The international security landscape at the onset of 2026 is more volatile than at any time since World War II—and it is only growing more dangerous. Armed conflicts are at their highest level in decades, and interstate wars are resurgent across multiple theaters. Countries are acquiring dangerous new capabilities that have made once unreachable locations focused targets.
This moment is not simply one of multiple growing risks that face the United States—it is one of deepening involvement. Across the globe, Washington is no longer a distant arbiter or offshore balancer. It is a participant, a mediator, or even a direct combatant.
The first days of 2026 took an unprecedented turn when the United States executed a military operation against Venezuela that culminated in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, who were transported to New York to face federal charges on narcotics and weapons trafficking. President Donald Trump publicly asserted that the U.S. would “run” Venezuela to stabilize the country and restore order, framing the intervention as part of a longterm campaign against narco-terrorism and foreign illicit influence in the Western Hemisphere. The United States would also take control of Venezuela’s oil fields.
Maduro’s capture and arrest mark a dramatic escalation in U.S. policy toward Caracas and beyond. It signals a willingness to deploy force beyond traditional theaters against regimes deemed hostile to U.S. interests. Since returning to office, Trump has bombed Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen and attacked boats in the both Caribbean and Pacific. While the president projected isolationist views during his campaign, he has so far adopted a neo-interventionist approach.
The consequences — legal, geopolitical, and humanitarian — extend far beyond Venezuela’s oil fields, however. The Trump administration is now facing policy if not strategic overreach. It is decisively involved in seeking the resolution of the war in Ukraine. The president also is the Chairman of the Board of Peace, an international body established to oversee the governance and reconstruction of Gaza, as well as the disarmament of both Hezbollah and Hamas. His administration must also “run” Venezuela—a country of over 28 million that is twice the size of California. What are the prospects for these three crises and what are the implications for policy?
Venezuela: A Fragmented and Unstable Political Landscape
In the immediate aftermath of Maduro’s capture, Venezuela entered political limbo. Vice President Delcy Rodríguez quickly assumed the role of interim president with backing from the security services and Venezuelan Supreme Court, but her legitimacy is contested by large segments of the population and a fractured opposition. Her elevation is widely seen as an extension of Maduro’s authoritarian regime rather than a genuine step towards political renewal and democracy. The Trump administration’s endorsement of her has dismayed many— including Trump allies.
At the same time, power on the ground is increasingly diffused. Armed colectivos—progovernment paramilitary groups created to defend the Maduro regime—have cracked down on any sign of dissent through widespread intimidation, attacking individuals perceived as sympathetic to the U.S. intervention. The state’s growing reliance on them could show that the state’s monopoly on force has eroded. Without a credible transitional framework, competing factions—within the ruling party, the security services, and the opposition—are likely to deepen political instability. Trump’s decision to rely on the current ruling class could very easily backfire and lead to greater societal unrest.
Economically, the country remains trapped in a structural crisis that Maduro’s removal cannot quickly reverse. Venezuela’s most valuable asset, its vast oil reserves, is hampered by the catastrophic decline of the state oil company and years of underinvestment. The United States has moved to control and sell Venezuelan crude oil as part of its stabilization strategy, but reviving meaningful production will take years, billions in foreign investment, and a degree of political stability that simply does not exist.
A growing number of oil executives in U.S. firms have indicated that they cannot invest in Venezuela’s oil production without greater security commitments, but there are other issues as well. Sanctions remain in place, legal frameworks for foreign firms are unclear, and questions abound over who will control revenue. Investors are wary of entering a market where political outcomes are uncertain, and the risk of future expropriation or contract reversal remains high. Inflation, currency instability, collapsing public services, and declining purchasing power continue to define daily life. The Rodriguez government faces the paradox of needing revenue to restore the oil sector while lacking the basic institutional capacity to manage that revenue effectively.
Venezuela is also a bad economic bet because of its unpaid debts and Trump’s call for them to repay U.S. firms for nationalized assets. The president could demand that Venezuela pay the legal judgements that Exxon and Conoco secured for the 2007 nationalization of its oil assets, but that would cost the country around $12 billion in total. Venezuela also hasn’t paid its bonds in years. That debt, which it largely owes to China, is now staggering. Bondholders are currently owed, including unpaid interest, as much as $100 billion. Venezuela’s total external debt is estimated to be about $170 billion. Venezuela’s recovery, in other words, is not a matter of pumping more oil—it requires rebuilding the foundations of the state.
Ukraine: War, Diplomacy, and Strategic Limits
Approaching the fourth year of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine remains in a grinding strategic stalemate that has exacted immense human and economic costs. In late 2025, U.S. and Ukrainian officials pursued negotiations for a ceasefire framework after President Donald Trump signaled support for a broad plan previously discussed between U.S. intermediaries and the Kremlin.
Recent diplomatic engagements, including negotiations between the Ukrainian and U.S. presidents, have edged toward a comprehensive peace proposal aimed at ending the war, but core territorial and security issues—most notably the future of the Donbas region and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant—remain unresolved. European and NATO partners continue to play a role in these talks, with France and the UK committing to deploying troops to Ukraine if a ceasefire agreement is reached, but the United States is the linchpin of both financing and security guarantees. Russia, meanwhile, seems interested in keeping the peace talks—and the war—going without making any concessions.
Ukraine’s ability to resist Russian aggression remains heavily dependent on Washington’s military support—particularly advanced air-defense systems, spare parts for existing weapon systems, ammunition, and intelligence—even as Kyiv and Western capitals pursued a fragile and at times directionless peace process in late 2025. This has left Ukraine’s leadership to face a diplomatic paradox: signaling willingness to negotiate to sustain Western support while resisting terms that would amount to de facto surrender on core issues of territory and security guarantees. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy illustrated another aspect of this dynamic in a recent interview when he noted that polls show the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians support ending the war—but an equal number also oppose territorial concessions.
Meanwhile, recent reporting has underscored how deeply the United States remains involved in Ukraine’s military strategy than publicly acknowledged. U.S. intelligence, targeting assistance, and strategic planning have been integral to Ukrainian operations well beyond simple materiel transfers. This level of integration has included support for long-range strikes on Russian infrastructure and energy targets, often guided by U.S. intelligence to help Ukrainian forces penetrate sophisticated air defenses and prioritize economically significant targets. Such cooperation reflects a deep partnership that, while carefully managed to avoid an overt American combat role, nonetheless makes the United States a strategic architect of key aspects of Ukraine’s military posture.
Gaza and the Middle East: Temporary Arrangements, Enduring Instability
In Gaza, Phase I of the post-war arrangement is largely complete, but Phase II has not begun. Israeli forces now control roughly half of Gaza, while negotiations focusing on disarming Hamas and establishing a viable governing authority appear to be at a stalemate. The proposed ”Board of Peace” chaired by Trump remains ill-defined, though Israel recently announced that it would be led by former UN Mideast Envoy Nickolay Mladenov—a Bulgarian diplomat.
Plans for an international security force, potentially led by a U.S. general and staffed by troops from Muslim-majority countries, face structural and political challenges. Many potential contributors are unwilling to deploy forces absent even symbolic Palestinian Authority participation in future governance and have little appetite for confronting Hamas directly.
The Israeli government’s expansion of settlements in the West Bank has further undermined prospects for a two-state solution, drawing condemnation from European states and Japan. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite awarding Trump Israel’s highest civilian honor during a December visit, faces acute political choices in 2026: whether to pursue normalization with Saudi Arabia that require at least a gesture towards a “two-state” solution, whether to formalize annexation of the West Bank, and whether to sustain military exemptions for ultraOrthodox men as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) confront rising manpower shortages. His political future will depend on the choices he makes, and any of them could destroy his political career.
Meanwhile, regional stability hinges on unresolved flashpoints in Lebanon, Syria, and the growing risk of another confrontation with Iran, whose leaders must now decide whether on a strategic alternative—negotiations to limit development of a nuclear weapon or an accelerated effort to acquire a nuclear deterrent. It is worth noting that Iran also faces a major economic crisis with the collapse of the Iranian rial. This has led to nationwide protests, the likes of which have not been seen in many years. The regime in Tehran is more vulnerable than at any time since the 1979 revolution. This could mean fresh opportunities for the country, or it could lead to dangerous internal instability.
Defense Budget, War Powers, and Strategic Priorities
Trump announced on January 7 that he would ask Congress for a $1.5 trillion defense budget. This is a massive increase over the recently passed FY2026 defense budget and reflects the ballooning costs of Trump’s military ambitions. He has directed a dramatic increase in operations abroad, announced his Golden Dome air defense effort, and called for the production of 20 to 25 battleships. The latter two items cannot be pursued under current funding levels.
The $900 billion National Defense Authorization budget for FY2026 (NDAA) reflects Congress’s commitment to increase global military capabilities amid rising great-power competition. Yet broader conflict trends reveal a tension between the scale of U.S. resources and rising global commitments. It further shows a growing divide between the Congress and White House on the nation’s security strategy. While some theaters—such as Ukraine or NATO—enjoy explicit congressional support and clear mission parameters, others, like Venezuela and expanding Middle Eastern engagements, do not.
This increasing bifurcation has consequences beyond even serious legal questions of Presidential authority. It affects budgeting priorities within the Pentagon and planning for future operations. When defense funding flows without clear legislative questions about scope, end states, or strategic trade-offs, it becomes easier for the executive branch to undertake openended commitments that may not align with broader U.S. interests or public sentiment. At the same time, future conflict risks—whether in the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East, or even closer to the U.S. border—will demand disciplined prioritization and preventive diplomacy.
Fiscal discipline, constitutional accountability, and preventive diplomacy must be central components of an American national security strategy as the nation begins the new year. Otherwise, the world’s growing roster of violent conflicts will pull U.S. attention and resources in competing directions, potentially weakening its position precisely when global leadership is most needed.