open polity

Author: Imani Adesanya

Trump’s War with Iran and Its Global Effects

During his 2024 election campaign, US President Donald Trump pledged to end US involvement in costly and destructive foreign wars. In December 2025, during the FIFA World Cup draw, Donald Trump was awarded the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize. Gianni Infantino, the Fifa president and a close ally of Trump, presented the award, saying Trump had been selected “in recognition of his exceptional and extraordinary actions to promote peace and unity around the world”.

His foreign policy this year, however, appears to contradict this. 2026 for Trump has been defined by aggressive military action. In January, the United States captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a military operation in Caracas. Following this, Trump also renewed threats to annex Greenland, leading to severe diplomatic friction with Denmark. Trump also threatened US strikes in Nigeria if the government did not do more to address what Trump said is a “genocide” of Christians in Nigeria by Muslim groups.

His most aggressive embrace of military action this year comes in Iran, where the United States has been engaged in a rapidly escalating conflict since late February. The conflict started on 28 February 2026, when the United States and Israel launched surprise airstrikes on multiple sites and cities across Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several other Iranian officials. Iran responded with missile and drone strikes against Israel, US bases, and US-allied countries in the Middle East.

The conflict stems from years of tense relations between Iran and the United States. Before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the United States and Israel were both close allies with Iran’s government. However, U.S. involvement in Iranian affairs became a lasting source of resentment among Iranians, particularly following its role in the 1953 Iranian coup d’état, which helped sustain the widely unpopular Pahlavi monarchy. Many Iranians under the Pahlavi monarchy viewed the Shah as a “puppet” of the US. Therefore, the 1953 intervention was a major catalyst for the 1979 revolution that forced the Shah into exile.

Since the 1979 revolution, tension between these global actors has continued. Much of this tension is over Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missile development, and regional proxy network. The 2026 Iran war followed the collapse of the 2025–2026 nuclear negotiations and a 12-day war with Israel in June 2025. Following this 12-day War, sanctions on Iran were reimposed, and this put Iran’s currency into a freefall, prompting a significant outbreak of protests in late December. These protests spread across Iran in January 2026 and became the largest uprising in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The US first openly talked in January about potentially attacking Iran when its security forces cracked down on protesters with deadly force.

This violent crackdown, reportedly carried out under orders by Ali Khamenei and senior officials, resulted in massacres that left thousands of protesters dead, making them the largest massacres in modern Iranian history. But the US and Iran began nuclear negotiations and appeared to be making progress until Trump said he was “not happy” with the way the talks were going on 27 February. Hours after this, the US and Israel launched a surprise attack, killing Khamenei, other Iranian officials, and civilians, abruptly ending any immediate prospect of diplomatic resolution.

American and Israeli officials have offered conflicting explanations of the attack. Following the attack, US President Donald Trump described it as defensive and suggested that the aim was to eradicate “imminent threats” from Iran. Meanwhile, Israel described it as a “preemptive strike” aimed at neutralising an anticipated missile attack from Iran. Other U.S. officials have said it was aimed at crippling Iran’s ballistic missile infrastructure and preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly described the Iranian regime as an “existential threat” to Israel. Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state initially suggested that the U.S. launched strikes partly due to pressure from Israel which was preparing its own attack. These comments were later taken back as he insisted that the strike was a decision made by Trump and that Israel did not force U.S. action.

Realist international relations theory emphasises that states operate in an anarchic system focused on power maximisation and national security. The justifications offered by the United States and Israel, particularly the need to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, suggest their actions are consistent with realist logic, in which military force is used to eliminate perceived threats. Ultimately states are selfish, and so anything they do is to maximise their power and position in the global system. Iran is also following the same logic, as its retaliation reflects its need for self-preservation.

As with any war, the costs have been high. From civilian casualties to rising oil prices, the effects of this conflict have been felt globally. One of the most significant impacts has been the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz is a waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It is bordered by several countries, one of which is Iran. It is of great geopolitical importance because about 20% of all oil supplies and about 20% of seaborne gas tankers pass through it, making it one of the most important arteries for global trade. Options to bypass the strait are limited.

Before the war, each day roughly 20 million barrels of oil and petroleum products moved through the Strait. Around 3,000 ships usually sail through the strait each month, but this has dramatically decreased recently. Iran’s blockage of the Strait has globally impacted energy and fuel prices. Brent crude oil has surged above $100 per barrel, up from roughly $65 when tensions between the United States and Iran began heating up.

The UK is forecast to experience the largest growth hit among the G20 major economies due to its vulnerability to global energy price shocks. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has said that Britain’s economy is “especially exposed” to spiralling prices because it relies on gas‑fired power. Elsewhere in the Philippines, the government has declared a national energy emergency over the oil crisis triggered by the war in the Middle East. The Philippines imports almost all of its crude oil from the Middle East, and so it has been significantly impacted by the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz.

Another state that has been impacted is Russia. The United States temporarily lifted sanctions on Russian oil to contain energy prices. This move has delivered Moscow roughly $150 million per day in additional revenue. This has given the Kremlin a boost as it now has new resources to finance its war against Ukraine. Also, with Iran now taking centre stage, the Trump administration’s attention is inevitably distracted from Ukraine.

This conflict has also had profound diplomatic consequences, causing significant global friction. On Wednesday, it was reported that Donald Trump is strongly considering leaving NATO over the lack of support shown for his attack on Iran, in another extraordinary attack on US allies. Several European countries, such as Spain, expressed opposition to US actions. Spain refused to allow the US to use its airbases. Similarly, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has repeatedly said that he will not be dragged into a war. Trump has been consistent in his criticism of the Prime Minister, stating that he was “very disappointed in Keir” as he “took far too long” to reverse his decision not to let the US use UK bases to bomb Iran.

It is not clear when this war is likely to end, as reports of negotiations have been conflicting. Trump says talks with Iran are happening, while Iran says there is no negotiation. Progress may be playing out behind the scenes; however, there is little public indication that the war is coming to a diplomatic end.

April 7, 2026
The BAFTAs and The Limits Of Identity Politics

The 2026 BAFTAs incident– in which Tourette’s campaigner John Davidson shouted a racial slur, which was not edited out of the BBC’s delayed broadcast, while actors Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo were on stage presenting an award– sparked intense global conversation about intersectionality and identity politics. This is because the incident brought two historically marginalised groups and identities into direct conflict, leading to public debate over how discrimination is defined and contextualised. The two competing lived experiences of racism and ableism demanded the same recognition at the same time, and so the controversy did not fit neatly into a single moral narrative.

The N-word is an abhorrent word with a violent, colonial history attached to it. Rooted in racism, slavery and white supremacy, it has long functioned as a tool of dehumanisation and oppression. For a lot of black people, hearing this word can be deeply traumatising and triggering. It is therefore understandable why so many people reacted with frustration and anger when it was broadcast in such a public setting. What is less understandable, however, is the refusal by some to apply nuance and extend the same level of understanding to the realities of a neurological disability.

Davidson’s condition includes coprolalia, the involuntary utterance of taboo or offensive language. Coprolalia is not an expression of belief or intent. It is not a window into someone’s values or beliefs. It is a neurological tic, often involving precisely the kinds of words a person would never consciously choose to say. He reportedly left the auditorium shortly after the incident, describing himself as “deeply mortified”. Despite this, many American commentators and social media users argued that the cause of the slur was irrelevant compared to the harm caused to the victims. Jamie Foxx commented below a post about the incident on social media, saying, “Unacceptable” and “Nah he meant that shit”, reflecting a broader sentiment that the disability was being used as an excuse to mask racism.

Much of the backlash against Davidson was driven by the perception that he had not apologised. However, Davidson’s team later clarified that he had reached out through professional channels to apologise personally to Jordan, Lindo, and production designer Hannah Beachler. In the digital age that we live in, private accountability is often overshadowed by the expectation of immediate public remorse. Many people immediately assumed the worst of John Davidson.

This frustration surrounding the incident was, in some instances, coupled with ableist rhetoric. Many dismissed and denied the nature of Tourette’s syndrome, with some suggesting that John should not have even attended the event at all, despite his presence being connected to his film I Swear, which aims to educate audiences about the lived experience of the condition. There was a notable cultural and geographical divide online in the reactions to the incident. In the UK, the discussion centred on Tourette’s syndrome and the responsibility of the BBC. Greater emphasis was placed on the medical context and intent. However, in the US, less grace was extended to John as the dominant lens through which this incident was seen was racial trauma. In the US, there appears to be a broader lack of public understanding about the full extent and complexity of Tourette’s, particularly the involuntary nature of certain vocal tics.

Much of the anger, therefore, was misdirected. Rather than vilifying a man for his involuntary tics, people should have focused mainly on the institutions that failed in their duty of care. Despite the ceremony being aired on a two-hour tape delay, the BBC failed to edit out the slur before it reached millions of viewers. What made this even more shocking to many was that the BBC edited out a “Free Palestine” remark from director Akinola Davies Jr.’s acceptance speech for “time restrictions”, yet allowed a racial slur to air. The unedited footage remained on BBC iPlayer for over 12 hours before being pulled for re-editing, which many viewed as a failure of basic oversight.

The BAFTAs also faced criticism for failing in their duty of care. While the audience in the hall was verbally warned about possible outbursts, arguably, BAFTA failed to provide adequate written information or context to all nominees and presenters in advance. Following the incident their response was delayed: Delroy Lindo noted that no one from BAFTA spoke to them immediately after the incident to offer support or an apology. Meanwhile, Davidson questioned why a live microphone was placed so close to his seat. This institutional failure is much harder to excuse than Davidson’s tics. The abuse that Davidson was subject to because of this institutional failure was completely unacceptable.

Ultimately, the rhetoric and discourse that followed this incident exposed the flaws in identity politics. Identity politics will not lead to real progress if people refuse to accept and understand intersectionality. Intersectionality reminds us that people experience overlapping social realities; in this case, both racism and disability rights entered into the same controversy and views on both sides were very polarised. This polarisation is exactly what critics of identity politics often point to: they claim discussions about race, disability, and representation can divide audiences rather than unify them. This division is exactly what played out in the aftermath of the BAFTAs. Some individuals who strongly identify with anti-racism movements responded in ways that perpetuated marginalisation against another vulnerable group. The ideas they suggested (segregation) echoed the very forms of structural oppression that they typically oppose.

When movements prioritise single identities without intersectional awareness, they can reproduce exclusionary logic, which weakens the broader project of social justice. In this case, many people’s rightful anger about injustice towards their race blinded them from the reality of another marginalised group. Even more concerning, for people who fall under both umbrellas, the response risked moving from advocating for social justice to competing for a higher spot on the hierarchy. This approach is somewhat dangerous because it shows that some people who claim they are fighting for social justice and equality are actually seeking to join the ranks of the dominant or oppressive class.

Critics have argued that identity politics encourages people to see themselves primarily as members of competing groups rather than as citizens with common interests. The reaction and discourse that followed the BAFTAs incident clearly demonstrated this. For social justice and equality to be achieved, there needs to be a better understanding of all forms of marginalisation and discrimination. Two things can be true at once. The incident was both an involuntary, non-racist act and a deeply harmful, racist experience.

March 24, 2026
Opinion: The UK’s Two-Party System Is Fragmenting

One can no longer say, with absolute certainty, that the UK maintains a strong two-party system. The Conservative-Labour dominance that has been a staple feature of post-war British politics has never looked weaker. In recent years, we have seen the fragmentation of the two-party system as people have become increasingly apathetic and disillusioned towards the two mainstream parties. Smaller, less established parties have moved to the forefront of British politics. This rejection of the status quo was further reinforced by the Gorton and Denton by-election result last week.

The Green Party, which has gained significant momentum since Zack Polanski became leader, won the by-election with more than 40% of the vote. Hannah Spencer garnered 14,980 votes, Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin came second with 10,578, while Labour’s Angeliki Stogia was third with 9,364. This win by the Greens is extremely significant and historic because the seat had been held by Labour for nearly 100 years, making it one of Labour’s safest seats. In the 2024 General Election, Labour took the Greater Manchester seat with more than 50% of the vote. By winning the seat with 40% of the vote, Hannah Spencer overturned a massive 13,000-vote Labour majority. It is the first time that candidates from two parties other than Labour and the Conservatives have taken both first and second place in a Westminster by-election in England.

Safe seats have long helped entrench the two-party system. The UK’s winner-takes-all, first-past-the-post electoral system means that larger, more well-established parties are rewarded as they have more concentrated support. With their support concentrated, they can secure seats with only a plurality of the vote. Smaller parties tend to have dispersed support spread too thinly across constituencies to translate into strong parliamentary representation. It is because of this that only Labour and the Conservatives have consistently been able to form governments. The Gorton and Denton result, however, suggests that this order is dwindling.

The Green Party overturning a safe seat in such dramatic fashion signals great dissatisfaction with the Labour Party and suggests that Britain’s move toward a more fragmented, multiparty political landscape can no longer be dismissed or ignored.

The signs of these seismic shifts were evident in the 2024 election results. While the Labour Party won an extremely significant majority, they only obtained 34% of the national vote share, meaning that roughly two-thirds of voters opted for other parties. This was one of the lowest vote shares for a majority government in British history. It was also the most disproportionate election ever. The result, therefore, highlighted that even though large, established parties enjoy a structural advantage under the electoral system, they are not as dominant as they once were. Their ability to govern was down to the mechanics of the electoral system rather than securing majority support from the electorate. While Labour achieved decisive institutional power, the relatively low vote share signalled a weaker voter base and a more divided and volatile political landscape. The by-election confirmed this message, as it showed that two of the key foundations of Labour’s traditional electoral coalition have crumbled.

Angela Rayner, the former deputy leader of the Labour Party, said the result was a “wake-up call” that illustrated the party needed to be “braver”. She seemed to voice that Labour needs to move more to the left. Arguably, the Labour Party has lost itself in its attempts to neutralise the threat of Reform UK. Reform UK continues to lead the polls with a policy platform focused on immigration. Labour’s attempts to counter Reform UK have involved adopting elements of its opponent’s agenda and rhetoric. When the Labour government announced its immigration proposals, around 40 Labour MPs raised concerns about the impact they would have on migrants already living here, describing the retrospective approach as “un-British” and “moving the goalposts”.

Labour’s approach, therefore, has contributed to shifting the Overton window, normalising ideas that were once considered fringe and creating political space for Reform UK’s platform. This has left many long-time Labour voters feeling disconnected from the party. The by-election confirmed this as the result shows that the Greens, who position themselves as the progressive left, can mobilise ethnic minorities and more left-wing Labour voters who feel politically homeless in Starmer’s Labour. Ultimately, Labour’s core voter base has been on the decline, but this recent result only reaffirmed this.

Exclusive polling following the election shows the Green Party have leapfrogged Labour in voting intention polls, as the second most popular UK party. The Greens, like Reform, are emerging as a serious, seat-winning electoral force. The old left and right no longer define politics – cultural issues are now a key factor. This further reinforces the UK’s shift towards a multiparty system. In a letter to his MPs, the Prime Minister said that the Green Party was no longer made up of “harmless environmentalists”. He recognises the electoral threat Labour now faces from both sides of the political spectrum. Despite this loss of a party stronghold and calls for him to resign, the Prime Minister pledged to“keep on fighting”.

The Conservatives are faring even worse than the Labour Party, as they are struggling to maintain support. With several high-profile defections to Reform UK, it appears that the traditional political order, long defined by the Conservatives as the dominant right-wing party, is clearly eroding. There is still time for both parties to regroup before the next general election, but current trends suggest they cannot solely rely on their traditional bases. The threat of the minor parties is very real. Ultimately, the Gorton and Denton by-election is an urgent signal of the need to prepare UK democracy for a multi-party future. Many agree that a new electoral system is needed to reflect this new political reality.

March 11, 2026
A Global Game In A Divided Nation: The Politics Of The 2026 FIFA World Cup

When it was announced that the United States would host the 2026 FIFA World Cup alongside Canada and Mexico, many football fans were particularly enthused because the previous two tournaments were hosted by Russia and Qatar, countries whose human-rights records and governancehad drawn intense scrutiny.

The tournament went ahead in 2018 despite Russia annexing Crimea four years earlier. Russia also stood accused of cyber attacks, meddling in Western elections and carrying out the Novichok nerve agent attack in Salisbury. In 2022, Qatar’s hosting of the World Cup was heavily criticised because of the country’s alleged violations of human rights, and specifically migrant worker rights. Also, in Qatar, homosexual acts are illegal because they are considered immoral under Islamic Sharia law, and so LGBTQ+ visitors faced significant risks of arrest and persecution.

The United States bid, therefore, looked like a breath of fresh air, at least on the surface. The United States is widely perceived as a Liberal democracy with constitutional protections of free speech, civil rights and press freedom. It is seen as a significantly more tolerant society than Russia and Qatar, with progress in rights for women and LGBTQ+ people. Given that it was a joint bid with Canada and Mexico, it also symbolised regional cooperation.

However, recent events under the current Trump administration have highlighted that the United States’ commitment to these democratic ideals is facing significant strain. Some have argued that the US is slipping into authoritarianism. Consequently, just like the previous two World Cups, politics and morality have come to dominate the conversation. Circumstances off the pitch rather than on the pitch appear to be the main topic of discussion, something that FIFA, football’s global governing organisation, won’t be too pleased about.

FIFA has long insisted that football should be divorced from politics. Historically, players have been prohibited and discouraged from expressing their political opinions, and host countries have been told that their domestic politics do not concern world football. Political protest has not been tolerated. However, FIFA was forced to shift this entrenched position after the murder of George Floyd in the US in May 2020, which sparked a global movement for racial justice and equality. FIFA embraced inclusiveness and equality as new principles, endorsing anti-racism campaigns, advancing women’s football and signalling support for diversity and LGBTQ+ rights.

Given that US President Donald Trump and his administration have, on several occasions, been accused of violating these principles, FIFA President Infantino’s continued support for Trump raises serious questions about the organisation’s authenticity. Rather than demonstrating the moral leadership it claims to embrace, FIFA appears inconsistent. On the one hand, they champion progressive politics, but on the other, they award a ‘peace prize’ to a political leader who has a record on human rights and democratic norms that contradict ideas of ‘peace’.

Ultimately, this demonstrates that the separation between football and politics is becoming increasingly untenable. Extortionate ticket prices alongside Trump’s domestic and foreign policy have only reinforced this. The political climate in which the World Cup is set to take place has become impossible to ignore. The idea that football can exist in a vacuum, untouched by its surrounding context, appears more aspirational than realistic. The United States is currently experiencing deep political polarisation, under a President who has faced accusations of racism, threatened military action against a European ally, been accused of violating international law, imposed entry bans affecting supporters of competing nations, and overseen a violent immigration crackdown, which has resulted in the killing of two Americans by federal agents in Minneapolis.

It is no surprise, therefore, that there have been increasing calls to boycott the 2026 World Cup. The German football federation vice-president, Oke Göttlich, told the Hamburger Morgenpost, “The time has definitely come to seriously consider and discuss” a boycott of the 2026 World Cup. In January, a motion signed by more than two dozen left-leaning MP’s in the UK’s Parliament called on FIFA to mandate the exclusion of the U.S. national team from the tournament along similar grounds to its barring Russia, arguing that the Trump administration’s “conduct undermines the rules-based international order.”

A boycott at this stage is unlikely, especially considering that there was no large-scale or institutional action in 2022 despite significant uproar and criticism of Qatar. However, it is still worth revisiting the specific reasons why a boycott of this year’s tournament would be understandable. Firstly, the extortionate ticket prices have inhibited many fans from attending the tournament. When ticket details were announced in December 2025, it was revealed that the cheapest tickets for the final would cost over £3,000, with total costs to follow a team for nine games potentially exceeding £5,000.

Whilst these prices are the norm for major sporting events in the US, in Europe, this is unheard of. Many European fans believe FIFA have changed their priorities. Rather than catering to loyal supporters, the pricing strategy seems aimed at maximising revenue from affluent consumers and corporate sponsors. Football fans from other nations do not even have to worry about expensive tickets, as they have been banned from attending the tournament altogether due to Donald Trump’s robust immigration policies.

In December last year, the Trump Administration announced a range of travel restrictions on dozens of countries, including Senegal, the Ivory Coast, Iran, and Haiti, which all have qualifying teams. A full ban was imposed on Haiti and Iran, meaning fans will not be able to attend matches held in the US. Ivory Coast and AFCON champions Senegal also have partial travel restrictions. The State Department said a Fifa Pass appointment does not allow people “who are otherwise not eligible” to be issued a visa, meaning fans from those four countries appear unlikely to be able to travel to the US for this summer’s tournament. This is, ultimately, a World Cup where the whole world is not welcome.

And in more ways than one. Donald Trump’s recent action of reposting a racist video depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as apes reinforces the idea that certain groups of people are not welcome in America and, consequently, at the World Cup. The dehumanisation of black people in this way is something that has occurred for hundreds of years. White supremacists use it to justify slavery and continue to use it to characterise black people as inferior. Whilst the President has attempted to downplay this recent action, its significance cannot be ignored. When a president or major political figure circulates or endorses imagery that compares Black people to animals, it normalises racism for the public. It legitimises abuse from fans, and it tells players, “Your humanity is conditional”. With the World Cup just months away, this does not send a positive message.

Calls for a boycott of the tournament have also followed the fatal incidents involving the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Trump administration’s intensified immigration crackdown. High-profile incidents, such as the fatal shootings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti by ICE agents, have fuelled widespread outrage and heightened fears among fans and visitors about safety and human rights violations.

Despite video evidence showing otherwise, senior governmental figures claimed that Renee Good and Alex Pretti were “domestic terrorists”. This blatant disregard for the truth by the Trump administration is dangerous because it normalises the spread of misinformation. Commentators have argued that a country where safety is under threat from federal violence on the streets is not fit to stage the world’s biggest sporting event.

Trump’s foreign policy has also led to calls for a boycott. At the beginning of the year, he carried out a controversial military operation in Venezuela, which resulted in the capture of Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Following this, President Trump renewed calls for the US takeover of Greenland. This was of particular concern given Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, who are a European ally of the US. This raised questions about the future of NATO and the rules-based international system that has facilitated global cooperation since the end of World War II.

As recently as Saturday, the US attacked Iran as part of a joint, ongoing operation with Israel, sparking retaliatory strikes across the Middle East. This conflict has raised questions about Iran’s participation in the tournament. The Iran Football Federation has reportedly threatened to withdraw from the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

For so long, the United States has presented itself as a global champion of democracy, of freedom, of human rights. But recent events suggest the opposite is true. We are witnessing what increasingly resembles the very regimes America claims to liberate the world from. Initially, a World Cup hosted in the United States, following tournaments in Qatar and Russia, appeared to signal a return to a more politically uncontroversial setting. However, it is clear now that this is not the case. Deep political polarisation, contentious foreign policy decisions, and mounting criticism of the current administration have complicated the narrative, raising questions about whether this World Cup will escape the political scrutiny that overshadowed previous tournaments.

March 2, 2026
The 2016 Nostalgia Trend: Why Gen Z’s Internet Throwback Reflects Political Anxiety in 2026

Since the beginning of the year, the internet has been flooded by 2016 nostalgia. From rose-tinted filters to viral Musical.ly sounds and users sharing personal 2016 photos, a strong desire to return to the past has dominated digital platforms. This trend is not limited to Gen Z; people of all ages and backgrounds have participated, underscoring how widely this sense of nostalgia isfelt. 2026 marks a decade since 2016, so it is understandable why people are looking back and reminiscing. However, the scale of this nostalgia trend was not seen last year, when a decade had passed since 2015. This suggests that what appears at first to be a harmless internet trend may reflect something deeper. Widespread nostalgia often signals dissatisfaction with the present and a longing for a mythic past. It suggests that something has gone wrong in our current reality.

Scrolling through social media feeds, amid videos and pictures referencing 2016, it has been hard to escape more serious content depicting ICE brutality in the US, widespread protests in Iran and even discussions of Trump potentially invading Greenland. Many people around the world live in constant fear and uncertainty, so it makes sense for them to retreatto a time when life felt better. When people are nostalgic, often, what they remember is not the full historical reality of that year, but how life felt. Many people participating in this trend were younger at the time and so, more shielded from economic instability, rising living costs, climate anxiety, digital overload, and constant exposure to global crises through social media. Therefore, life felt a lot easier for them.

However, 2016 was, in many ways, the beginning of the political reality we are living in today. 2016 was the year Donald Trump won his first U.S. Presidential election, an event widely viewed as the catalyst for the intensification of the political polarisation that’s plaguing America today. Through his divisive rhetoric and politicisation of nostalgia, he mobilised millions of voters by framing the present as a decline and the past as something that needed to be restored. He promised to “Make America Great Again” by building a wall to curb migration levels. However, given America’s deeply contested history marked by slavery, Jim Crow laws and gender inequality, many commentators questioned what period this “greatness” referred to.

2016 also had major political implications in the UK. This was the year of the Brexit referendum, which resulted in the UK leaving the European Union after 52% of the country voted to “take back control”. The leave campaign, like Trump, also used the tactic of politicising nostalgia, as they framed EU membership as a loss of national sovereignty, promising a return to an earlier period of independence and control. For some individuals, this period is remembered as a time of greater cultural familiarity and less visible diversity. The leave campaign exploited this sentiment by strongly emphasising immigration.

This recent trend seems to have forgotten this, instead focusing only on the positives of 2016. This is significant because it highlights that, if overindulged, nostalgia can produce a paradise that never has and never will exist, but that is pursued at all costs, taking away all joy and potential from the present. The danger of nostalgia, therefore, lies in its ability to move politics away from solving current issues towards attempting to recreate a mythic past. When this happens, progress is framed as decline, and so societies become more vulnerable to divisive rhetoric, exclusionary policies, and authoritarian leaders who promise to “restore” rather than “reform”.

Whilst this recent wave of nostalgia has mainly been felt by young people focusing on internet culture and memories of childhood, rather than something as explicitly political as national history, the underlying sentiment can align with wider political narratives. The past becomes a symbol of comfort and safety, while the present is the opposite and something we need to leave. This feeling can be manipulated into making people believe that society has moved in the wrong direction. Consequently, instead of a politics of progress and democratic debate, we get a politics of division and democratic decline.

If we look through history, we can see that authoritarian and fascist movements have often drawn on similar emotional dynamics. Leaders of these movements employ nostalgic rhetoric to highlight their country’s past greatness for their own political gain. This past greatness is often characterised by economic stability and cultural purity, which fascists/ authoritarian leaders promise to restore if given power. Fascist parties leverage this nostalgia to mobilise the working and middle classes by appealing to a shared sense of loss, exploiting cultural anxieties and economic insecurities. Walter Benjamin argued that fascism invokes a mythical past not to genuinely recover it, but to reframe the present in ways that justify oppressive policies.

In emphasising the greatness of the nation in the past, fascist nostalgia is selective and ignores significant moments in the history of the nation. Things such as colonial violence, gender and racial inequality and class exploitation are omitted from the narrative of the nation’s past, instead presenting a homogenous society that never existed in reality. By manipulating cultural memory, fascism seeks to align popular discontent with its agenda, diverting anger away from the capitalist system and toward fabricated enemies of the state, such as immigrants or different cultural influences. The rise of far-right politics across Europe and America has coincided with an increase in this political tactic.

The 2016 nostalgia trend is an important reminder that a longing for the past can be exploited and manipulated for political gain. What begins as a desire for old trends and memes can evolve into a broader belief that the past was inherently better than the present. History illustrates how easily this feeling of longing can be redirected toward exclusion, blame, and promises of national restoration. Nostalgia itself is not a dangerous emotion to feel. It reflects humans’ natural desire for stability and security. The risk arises when these desires are directed toward chasing a version of the past that never truly existed.

February 12, 2026
From Abuse to Activism: Celta Vigo Tackles Homophobia and Toxic Masculinity in Football

Photo by Wesley Fávero on Unsplash

During a match against Sevilla in January, Borja Iglesias was the subject of horrific homophobic abuse. Opposition fans weaponised the striker’s creativity by making derogatory references to his painted nails. In a powerful stand against this discrimination, Celta Vigo players and supporters wore nail polish in the following game against Rayo Vallecano to show solidarity with their player and also to demonstrate that homophobia has no place in football. Rainbow flags were also waved in the stands. After the game, Celta posted a picture of their players with their nail art with the caption: “Against Hate, Together.” This is significant because it demonstrates that football clubs can redirect something negative into something positive.

Iglesias has painted his fingernails for years. In past interviews, he has said that he began doing it to highlight important social issues and stand against injustice and intolerance in society. The fact that something as small and simple as nail polish provoked such hostility highlights just how fragile and archaic ideas of masculinity are within football and, more broadly, sports culture. Since its inception, football has been characterised as a sport for men that demands toughness and aggression.

These are traits that are typically viewed as masculine. For decades, these rigid expectations excluded women from playing the game and also men who do not act in accordance with hyper-masculine norms. Football continues to confine anyone who attempts to step outside of the very narrow ideas of masculinity and gender norms. Whilst there have been attempts to eradicate these stereotypes and welcome the LGBTQ+ community, these have mainly been symbolic rather than transformative.

Campaigns such as rainbow laces are symbolic acts that do well to signal awareness and discussion of the issue, but they often fail to confront the deeper cultural attitudes that are strongly ingrained within fan behaviour, locker room norms and footballing institutions. They have not done enough to change the narratives within football. The positive response of the Celta Vigo supporters and players shows that, in some instances, symbolic acts can become acts of resistance, reshaping the narrative by challenging entrenched ideas of masculinity in football.

A week before the Celta Vigo incident, Josh Cavallo, the first man to come out as gay while playing elite football, accused his former club Adelaide United of “internal homophobia” before his exit in 2025. In a statement, he wrote: “It’s hard to swallow when I realised my own club was homophobic. I was angry because people thought I was sidelined based on injuries, when in reality, it was internal homophobia that kept me on the bench.” A spokesperson for the club said it “categorically rejects” these claims.

However, the fact that this was how he was made to feel is significant in itself. It illustrates that even when institutions publicly align themselves with inclusion and equality, the internal structures of these institutions prohibit any real progress. It also highlights that homophobia in football is not simply limited to chants in the stands. Football is supposed to be a unifying sport that brings people together, but instead, we still see attempts to keep those who do not confine themselves to traditional ideals of football culture pushed out.

The abuse that Borja Iglesias was a victim of only reinforces this. Its institutions and cultures often reproduce the same exclusionary politics taking place in society, showing that sport doesn’t escape politics, it reflects and magnifies it. As football is a microcosm for society, it reflects the wider political and cultural shift which has seen progress stalled for a return back to a more fixed, traditional social order where conformity is rewarded and difference is treated as a threat rather than something to be celebrated.

In the past few years, across Europe and America, there has been a significant rise in right-wing populism. Appeals to traditional social norms have marked this. Policies and rhetoric from these growing movements have framed LGBTQ+ rights as a threat. The effect of this has been seen through fan behaviour and institutional hesitation. Recent years have seen backlash to rainbow armbands, hostility toward women’s football gaining legitimacy, and abuse toward players who don’t fit hyper-masculine norms. The rise of the right doesn’t just influence what governments do; it shapes what is socially acceptable, who is celebrated and who is marginalised, on the pitch, in stadiums, and across the global fanbase.

A cultural shift is unlikely if powerful institutions do not challenge this, and if inclusion continues to be treated as a symbolic performance rather than astructural necessity. Moments like Celta Vigo supporters painting their nails in solidarity show that progressive politics is still an option. Until governing bodies and institutions move beyond risk-avoidance, progress will continue to be uneven and vulnerable to backlash.

February 6, 2026

Imani Adesanya

February 6, 2026
Opinion: By-elections should be automatically triggered when MPs defect to another party

When an MP defects, it means that they leave their original party to join another or become an independent. With Reform UK leading in the polls, many Tory MPs feel like the Conservative Party is getting pushed out of electoral relevancy. In the 2024 general election, the Conservative Party suffered their worst ever electoral defeat, winning just 121 seats. This number has since decreased, with several MPs abandoning the party by defecting to Reform. For so long, the two party system has ensured electoral success only for the Labour and conservative Parties. However, with the declining popularity of the two main parties, many believe that the two party system is fragmenting.

The past week reinforced this as the Conservative Party was hit with several defections. On Sunday, the MP for Romford, Andrew Rosindell, became the latest Tory to defect to Reform. He stated that Reform UK is “ the only political movement that is genuinely willing to fight for the best interests of the United Kingdom”, and said that he now believes “the Conservative Party is irreparably bound to the mistakes of previous governments and unwilling to take meaningful accountability for the poor decisions made over so many issues”.

This move came after Robert Jenrick, the former shadow justice secretary and main rival to Kemi Badenoch in the conservative leadership contest, dramatically defected to Reform on Thursday. Jenrick became the most senior Tory MP so far to switch allegiances. Jenrick was unable to announce his defection in the way he had hoped. This is because, earlier in the day, Kemi Badenoch suspended him from the party and removed the Conservative whip after finding “irrefutable evidence” that he was planning to defect. Jenrick became the most senior Tory MP so far to switch allegiances.

Prior to Jenrick’s defection, on Monday 12 January, Nadhim Zahawi, the former Tory chancellor was the most senior MP to have switched allegiances. Despite criticising Nigel Farage in the past, Mr Zahawi said: “I’ve made my mind up that the team that will deliver for this nation will be the team that Nigel will put together and that’s why I’ve decided that I’m joining Reform.” These events have raised questions about the future of the Conservative party. This is because, if more MPs defect to Reform UK, then Reform UK may take the mantle as the main centre right party in British politics, putting an end to the two party system.

They have also sparked debate about the wider consequences of political defection. This is because the act of defecting contradicts democratic ideals, as it violates the mandate upon which the defector was elected and betrays the will of the voter. During their campaign they would have promoted party policies and ideas. Ideally, when an MP decides that they want to defect to another political party, a by-election should be automatically triggered to allow the constituents the opportunity to have their democratic right to agree or not with their elected official. It should go both ways. However, there is no rule forcing them to. There is currently a petition, with over 100,000 signatures, for this very issue to be debated in Parliament.

Those who oppose this idea point to the way our electoral system works. In theory, at a general election, the electorate votes for an individual, not a political party, to be elected as a member of parliament to represent their constituency. Therefore, individual MPs should be free to develop their own arguments once elected, until it is time to face the voters in the next general election. As Edmund Burke argued, members of parliament are a representative of their constituency, rather than a delegate of a particular party. However, in practice, most of the electorate votes for a political party. Typically they vote for or against the two main political parties. The nature of the two party system forces people to vote tactically for the party they would rather see form government. They form this decision based on the main policies of each party.

Therefore, it isn’t really fair for an MP to suddenly switch allegiances during a parliamentary term when they would have been elected on a different policy platform from the one they later choose to support. An X post from 2019 shows that Reform UK, who now benefit from these defections, used to hold the same opinion.

In 2019, the Reform UK X account posted “We need a complete political reform. Voters should be able to use the existing recall system to force by-elections on MPs who change parties mid-parliament.” As it is no longer to their benefit, Reform UK seems to have abandoned this belief. However, in order to ensure accountability and representation are sufficiently upheld, it is imperative that this issue is more widely discussed and considered by Parliament.

This is a political debate that will not go away. As the petition circulating online has reached 100,000 signatures it will be considered for debate. Ultimately, in a system where party identity plays a pivotal role in shaping the outcomes of elections, sudden changes in party loyalty can be seen as breaching the trust of the electorate and undermining the principle that political power should derive from the informed consent of the electorate.

January 26, 2026
Iran protests slow after brutal crackdown by the regime

What has happened?

Since 28 December 2025, Iran has been marred by unrest, as a series of protests, aimed at the Islamic Republic Government, erupted across the country. Whilst it is now being reported that protests have slowed, it is important to recognise that this is due to the callous crackdown, as opposed to citizens having their voices heard and demands met.

According to the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency, more than 3000 people have been killed in the regime’s violent response to anti government protests. This brutal response has suppressed many Iranians, silencing dissent through fear and force, while leaving their grievances unresolved. This ruthless attack on freedom of expression underscores the authoritarian character of the regime and highlights the urgency needed to address the country’s deep social and political issues.

Protest and uprising have been prominent features of Iran, shaping the political structure that it acquires today. The Islamic Revolution that occurred in 1979 is fundamental for understanding Iran’s current political landscape. This revolution was a widespread uprising against the Western backed autocratic monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. After successfully removing Pahlavi, Iran became an Islamic theocracy led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. This significantly changed Iran’s political structure and ushered in decades of clerical rule and significant geopolitical shifts.

Why are Iranians protesting?

Decades on from this, Iran finds itself in another unstable political climate. The recent protests have been described as the most serious bout of unrest the government has faced since the 1979 revolution. But what sparked such a movement in the first place? As with any large scale uprising, there are a multitude of factors that intersect to cause it. The catalyst for this movement, however, has strong roots in economics.

Many Iranians began taking to the streets after a sudden collapse in the value of the country’s currency. Over the past few years Iranians have been suffering with deep economic issues. Their purchasing power has fallen by more than 90 percent and food prices have soared by an average of 72 percent. Due to this, public frustration only intensified further. It is this frustration that culminated in shopkeepers and bazaar merchants in Tehran staging a strike as a response to the Iranian currency hitting an all-time low against the US dollar. These strikes led to the protest movement that has spread to all 31 provinces. These protests initially focused on the economic crisis, but quickly expanded to demand political reform and an end to the rule of Iran’s supreme leader.

The Iranian government has called the protests “riots” backed by Iran’s enemies. The regime’s response has been marked by a significant scale of violence which has so far succeeded in quashing protests and driving people off the streets. Protesters were met with lethal force and videos of security forces shooting at protestors have been authenticated by the BBC. Many relatives overseas have been slow to find out whether their family members are victims of this abhorrent violence, as the Iranian regime shut down the internet.

Why has the regime shut down the internet?

The significance of the internet shutdown cannot be understated. It represents a deliberate attempt by the regime to cut off a vital tool that has, in the past, stimulated mass mobilisation, the documentation of power abuse and global solidarity. The Arab spring is often referred to as the “Facebook Revolution” because social media platforms acted as a pivotal tool for organising demonstrations, spreading information and building international awareness of uprisings that were happening. Social media platforms, therefore, remain a vital tool for resistance. The Iranian regime recognised this and imposed a near total internet and communications shutdown to regain control of the narrative and to stop first hand accounts of what’s going on.

This is not the first time that Iran has adopted this strategy. During the demonstrations in 2019 and 2022 there were nationwide internet shutdowns. Freedom campaigners at Access Now say Iran has consistently used shutdowns as a way to mask mass violence and brutal crackdowns on protesters. However, the current internet blackout has lasted longer than any previous shutdown.

Will there be US intervention?

The events in Iran have been met with significant international scrutiny. In the past few weeks US President Donald Trump has spoken a lot on the matter. He threatened “very strong action” if the Iranian authorities executed 26-year-old protester Erfan Soltani. On Tuesday 13 January, Trump urged Iranians to “keep protesting”, telling them “help is on its way”. Many people suspected that there would be military intervention from the US. However, 24 hours later, the US President told reporters that he had received assurances that planned executions of protesters would not now proceed and so retreated from military intervention in Iran.

Despite Trump’s aggressive foreign policy at the start of this year, US intervention works directly against Trump’s promise to not engage the US in new wars. It is important to note that Iran is not Venezuela. Iran has significant military capabilities, allies who are very anti-US and they have already stated that if the US intervenes they will retaliate and target military bases. It also goes without saying that US intervention would not necessarily benefit Iranians as the US has little credibility when it comes to protecting innocent lives in the middle east. Whilst it may be in Trump’s interest to not intervene, many Iranian protestors feel abandoned as killings have continued.

On Saturday 17 January, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamene, publicly acknowledged the thousands of killings that have occurred during the protests and blamed them on the US. “Those linked to Israel and the US caused massive damage and killed several thousand,” Khamenei said, quoted by Iranian state media. He also labelled the US President a “criminal” for the “casualties, damages and slander he inflicted on the Iranian nation.”

In Iran, many protesters remain unsure about taking to the streets again. The future of the country remains uncertain. Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s former pro-western monarch, has predicted the fall of the Islamic regime and has claimed he is “uniquely” placed to head a successor government. However, this has been questioned s has not been in Iran since his family fled the country at the beginning of the 1979 Islamic revolution. A wide range of paths exist, from continued stagnation and authoritarian consolidation, to prolonged instability or, eventually, meaningful transformation.

January 26, 2026
TRUMP’S GREENLAND MISSION

Home to just 56,000 people, Greenland finds itself at the centre of a geopolitical storm. After carrying out a controversial military operation in Venezuela, which resulted in the capturing of Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, President Trump has renewed calls for the US takeover of Greenland. This has raised questions about the future of NATO and the rules based international system that has facilitated global cooperation since the end of World war two.

Speaking to NBC News on Monday evening, the US president said “We need Greenland for national security.” He said, “It’s so strategic. Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place.” He stated that he is “very serious” in his intent of acquiring the country. The White House has further reinforced this stance, saying that Trump has been discussing “a range of options” to obtain Greenland, including military action. While Trump has previously expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, these latest remarks are being treated with greater seriousness due to his recent actions in Venezuela.

Greenland is a region that sits off the northeastern coast of Canada, and has more than 80 per cent of its territory lying within the Arctic Circle. It is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, governing its own affairs while Denmark retains control over defence and security. As Denmark is a member of NATO– the intergovernmental military alliance whose purpose is to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means- Trump’s ambitions are especially concerning.

Article 5 of the treaty dictates that “an armed attack against one or more” in Europe or North America shall be considered “an attack against them all”. But what happens if the threat comes from the treaty’s most powerful member? The US explicitly and forcibly challenging the historical sovereignty of Denmark, an ally, would surely signal the US’s departure from, and potentially the end of, the alliance. It would create a highly unstable international system that would only benefit rival powers such as Russia and China. Russia may feel emboldened to make further advances in Europe while NATO is in chaos. The Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, has expressed this and has also made it clear that the US has no right to Greenland.

The Prime Minister stated, “If the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War”. She also said, “the US has no right to annex any of the three countries in the Danish Kingdom.” The Danish Prime Minister and Greenland has received the support of several European leaders including French President Emmanuel Macron and United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who issued a joint statement on Tuesday saying that “Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland alone to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland”.

Given Greenland’s small population and relatively low profile in global affairs, some might ask why Trump is so interested in it and why the issue has gained such attention. The answer lies in its strategic location and natural resources, which make it attractive to the US. It is strategically located in the Arctic Ocean, between the US and Russia, in the midst of major shipping routes. Climate change is causing the Arctic ice to melt, potentially creating a Northwest Passage for international trade and reigniting competition with Russia and China. Greenland is also rich in natural resources. It has rare earth minerals that are a key component of mobile phones, computers, batteries and other hi-tech gadgets. As well as this, it has billions of untapped barrels of oil and a vast supply of natural gas that used to be inaccessible but is becoming increasingly accessible due to melting ice sheets caused by climate change. Therefore, this is not solely a matter of national security, but also one of economic security.

Ultimately, Trump and the US are acting as powerful states traditionally do under realist theory.

Realism holds that states are power seeking actors, operating in an anarchic world, with no central authority to enforce rules. This compels states to prioritise survival, security, and the accumulation of power. Whilst there are international organisations that attempt to enforce international norms and rules, as realist theory argues, these institutions remain subordinate to state interests and power politics. Trump’s latest actions and comments reinforce this idea.

His desire to acquire Greenland reflects a rational attempt to strengthen strategic positioning in the Arctic, secure access to emerging trade routes and resources, and prevent rival powers such as Russia and China from gaining influence.

Trump’s behaviour can therefore be understood as a continuation of great-power politics, where strategic advantage outweighs legal norms, alliances, and the rules-based international order.

It appears that the rules-based international order is increasingly giving way to a system governed more by capability than by law. This shift risks accelerating great-power competition and undermining international security.

January 13, 2026

Imani Adesanya

January 13, 2026
TRUMP ATTACKS VENEZUALA: Is this the end of the rules based international system?

When questioned by a reporter what his new year’s resolution was, President Trump responded “Peace. Peace on Earth”. Three days later he launched an unprecedented attack on Venezuela. On Saturday 3 January, the FIFA peace prize recipient announced a large-scale US strike on Venezuela and the capturing of Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. The couple have now been indicted in New York on terrorism and drugs charges. Trump says the US is going to “run” Venezuela “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition”. The attack saw at least 40 people, including civilians and Venezuelan soldiers, die. Therefore it appears Mr Trump is going to have to find another new year’s resolution.

No one will mourn the removal of Nicolas Maduro. In fact, many Venezuelan immigrants in the US and the UK have celebrated his capture, saying “it is impossible not to feel relief”. The Venezuelan leader is seen by many as a dictator as he relied on the secret police, disappearances and persecution to keep his grip on power. He has run an authoritarian state since 2013 with the help of elections widely regarded as rigged and fraudulent. Over seven million Venezuelans fled the country during his rule. So now there is one less dictator in the world terrorising its people. Whilst some people may consider this to be a victory, it cannot be denied that the manner in which he was removed is deeply troubling and raises significant geopolitical concerns about international law and state sovereignty.

This military operation appears to have little to no legal or constitutional authority. The US has ultimately invaded a sovereign nation without UN authorisation, kidnapped a sitting head of state and has done so acting not on the basis of international law but on its own domestic law. State sovereignty is the principle that a state holds supreme and independent authority over its territory and people, free from external control. The US’s actions, therefore, are a serious cause for concern because it sends a message that as long as you have the military clout you can do what you want, to whoever you want, on the international stage. It highlights the erosion of the rules based international order, where law is increasingly overshadowed by power. The geopolitical implications of this are very dangerous. Other powerful nations such as China may feel empowered to pursue their own territorial and strategic ambitions by force.

The public justification of this military operation by the Trump administration has been about drugs. Trump has been focused on fighting the influx of drugs – especially fentanyl and cocaine – into the US. He has framed this attack on Venezuela as a broader war on narcotics and has accused Maduro of running a “narco terrorist organisation”. Without providing evidence, Trump has also accused Maduro of “emptying his prisons and insane asylums” and “forcing” its inmates to migrate to the US. From the justification some may argue that Trump is simply acting in the national interest to protect the American population from the alleged flow of drugs and criminal networks linked to Maduro. Framed this way, the operation can be presented as a defensive measure aimed at safeguarding public health and domestic security, rather than as an overtly aggressive act against a sovereign state.

However, it would be illogical to think that this is the only reason for the attack. In fact, many of Trump’s claims about drugs have been criticised as there is little evidence.

For example, counternarcotic experts have explained that Venezuela is a minor player when it comes to global drug trafficking. Cocaine is mainly produced in Colombia and most of it is said to enter the US through other routes, rather than Venezuela. Fentanyl, the other drug that Trump has raised concerns about, is mainly produced in Mexico and enters the US almost exclusively via land through its southern border.

Therefore, it would appear that the central basis of justification for this attack is very weak. Realist international relations theory teaches us that states are self-interested, power-seeking actors driven by survival in an anarchic world. This means that they will use any means necessary to achieve their aims. In this case, the US has ignored the principle of state sovereignty in order to achieve its objectives. For some, its objectives extend beyond the stated aim of combating drug trafficking. Maduro and political commentators have accused the US of using the so-called “war on drugs” as a pretext to secure access to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves of any country in the world, making it an especially attractive target for external influence and intervention. Therefore, it is hard to believe that the rationale behind this military operation was drug-related.

Analysis from Sky News highlights exactly why Trump may be seeking access to Venezuelan oil. Whilst the US is the world’s largest oil producer, it primarily produces light crude. However, most of its refineries are designed to process heavy oil. Because upgrading refineries would cost billions, the US remains heavily dependent on imports of heavy crude, exporting much of its own oil while importing thousands of barrels daily for refineries in Texas and Louisiana. Venezuela, therefore, is strategically important because it holds some of the world’s largest reserves of heavy oil.

The significance of oil in this whole situation was reinforced by President Trump during his press conference on Saturday in which oil was referred to more than a dozen times. Trump said Venezuela had “stolen” oil from the US and that it would now be taken back. This belief that the oil had been stolen is based on Venezuela’s nationalisation of its oil industry between the 1970s and the 2000s, forcing most US oil companies out. The president also claimed US occupation “won’t cost a penny” as the country will be reimbursed from “money coming out of the ground”. He explained that he plans to have major American energy multinationals invest “billions and billions of dollars” to rebuild the country’s “rotted” oil infrastructure.

Clearly, this has never been solely about drugs. The US’s actions therefore set a dangerous precedent. Whilst the fall of a dictator may offer short-term satisfaction, when achieved at the expense of state sovereignty and the rules based international system, it risks contributing to a more dangerous and unpredictable world.

January 12, 2026

Imani Adesanya

January 12, 2026