On December 5, the White House released its new “National Security Strategy.” The published document provides deeper insights into the plans of US imperialism, particularly in light of the existential crisis of capitalism. Chinese imperialism is frequently mentioned and regarded as the “greatest competitor” of the USA. The entire document is embedded in the “America First / MAGA” credo of the Trump administration. Various commentators interpret this national strategy as a counterpart to the former Monroe Doctrine of 1823—unmistakably bearing Trump’s handwriting. The Monroe Doctrine was the US policy of halting European colonial ambitions on the American continent; in return, the Europeans were not to fear colonial attempts by the USA. In the subsections of the national strategy document of 2025, analyses and forecasts are presented regarding various regions of the world—America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In this article, we will focus primarily on the statements concerning the regions of Europe and the Middle East.
Europe
In times of constant danger of a possible third war of partition among the imperialists, we can observe a clear sharpening of fronts. On one side stands Western imperialism under the leadership of the USA; on the other, we find the states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation under the leadership of China and—with reservations—Russia. According to its strategy plan, the USA primarily wants to focus on its main adversary China, which is why it will curb its patronage over Europe (NATO). In the future, European states are increasingly to learn to “stand on their own feet.” This is also an expression of the contradictions within the imperialist blocs; ultimately, they can wage war against each other—according to the internal logic of the system—if they want to tear off the largest possible piece of the pie for themselves. And in this, US imperialism wants to maintain its lead over the European states. We see another expression of these contradictions in the Ukraine issue as well. Initially, the USA vigorously supported Ukraine in the war against Russia; for about a year now, US practice and tone toward Ukraine have been changing. Trump’s good relations with Putin, as well as developments in Syria in favour of expanding US influence—which have materialised in the installation of the US-loyal HTS at the head of the state—give rise to the suspicion that both states, in return, have made Ukraine the subject of further negotiations—this time in Russia’s favour. The document repeatedly states that the USA rates Russia—in relation to China—as economically far weaker and locates Russia’s main strength in its military power in the field of nuclear weapons. European forces would have major advantages over Russia in all military matters—except the nuclear domain. It is certainly interesting that the USA wants to establish strategic stability in its relations with Russia; for Russia primarily pursues regional interests, which the USA can accept as long as they are not directly affected. The NATO states, especially Germany and France as the two strongest, continue to stick to their plan to continue supporting the war in Ukraine in order to tie down Russia economically and militarily and to admit Ukraine into NATO. To this end, Germany in particular has made great sacrifices by ending its pragmatic relations with Russian imperialism as a favourable energy importer, only to obtain more oil from Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan. Now, US imperialism is leaving its European allies to fend for themselves and offering them the opportunity to buy more weapons from it. Whether they then pass these on to Ukraine in exchange for credit payments is no longer of great importance to the USA. The USA wants to end the perception of NATO as a constantly expanding alliance and, above all, prevent it from becoming reality. Anti-democratic actions by European states—for example, against the majority of people’s desire to end the war in Ukraine—would also be undermined. Moreover, the USA is greatly concerned about developments in Europe. In 20 years, if nothing changes, it would be unrecognisable—what is attributed, among other things, to waves of migration. It is also unclear whether certain European countries have sufficient economic and military strength to remain US allies in the future. With “great optimism” about the rise of right-wing parties, the document announces that it will “cultivate resistance to Europe’s current course within the European nations”—which in turn means the latent support of fascist forces in order to torpedo the EU. For some time now, Germany and France have been striving—if only to a limited extent—to break away from dependence on the USA in order to be able to wage wars independently in the future. It therefore remains to be seen how they will behave following this strategy. However, Germany’s Chancellor Merz has already mentioned that he can understand some of the content, while some is unacceptable from a European perspective. Yet German imperialism cannot simply detach itself from the USA, for—as Merz added—the USA also urgently needs partners. Even if they cannot make anything of Europe, they should at least make Germany a partner.
Middle East
With regard to the Middle East, the document also provides several insights into US strategy. It should be noted at the outset that many of the things written down in the document have already been implemented and practised for some time; they are reality. At the beginning, it explains why the Middle East was a strategically important location for the USA over the last 50 years: because it is one of the world’s largest energy exporters, consequently became a site of intense power struggles among imperialists, and because these conflicts carried the risk of spreading to other regions. Two of these three reasons no longer apply in this way; for example, due to the fact that the energy issue is now diversified, and secondly because the USA now holds the most advantageous position in the region. The main US objectives are accordingly: 1. To prevent energy resources from falling into the hands of enemies (this means China, even if not named explicitly), 2. to keep the Strait of Hormuz in southern Iran open (important sea route for oil transports), 3. the same with regard to the Red Sea (Israeli ships are attacked on this trade route by the Houthis in Yemen), 4. counter-terrorism in the region, and 5. to guarantee Israel’s security. The USA envisages that in the future the Middle East will be known less for its oil and more as a “source of international investment.” The collaborating bourgeoisie should thus be able to carry out diversifications and advance the exploitation and sell-off of earthly and subterranean resources in other sectors. Elsewhere it is written that the leaderships of the Gulf states must be accepted as they are and interest-guided relations maintained. The fact that it was precisely they who, a year ago, dethroned Assad in favour of Ahmad al-Shaara and are now openly threatening Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon with destabilisation (or setting Israel on them) is omitted here. The Abraham Accords—the agreement aimed at normalising relations with Israel—continue to have top priority in order to protect its own vassal Israel. Here, too, contradictions between the USA and Israel become visible, for Israel’s unbridled drive to annex further territories and eliminate Palestinian life deprives the USA of the ground for successful negotiations. For under the current conditions, Saudi Arabia cannot sign the Abraham Accords without turning the entire Arab world against itself. It is clear that the USA will continue to try to persuade the states of the region to sign this agreement. The problem in Syria—meaning the consolidation of the HTS government with an expansion across all of Syria—can be solved with the help of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, and Turkey. Turkey is thus accorded a strategically important role for Syria. The fact that Turkey annexed Syrian state territories with the help of its jihadist henchmen or that the HTS—an offshoot of Al-Qaeda—in the city of Idlib controlled by its collaborators prepared the coup poses no problem for the USA. This mention is not surprising given the fact that the fascist boss Erdoğan was courted in the White House just a few weeks ago and his brother-in-spirit Trump gave him the coveted accreditation he needs to unhinderedly combat the largest opposition party CHP and thus secure another victory in the upcoming elections. Furthermore, “combating terror” in the region means that all non-state forces are to be liquidated—of course only if they stand in the way of one’s own strategy. Thus, the USA is trying to exert pressure on various countries to disarm various organisations. Hezbollah in Lebanon is to be disarmed; the USA and Israel threaten the Lebanese government with interventions if it fails to disarm Hezbollah, which is seen as a threat to Israel. The Iran-aligned Hashd al-Shaabi in Iraq is also to be disarmed in order to push back Iranian influence in Iraq. Threats are also issued here if disarmament is not successful. The disarmament plan for the Palestinian resistance manifested itself in Donald Trump’s alleged 20-point peace plan, which, among other things with the help of Turkey, primarily seeks to disarm Hamas. The liquidation of the PKK as a non-state force that is a thorn in the eye of the strategic partner Turkey also fits into this policy aimed at eliminating all non-state forces.
Palestine-Kurdistan, Intifada-Serhildan!
Just as they intend with the 20-point plan to merely give Palestine’s colonisation a different appearance—letting technocrats formally govern while the real strings remain in the hands of the USA and its partners—so they continue their deceitful game with regard to Kurdistan. For with the national defence strategy, it becomes clear that Turkey’s position in Syria could strengthen; which naturally presupposes Israel’s acceptance. As a result, Rojava’s future appears uncertain. Turkey wants to liquidate Rojava’s de-facto political autonomy and is exerting corresponding pressure on the HTS leadership. However, the HTS cannot defeat Rojava militarily, and both sides (including the Rojava leadership) bought time by presenting the agreement of March 10—due to pressure from the USA. This treaty, which provides for the integration of the DAANES into Syria, however, still seems far from being implemented promptly and fully—despite the deadline until 01.01.2026. What will follow afterwards is unpredictable, yet the danger of an attack on Rojava—even if only limited—cannot be ruled out. The HTS tolerates Israel usurping southern Syria; it even helps Israel further by expelling Palestinian groups from the country. According to Tom Barrack, it does “everything we want,” while just a few kilometres away Palestinians are experiencing a genocide by Israel. The Syrian regime in this form, with the HTS at its head, is an objective enemy of the Palestinian cause as well as of all the oppressed in the region. The democratic right of the oppressed Kurdish people, which through heroic resistance brought forth the Rojava Revolution, is also to be abolished. The colonial lords Turkey and Israel are to be won and consolidated as long-term partners. For the Kurds as well as for all other oppressed in Syria, such a regressive Syria represents no friend. Therefore, both peoples must recognise that their peace can only be fought for together. For in the age of imperialist globalisation, the oppressors are closely interconnected and intertwined—consequently, resistance on the side of the oppressed must also be organised. This national defence strategy is a war preparation document, for US imperialism knows full well that a possible third war of partition could soon become reality. With the help of wars, they try to keep the bubble called capitalism alive longer before it is eventually burst by the struggle of the oppressed.
