks and scenarios

  • Scenario 1: Intensification of Western assistance in air defense and interception capabilities, alongside additional sanctions targeting Russia’s drone and missile industries, including component supplies from third countries such as Iran or North Korea.
  • Scenario 2: If support erodes — especially in European countries with weak governments or tempted by appeasement — Russia could consolidate a frozen conflict, occupying Ukrainian territory and projecting a constant threat over the rest of Europe.
  • Scenario 3: Prolongation of a “strategic stalemate,” with a resilient but exhausted Ukraine and a Russia unable to achieve decisive victory, opening the door to more aggressive hybrid operations against NATO’s eastern flank.

5. Portugal: Ventura (Chega) advances to the presidential runoff against socialist Seguro in an election confirming the rise of right-wing populism

Facts

  • In the first round of Portugal’s presidential election, socialist António José Seguro secured the largest share of votes — around 31% — followed by André Ventura, leader of the right-wing populist party Chega, with nearly 24%, qualifying him for the February 8 runoff.[7][14][15]
  • This is one of the tightest presidential contests in recent decades and the first time in forty years that Portugal’s president has not been decided in the first round.[14][15]

Implications

  • Ventura’s advance confirms a continental trend: discontent with traditional elites and fatigue with identity-driven, fiscally irresponsible left-wing politics fuel populist alternatives that often present law-and-order narratives partially compatible with the center-right, but with risks of radicalization.
  • The result strains the fragmented non-socialist space and forces moderate center-right parties to decide whether to compete with or cooperate with a populist alternative whose relationship with classical Atlanticist and pro-European liberal values is, at best, ambivalent.[7][14]

Outlooks and scenarios

  • Scenario 1 (most likely): Seguro wins the runoff backed by a broad “anti-fascist” front, reinforcing a cordon sanitaire narrative that nonetheless fails to address the root causes of social discontent.
  • Scenario 2: A much closer-than-expected result that normalizes Chega as a key actor and opens the door to future right-leaning governing coalitions, forcing the liberal center-right to redefine its identity.
  • Scenario 3 (long term): If moderate forces fail to reclaim the banners of order, security, and middle-class defense, protest voting will continue to strengthen options oscillating between Euroscepticism and illiberalism.

6. Trump’s “Board of Peace” for Gaza: Rubio, Blair, Kushner, and other controversial figures in a design criticized as “neo-colonial”

Facts

  • The White House has announced the members of the new “Board of Peace” tasked with overseeing Gaza’s transitional administration, chaired for life by Donald Trump and including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Jared Kushner, among others.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22]
  • The plan, which envisions a technocratic Palestinian entity overseen by this international body, has been formally accepted by Israel and Hamas, but currently lacks clearly identified Palestinian representatives within the board itself.[18][19][16]

Implications

  • From the Arab world and parts of international public opinion, the scheme is denounced as a form of “new-generation colonialism”: a foreign leader presiding over the governance of a territory central to the Palestinian cause, accompanied by highly Western figures such as Blair, carrying the symbolic weight of Iraq and Britain’s imperial legacy.[17][19][23]
  • However, compared to decades of paralysis, Trump’s pragmatic approach — which has delivered results in other regional disputes — could offer a window of stability if representation deficits are corrected and if the technocratic body possesses real management capacity rather than serving as mere window dressing.[16][17][18]

Outlooks and scenarios

  • Scenario 1: Tactical acceptance of the scheme by regional powers — especially Egypt and Jordan — who see the council as a means to curb both Hamas and Iranian expansion, provided respected Palestinian figures are incorporated.
  • Scenario 2: Popular backlash in the Arab world, fueling narratives promoted by Iran, Hezbollah, and radical factions portraying the plan as a U.S.–Israeli “protectorate” over Gaza.
  • Scenario 3: If the “Board of Peace” becomes an effective instrument for reconstruction, security, and civilian welfare, it could set an uncomfortable precedent for actors who thrive on perpetual conflict, from Islamist extremists to segments of the Western far left.

7. Venezuela: months of contacts between the Trump Administration and Diosdado Cabello revealed prior to the operation to capture Maduro

Facts

  • Sources cited by Reuters reveal that Trump Administration officials maintained discreet contacts with Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello — one of the most hardline figures in Chavismo — months before the U.S. commando operation that captured Nicolás Maduro on January 3.[4][5][24][25]
  • Washington warned Cabello not to deploy security forces and PSUV militias to repress the opposition and also discussed the sanctions regime applied to him, despite his inclusion in the same drug-trafficking indictment that justified Maduro’s arrest.[5][25][4]

Implications

  • The operation once again demonstrates U.S. military effectiveness and, simultaneously, its willingness to negotiate with unsavory figures if this serves higher strategic objectives: dismantling a narco-dictatorship and avoiding bloodshed during a transition.[24][5][6]
  • Chavismo, like any mafia organization, can survive without a figurehead but not without a system: as long as security, intelligence, and illicit economic networks remain intact, Venezuela will continue to be a source of narco-instability for Latin America and Europe.

Outlooks and scenarios

  • Scenario 1: Cabello presents himself as guarantor of “revolutionary” internal order without Maduro, gradually negotiating his own legal survival in exchange for limited reforms and economic concessions to Washington.
  • Scenario 2: Internal fracture within Chavismo between negotiation-oriented sectors and more radical factions tied to drug trafficking and the military apparatus, with a risk of intra-regime violence.
  • Scenario 3: If democratic opposition forces and the international community fail to act with unity and pragmatism, the window for an orderly transition may close, replaced by a new version of the same system with different faces.

8. Deepening strategic exhaustion of the U.S., Russia, and China in a 2026 marked by “frenetic military positioning”

Facts

  • Recent analyses highlight that 2026 has begun with successive large-scale displays of military force: U.S. precision strikes against targets in Iran and Venezuela, Russian tests of systems capable of reaching European cities within ten minutes, and growing Chinese industrial preparation for a prolonged conflict.[6]
  • Trump’s White House combines demonstrations of force with a narrative of clear “red lines” — such as preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons — and short, surgical operations designed to avoid endless wars.[6]

Implications

  • The world is entering an era of hard deterrence in which three major actors — the U.S., Russia, and China — test their capabilities and limits, while armed regional allies and partners (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey) wage their own proxy conflicts.[26][6]
  • For Europe, the message is unequivocal: there will be no “free protection” indefinitely. NATO remains vital, but American commitment cannot replace Europe’s responsibility to invest in defense and assume political costs many leaders avoid for electoral reasons.

Outlooks and scenarios

  • Scenario 1: Consolidation of a global “armed peace,” with multiple limited conflicts but no direct great-power clash due to mutual fear of escalation.
  • Scenario 2: An accident or miscalculation — in the Baltic, the South China Sea, or the Gulf — triggers a major crisis, testing the crisis-management capacity of increasingly polarized political elites.
  • Scenario 3: If the West strengthens its military muscle and internal cohesion, it can contain Russia, deter China, and constrain Iranian adventurism; if not, the vacuum will be filled by autocracies and armed non-state actors.

9. Continued economic pressure: Gulf markets under strain and volatility amid geopolitical tensions and Trump’s statements

Facts

  • Major Gulf markets show mixed performance, affected by a more than 3% drop in oil prices following Trump’s remarks on the repression of protesters in third countries and widespread concern over regional escalation.[26]
  • Risk perception has intensified due to the combination of the war in Ukraine, the Iranian threat, Houthi attacks on shipping, and doubts about the strength of global demand.[26]

Implications

  • The Gulf, once merely an oil supplier, has become a geopolitical barometer: any spark in Iran, Yemen, Iraq, or the Levant immediately impacts stock indices and investor confidence.[26]
  • Gulf economies are diversifying into finance, technology, and tourism, but remain vulnerable to price shocks, risk perception, and the political instrumentalization of energy by both producers and consumers.

Outlooks and scenarios

  • Scenario 1: If relative stability consolidates around the Gaza conflict and Iranian adventurism is contained, markets could recover quickly, supported by major sovereign investment plans.
  • Scenario 2: A major attack on energy infrastructure or open escalation between Iran and its regional adversaries would spike risk premiums and reopen debates on “energy security” in Europe and Asia.
  • Scenario 3: Gulf monarchies consolidate as key diplomatic actors — between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing — leveraging their energy and financial position for global influence.

10. Escalation of internal Western debate over responses to Russia, Iran, and populism; division between firm realism and ideological appeasement

Facts

  • As Ukraine endures its most intense campaign of attacks on civilian infrastructure in months, the divide deepens between those demanding sustained or increased military support and those who, from the comfort of certain European and U.S. salons, call for “territorial concessions” in the name of an illusory peace.[3][12][6]
  • At the same time, reactions to the massacre in Iran and the rise of populism in Europe (such as Portugal) reveal double standards: theocratic repression is condemned, yet authoritarian regimes continue to be courted when economically convenient.[8][2][9][14][7]

Implications

  • The battle is not only geopolitical; it is cultural and moral. Faced with jihadism, Bolivarianism, Putinism, and Chinese expansionism, parts of the West appear more concerned with “microaggressions” and pronouns than with defending fundamental rights and collective security.
  • If the liberal center-right — Atlanticist, pro-European, pro-market, and committed to a sustainable welfare state — fails to lead the response, the vacuum will be filled by both the far right and the far left, equally destructive to liberal democracy.

Outlooks and scenarios

  • Scenario 1: Consolidation of an Atlantic bloc — the U.S., the UK, Central and Northern Europe — that understands the nature of the challenge and acts accordingly, albeit with inevitable fractures.
  • Scenario 2: Advance of illiberal forces, whether under right-wing populist banners or “progressive” disguises, eroding institutions, judicial independence, and press freedom, thereby facilitating the agendas of Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran.
  • Scenario 3: If citizens perceive that only reformist centrism delivers security, stability, and responsible prosperity, political balance may be restored — but only if ambiguity toward declared enemies of democracy is abandoned.

III. MEDIA LANDSCAPE

(Structure, bullet points, and emphasis preserved)

  • Mainstream Anglo-Saxon media (NYT, Washington Post, BBC, CNN, CBS, AP, Reuters):
    • Primary focus on Ukraine’s attrition, the scale of Iranian repression, and the architecture of the “Board of Peace” for Gaza, emphasizing its exceptional nature and “neo-colonial” criticisms.[22][2][9][17][18][12][16][3]
  • Economic and financial press (FT, WSJ, Economist, Bloomberg, CNBC):
    • Attention on the U.S.–EU tariff clash, risks to supply chains, and volatility in energy and Gulf markets, highlighting the growing use of trade policy as an instrument of power.[1][6][26]
  • Leading European media (Le Monde, Le Figaro, FAZ, Die Welt, Die Zeit, Corriere, El País, Clarín, etc.):
    • Focus on the fragility of European leadership vis-à-vis Trump and Putin, alarm over the rise of populism in Portugal, and concern over Iran’s repressive drift, with editorials divided between realism and impotent moralism.[15][2][8][14][7]
  • Israeli and Arab media (Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya, Asharq Al-Awsat, Gulf press):
    • Maximum attention on the “Board of Peace” and its impact on the regional security equation, as well as Iranian proxy activity and the sensitivity of energy markets to any signal from Tehran.[19][20][23][17][16][26]
  • Latin American media (Clarín, El Mercurio, Reforma, etc.):
    • Intense coverage of Maduro’s capture, Washington’s contacts with Cabello, and uncertainty over the future of Chavismo, with analyses oscillating between hope for a transition and fear of new disguised authoritarianisms.[25][4][5][24]

IV. RISK TRAFFIC LIGHT

Levels: 🔴 Very High | 🟠 High | 🟡 Moderate

Region / IssueLevelKey Risk Factors
Ukraine – war and energy🔴Massive infrastructure attacks, Western support fatigue, risk of Russian escalation.[3][12]
Iran and proxies (Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen)🔴Internal massacre, export of terrorism, risk of major incidents in the Gulf.[2][9][11][10]
Middle East – Gaza / “Board of Peace”🔴Plan fragility, Arab backlash, exploitation by Iran and radical groups.[16][17][18][19]
Venezuela and narco-instability🟠Uncertain transition after Maduro, intact repressive and narcotics networks.[24][4][5][25]
Populism in Europe (Portugal, etc.)🟠Fragmentation of the center, normalization of extremism, erosion of liberal consensus.[14][15][7]
Energy and Gulf markets🟠Volatility from regional tensions, infrastructure attack risk, oil pressure.[26]
U.S.–China–Russia strategic competition🟠Aggressive military posturing and boundary testing without confidence-building mechanisms.[6]
Global jihadist terrorism🟠Risk of regrouping in Syria and expansion in Africa if pressure on groups and detainees eases.

V. EDITORIAL COMMENTARY

The free world is undergoing a crisis of confidence that stems not only from external enemies — Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and the Bolivarian cartels of the 21st century — but above all from a dangerous moral and strategic anemia within our own societies. While Russia devastates civilian infrastructure in Ukraine and the Iranian regime murders thousands of protesters, parts of Western elites devote more energy to superficial cultural battles than to defending liberal democracy, the market economy, and the rule of law.[2][9][10][12][3]

Venezuela is a paradigmatic case: a narco-dictatorship that has turned an immensely wealthy country into a failed state, exporting misery, crime, and destabilization. Maduro’s capture is not the end of Chavismo, but the first significant crack in a mafia-like structure that still controls weapons, money, and propaganda. If the international community — particularly Europe and the United States — does not accompany this episode with a determined strategy to support democratic forces and apply intelligent pressure on the regime’s hard core, the script will repeat itself: the visible face will fall, but the system will survive.[4][5][24][25]

In the Middle East, the “Board of Peace” for Gaza embodies the permanent tension between pragmatism and legitimacy. That a U.S. president — Trump — assumes such a prominent and lifelong role in governing such a sensitive territory may seem excessive, but one should not forget that decades of immobilism and empty rhetoric have failed spectacularly. The question is not whether the plan is perfect — it is not — but whether it offers a real opportunity to curb Hamas, contain Iran, and improve the lives of Gazans. That opportunity exists, provided Palestinian representation deficits are corrected and the council does not become a club of egos but an instrument of order and reconstruction.[17][18][19][16]

Europe, for its part, remains trapped between its finest tradition — Spain’s democratic transition, Franco-German reconciliation, the patient construction of a Union based on freedom and shared prosperity — and a recent drift marked by chronic guilt, fiscal populism, and fascination with magical solutions that never involve personal or political responsibility. Responses to Trump oscillate between reflexive anti-Americanism and tacit submission, without articulating a mature, demanding Atlanticism that combines loyalty to NATO with genuine strategic ambition.[7][1][6][26]