By Gustavo de Arístegui, as published by Negocios.
12 January 2026
I. BRIEF INTRODUCTION
The world wakes up to a fact that, on its own, explains the state of political combustion in which the Middle East is moving: in Iran, a human rights group is already counting more than 500 deaths in two weeks of protests, and the regime is responding with repression, propaganda, and an explicit threat against U.S. bases and Israel should Washington cross the threshold into intervention. This is not an isolated episode; it is a test of legitimacy, and also a full-scale rehearsal of deterrence in the Gulf.
In parallel, Syria confirms that the post-Assad phase remains unstable terrain, with two simultaneous dynamics: a U.S. military operation against the Islamic State and a traumatic—and at times bloody—realignment between Damascus and Kurdish forces in Aleppo. Meanwhile, Ukraine reminds us that Russia’s war of aggression does not pause for media fatigue: Kyiv is once again suffering nighttime attacks, and Europe, whether it likes it or not, continues to live in the shadow of a conflict that is redefining its security.
And on the geoeconomic chessboard, Japan ventures into the deep sea in search of rare earths, precisely as China tightens the tap on strategic minerals. Competition for the “subsoil” (geological, maritime, and financial) is consolidating as one of the defining axes of 2026: from the Arctic—with Greenland probing direct interlocution with Washington—to The Hague, where the Rohingya case at the International Court of Justice promises to set precedents on how genocide is proven and remedied.
II. THE 10 MOST IMPORTANT NEWS ITEMS OF THE LAST 24 HOURS
1. Iran: more than 500 dead, an information blackout, and threats of retaliation if the U.S. intervenes
Facts.
Reuters places the death toll at “more than 500” in the context of the wave of protests, citing HRANA: 490 demonstrators and 48 members of the security forces verified, and more than 10,600 detainees. The backdrop is an economic crisis that has morphed into a frontal challenge to the clerical regime. In response, President Trump insists on “strong options,” and the Iranian leadership hardens its warning: the Speaker of Parliament, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, states that in the event of an attack, Israel and “all U.S. bases and ships” would be “legitimate targets.” All of this unfolds amid an internet blackout that complicates independent verification of events on the ground.
Implications.
The Tehran regime is attempting the classic move: turning internal protest into “external siege” to regroup the undecided. The verbal escalation is not harmless rhetoric: in a regional environment saturated with armed actors and regime-aligned networks, any “response” can take asymmetric forms, from harassment of Western interests to sabotage or maritime pressure. The central risk is miscalculation: Washington assuming the threat is a bluff, and Tehran believing that intimidation-based deterrence buys it impunity.
2. Washington: senators from both parties cool the “military option” against Iran
Facts.
In the U.S. debate, Reuters reports explicit skepticism: Rand Paul warns that “bombing Iran” may not achieve the desired effect, and both he and Mark Warner caution against the rally-around-the-flag effect, which would ultimately strengthen the regime. Warner argues for diplomatic pressure and an international coalition. At the same time, harder voices such as Lindsey Graham are cited, calling to embolden the protesters and raise the cost to the regime.
Implications.
Here a structural tension emerges: muscular foreign policy may be effective in the Western Hemisphere against criminal networks, but Iran is a different terrain—a state with missile capabilities, a regional network, and a historical memory of foreign intervention. Senate prudence is not pacifism; it is calculation. And in that calculation, the decisive factor will be which combination of pressure works without gifting the regime the external-enemy narrative. The question is not whether to act, but how, and with what international legitimacy—with briefings provided and allies watching.
3. Syria: the U.S. strikes Islamic State targets in a broader operation
Facts.
The U.S. military command reported multiple strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria as part of an operation launched in December following a December 13 attack in which two U.S. soldiers and a civilian interpreter were killed. Reuters notes that CENTCOM did not specify casualties from the bombings and recalls that around 1,000 U.S. troops remain in Syria.
Implications.
The strategic reading is twofold. On the one hand, the aim is to prevent Daesh/ISIS from reconstituting capabilities in the post-conflict vacuum. On the other, it projects a message of persistence: the U.S. is not withdrawing from the Syrian chessboard even as media attention shifts elsewhere. The problem is that every counterterrorism operation coexists with Syrian domestic politics and with regional actors who read these moves as force adjustments, not as simple “air policing.”
4. Aleppo: withdrawal of Kurdish forces and a Syrian unity still unstitched
Facts.
Reuters reports the departure of the last fighters of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) from Aleppo following a ceasefire and evacuation agreement mediated internationally. It underscores the enormous humanitarian impact: more than 140,000 people displaced by the fighting, and mutual accusations over attacks on civilian infrastructure. U.S. envoy Tom Barrack called for “maximum restraint” and a return to dialogue.
Implications.
The post-Assad phase will not stabilize merely through promises to “unify the country.” The relationship between Damascus and Kurdish structures is the great credibility test of the new order: genuine integration or forced recentralization. Here the word proxy once again becomes relevant: Turkey, Russia, and even non-state actors are watching and pushing for outcomes that suit their interests. The risk is that Aleppo becomes a precedent: resolved by imposition, the northeast may ignite; resolved by agreement, Syria may begin to resemble a state.
5. Ukraine: Russian nighttime air attack
Facts.
Reuters reports a Russian nighttime air attack on Kyiv that caused a fire in one of the city’s districts, according to the Ukrainian military. Air defenses were attempting to repel the attack, according to the head of the capital’s military administration.
Implications.
There is no possible “normality” while Russia maintains its aggression and uses attrition—military, psychological, and energy-related—as a tactic. For Europe, the message remains unchanged: peace is not purchased through territorial concessions or relativism. It is defended through deterrence, sustained support, and coherence. The alternative is the bully’s pedagogy: if it works in Ukraine, it will be exported.
6. Venezuela and Cuba: oil, sanctions, and the hemispheric contest
Facts.
Reuters reports that Trump warned Cuba it will no longer receive Venezuelan oil or money and suggested the island “make a deal” with the U.S. The same piece states that since the capture of Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces in early January, no shipments have departed for Cuba, according to maritime transport data, within the framework of an oil blockade. In parallel, an agreement in progress between Caracas and Washington for $2 billion is mentioned, to supply up to 50 million barrels to the U.S., with revenues under Treasury supervision.
On the geoeconomic front, Scott Bessent told Reuters that additional sanctions could be lifted “as soon as next week” to facilitate crude sales and that he expects meetings with the IMF and World Bank regarding Venezuela’s re-engagement, exploring the use of some $3.59 billion in frozen SDRs (Special Drawing Rights), equivalent to about $4.9 billion at the time.
On the security side, the State Department maintains Venezuela at Level 4 (“Do Not Travel”) and recommends leaving “immediately” due to serious risks and the lack of U.S. consular capacity.
The Guardian adds a troubling element: reports of armed militias (colectivos) setting up checkpoints and searching for Americans, prompting evacuations.
And the Financial Times, in a complementary line, delves into network dynamics: Venezuela’s connection to Hezbollah within an ecosystem of transnational crime and opaque financing.
Implications.
This is the major test of “toughness with a compass.” Pressuring Havana and dismantling the chavista apparatus—now with a power transition—is consistent with a hemispheric policy defending liberal democracy and combating the narco-state. But managing oil and sanctions requires a scalpel, not an axe: lifting measures without real conditionality can rebuild corrupt elites with fresh cash. The key will be a design of verifiable incentives: re-institutionalization, electoral guarantees, transitional justice, and dismantling of criminal networks.
Put bluntly: the region does not need a “cosmetic change”; it needs a cycle closure. And that closure must be legal, orderly, and oriented toward freedom—not revenge.
7. Greenland: the Arctic temptation and the debate over speaking with Washington “without Copenhagen”
Facts.
Reuters reports political moves in Greenland to explore direct talks with the U.S. without Denmark, a sign of friction within the Kingdom of Denmark at a time when Washington is once again looking at the Arctic as a strategic frontier. In parallel, Reuters frames this tension within a Trump who has spoken of acquiring Greenland “by purchase or by force,” in a logic of geopolitical pressure that goes beyond rhetoric.
Implications.
Greenland is not an eccentricity: it is an intersection of defense, maritime routes, and resources. For Atlanticists, the issue is not “who buys what,” but how allied cohesion and the legitimacy of the order are preserved. If the Arctic becomes a market of sovereignties, a dangerous door opens—the same logic Russia uses to justify annexations disguised as “faits accomplis.” Allies must strengthen dialogue and strategic investment in the north without turning Greenland into an object, but rather into an actor.
8. France: Marine Le Pen, the appeal, and the debate over “lawfare”
Facts.
The Financial Times details that Marine Le Pen is appealing her conviction for embezzling €4.4 million in EU funds, which resulted in a five-year ban from office. The outcome conditions her ability to run in 2027 and, according to the FT, Le Pen has suggested that if she fails, she would back Jordan Bardella.
Implications.
Europe is playing for more than an individual name: it is playing for the credibility of the rule of law and the cleanliness of political financing, without falling into the temptation of turning courts into substitutes for politics. Some will shout “lawfare,” others will celebrate a judicial “cordon sanitaire.” Both simplifications are dangerous. The adult response is more uncomfortable: transparency, due process guarantees, and a political debate that does not dodge substance.
9. Japan: the rare earths mission sets sail as China tightens supplies
Facts.
Reuters reports the departure of the Japanese vessel Chikyu toward Minamitori to test continuous extraction of rare-earth-rich mud from a depth of 6 km—a technical and symbolic milestone in Japan’s strategy to reduce dependence on China. The same piece notes that China banned exports of dual-use goods (civilian and military), including critical minerals, destined for Japan’s military sector; and that G7 finance ministers will discuss rare earth supplies in Washington.
Implications.
The geopolitics of 2026 are written in minerals. Whoever controls the supply chain controls industrial tempo, the energy transition, and much of defense. Japan is doing what Europe should have done years ago: diversify, invest, and accept that strategic dependence is always paid for, even if the bill arrives late. The unknown is the balance between urgency and sustainability: seabed mining may open environmental and regulatory debates that, if well managed, will be an advantage; if poorly handled, propaganda ammunition for Beijing.
10. Rohingya: a genocide case opens in The Hague with domino effects
Facts.
Reuters notes the opening at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of a landmark case accusing Myanmar of genocide against the Rohingya minority. It stresses that this is the first genocide case the court will hear “in full” in more than a decade, with potential impact on other litigation, including South Africa’s case against Israel over Gaza. The Gambia filed the case in 2019, and the article recalls the mass exodus of 2017 (at least 730,000 Rohingya fleeing to Bangladesh) and the findings of a UN mission on “genocidal acts.”
Implications.
International justice moves slowly, yes—but when it sets doctrine, it changes the terrain. This case may redefine standards of proof and reparation, raising the political cost of impunity. For those of us who defend representative liberal democracy, the ICJ is a reminder: law does not replace politics, but it frames it. And in a world where dictatorships and militias thrive on fog, legal clarity is a civilizational weapon.
III. MEDIA RACK
Reuters operates as the informational backbone of the day: figures, chronology, cross-checked sources, and the full risk map—from Iran to Kyiv, from Aleppo to Venezuelan oil. Its value today lies in continuity: it connects pieces others treat as isolated episodes (protest, sanction, attack, evacuation).
The Financial Times looks where investors and systems hurt: in France, political futures conditioned by courts; and in Venezuela, the shadow of illicit networks and connections to actors such as Hezbollah. It is an approach of power and money: who finances, who captures institutions, who inherits the state.
The Guardian emphasizes the humanitarian and rights angle: militias, civilian fear, displacement, and the human cost as narrative compass. In Venezuela, its focus is immediate citizen security and post-operation volatility; in Syria, on expulsions and displacement.
AP provides the ground level: specific neighborhoods, hospitals, first responders, and the portrait of destruction in Aleppo—without the abstraction of “strategic balance.” It is the reminder that geopolitics is also measured in streets and shelters.
The Washington Post introduces an issue Europe can no longer postpone: the vulnerability of critical infrastructure and the threat of sabotage as a political method. What looks “local” in Berlin is, in reality, a continental pattern of exposure.
Fox News reinforces the security framing on Venezuela, aligned with an audience that prioritizes immediate risks and citizen protection. It is a thermometer of how the crisis is communicated domestically in the U.S.
Official sources (Travel.state.gov) set the legal and operational perimeter: Level 4, immediate departure, and lack of consular capacity. In an environment of militias and checkpoints, this weighs more than any talk show.
IV. RISK TRAFFIC LIGHT
🔴 U.S.–Iran escalation: explosive combination of deaths, information blackout, and direct threats to bases and Israel.
🔴 Russia–Ukraine war: attacks on Kyiv as a reminder of continuity and deliberate attrition.
🔴 Venezuela (internal security and risk to foreigners): immediate departure alerts and reports of militias on roads.
🟠 Syria (fragile post-conflict + ISIS presence): strikes on Daesh and Kurdish reordering with heavy displacement.
🟠 China–Japan (critical minerals): restrictions and a race to diversify supply.
🟠 Europe (political-judicial polarization): the Le Pen case may strain French politics and institutional debate.
🟢 International justice (ICJ/Rohingya): low operational risk, high and long-term normative impact.
V. EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
There are days when the news feels like a catalogue of fires; yet the pattern is recognizable: the clash between regimes that survive through coercion and societies that no longer accept the price of lies. Iran is the starkest case: the theocratic regime has turned prosperity into privilege and dissent into crime. Indignation is not enough; intelligence is required. Punish the regime, yes. Accompany society, also. But avoid the error that has so often served as a lifeline for dictators: gifting them an external enemy that masks their internal failure.
In Ukraine, Europe’s moral and strategic position admits no ambiguity: Russian aggression is the very negation of the European order. This is not about cold “interests”; it is about a frontier of principles. And if Europe wishes to remain the mainstream of freedom and prosperity, it must invest in defense, resilience, and political will—without complexes.
In the Western Hemisphere, the Venezuelan-Cuban turn condenses an uncomfortable truth: narco-dictatorships—when they feel immune—export crime, misery, and destabilization. Here, a firm, realistic, and legally grounded policy can be virtuous. But success is not measured only in captures or sanctions; it is measured in rebuilt institutions, clean elections, and dismantled criminal networks. If oil returns without conditions, the temptation of state capture will return as well. And if connections to terrorist or criminal structures exist, the duty of vigilance is absolute.
In this context, the position that corresponds to Europe—and to Spain—is not melancholic equidistance, but clear commitment to Atlanticism, to freedom against regimes that shoot their own people, and to a reformed but open globalization that does not hand control of our strategic supply chains to those who despise our values. History will judge harshly those who, in the name of sentimental pacifism or reflexive anti-Americanism, prefer to look away while the Tehran regime shoots to kill, chavismo morphs into a “normalized” petroleum kleptocracy, and Beijing uses rare earths as a silent weapon of coercion.
Finally, Japan reminds us that geoeconomics is no longer a “technical” chapter: it is sovereignty. Rare earths are not a laboratory datum; they are industrial capacity and defense. And while the world debates headlines, whoever secures supply chains and solid alliances wins the future without firing a single shot.