World Review: Iran – What’s the Mission. Derisking from the US. “Donroe Doctrine” One Month Later.

A synopsis of this week's edition of World Review

Each week, I host a video podcast called World Review with Ivo Daalder where journalists from major news outlets around the world join me to discuss the latest global news stories of the week.

Today, January 30, we discussed the growing risk of confrontation with Iran, America's allies turning to China to de-risk from the United States, and how the situation in Venezuela has evolved one month after Maduro was captured. I was traveling this week, and Carla Anne Robbins, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and Director of the MIA Program at Baruch College’s Marxe School, kindly sat in as host. Joining her this week were Karen DeYoung, Associate Editor and Senior National Security Correspondent of The Washington Post, and Philip Stephens, Contributing Editor of The Financial Times.

“World Review is always fascinating. I love the fact that you can get journalists from around the world to participate since zoom is the medium.”

— A Subscriber to America Abroad

While I encourage you to listen to the episode (and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts!), here are a few interesting things I took away from our discussion:

• While the protests in Iran have calmed down, President Trump’s threats of intervention have not. But as Karen laid out, the administration’s goals remain unclear. Gulf partners are trying to put constraints on Washington, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE reportedly refusing access to their airspace for a possible US attack on Iran while urging diplomacy, because they fear they would bear the brunt of retaliation. The split-screen within the administration only deepens the uncertainty. President Trump suggests the armada he has sent to the region is ready to act if Iran does not sign a deal, while Secretary of State Rubio describes it as “preemptively defensive,” a phrase that, as Philip noted, carries echoes of the invasion of Iraq and has raised questions in European capitals. The strategic dilemma is simple and dangerous. If the United States hits first, Iran will almost certainly hit back across the region, and there is no guarantee the exchange ends on Washington’s preferred timetable. If the administration does not act, the question becomes what all this was for, beyond another episode of coercive theater.

• The visits to Beijing by Mark Carney and now Keir Starmer appear to be about more than just trade. Philip argued that Europe has moved, in remarkably little time, from talking about de-risking from China to talking about de-risking from the United States. That shift is beginning to shape decisions that once would have been unthinkable, from trade diversification to a more pragmatic willingness to tolerate some risk in a partnership with China that officials had been trying to reduce. The changed risk calculation in Europe has been accelerated by a puzzle at the heart of Washington’s own posture. The administration’s rhetoric says China is the central challenge, yet its tone and signals often look soft, including the National Defense Strategy released by the Pentagon last week. President Trump appears fixated on his personal relationship with Xi Jinping and unwilling to jeopardize the upcoming summit. European allies hear warnings about getting too close to Beijing, but they also see Washington itself making exceptions and sending mixed messages, which makes hedging feel not only prudent but necessary.

• A month after Maduro was captured, the question of who is running Venezuela remains up for debate. Karen argues there is no evidence the United States has taken control of anything except the oil industry, even as the administration lavishes praise on Delcy Rodríguez and presses for the departure of Iran, Russia, China, and Cuba without a clear enforcement mechanism. The new oil law appears to give American oil companies everything they wanted. Yet, as Philip warned, the investment horizon of major energy firms is measured in decades, and the basic prerequisites of stability and security are still missing. The lack of a clear strategy may risk jeopardizing the President’s declared commercial win for the oil industry. The same pattern shows up in the wider region. The new executive order aimed at choking off oil flows to Cuba is another escalation of pressure without a clear statement of what would satisfy the administration’s interests, beyond vague language about alignment with American priorities.

Those are my quick takes on this week’s episode here on World Review. To get the full story, please listen to the episode itself.