2026

What an exciting year it has been so far, although not in a good sense.

We have witnessed widespread protests in Iran and the US seizing control of a sovereign state’s leader, Venezuela’s, using a carefully calculated military operation. We’re not even through the first week of 2026.

Where does this leave us? Well, all we can do is wait to see how events unfold, but we can almost certainly expect more of the same: A turbulent international arena.

The United State’s strike in Venezuela demonstrates, much as it did with the Iranian strike last year, the United States still wields tremendous power. All we can do is watch as to how it decides to use its power.

On paper, this strike was a success in Venezuela, unlike Putin’s Special Military Operation which is ongoing after 4 years and countless casualties and an inconceivable cost. But where does this leave international relations? As we move towards a multipolar era, states will have to choose carefully which states to align themselves with.

There is anarchy at the international level, as Kenneth Waltz pointed out. There is no international body with overarching power to deter states from acting benevolently and enforce international law. Yes, there are powerful courts and organisations like the ICC and the UN, but their authority over the international arena is limited. What we see instead are states acting in their own interest, using their economic and military power. With around 200 recognised states, this makes for an extremely complicated international arena.

We await the response of the international community to Trump’s capture of Maduro. Will it be deemed illegal or legitimate? Irrespective of who decides, who has the power to arrest Donald Trump? Who has the power to arrest Vladimir Putin for his violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty? There is no unanimous global consent towards these powerful leaders, and they will continue to act in their own self-interest, whatever they deem it to be.

So, unfortunately, we can look forward to more nation-states acting on their own behalf for political, economic and military reasons whilst we debate their actions. Will Khamenei cling to power? Will other leaders, like Maduro, be targeted and arrested? Other leaders, democratically elected or otherwise will have to consider this. They will be forced to decide upon which powerful states to more closely align themselves with politically. National leaders are currently trying to balance the perceived legitimacy of this action, of capturing Maduro, with Maduro’s perceived criminality. With Putin’s similar strike at the outset of Ukraine’s invasion, we saw global condemnation, sanctioning and nation-states offer their support for Ukraine. Will we see nation-states offer their support for Venezuela next to help ensure stability in that country? Will the international community permit the US to run Venezuela and extract its vast proven oil reserves without criticism?

It is impossible to grasp the significance of these events, and they all seem to be overshadowed by proceeding events and normalised by the international community. What if the reverse had occurred, although unthinkable, and Maduro had captured Donald Trump and arrested him for threatening national stability and interference in domestic affairs. Leaders would be immensely shocked and there would likely be severe consequences internationally.

Other Latin American countries, as well as many other weaker nation-states, will feel vulnerable. This may lead to support for the United States’ actions, out of fear for their own security. Conversely, we may see more support for Putin and Xi Jinping from nation-states near Russia and China or looking for an alternative to a US-led global arena. European and NATO leaders will have to grapple with these spontaneous U.S. actions. Will they seek to reign in and restrain US power or let these events slide without any repercussions? There must be a sense of powerlessness today amongst many, and many questions to be asked. What was the real intent behind the capturing of Maduro? How does this event affect global stability and international law? Was it legal? Was it an overreach reflecting US imperialism as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who knows. The international arena is chaotic and full of surprises.

Had I predicted ‘Trump will almost certainly attack and capture Maduro’, I would have been deemed mentally ill or insane, but that is exactly what happened. Only with hindsight does the truth become clear. So, what next? Well we can anticipate actions based on where political pressure is being applied today.

China is exerting pressure on Taiwan, so an invasion, much like Ukraine’s, is certainly a possibility.

We see that in Yemen, Saudi Arabia is exerting its military pressure so we cannot rule out further military conflict there. This was evidenced by the UAE’s arms shipment being destroyed.

There will almost certainly be future conflict between Israel with Hamas and Hezbollah, given that peace depends on these latter two organisations completely disarming. Trump threatened Hamas with being wiped out if it did not obey these demands, giving a further sense of instability internationally. But, surprisingly, he said that ramifications would come not from Israel and the US but from countless other nations. This could be an indication of what happens next. Perhaps Gaza would be better run and secured by a UN force much like Lebanon’s southern border with Israel. Which nations would actually commit money and forces to that enclave though? Perhaps we will find out this year.

Iran’s domestic issues at the moment also represent many other nation-states concerns. How can you govern when there are widespread protests and riots? If Trump can act with impunity at the international level, how does that affect individuals within a nation-state? From a Western liberalised perspective, would it not be nice for Iran and the Iranian people to be governed by a secular democracy? Of course it sounds nice on paper, but there are strongly held religious and political beliefs amongst those in control there as well as its leader’s supporters. Are we on the eve of witnessing another Arab Spring? I doubt that because there are countless other nations there governed along national and religious lines that are tremendously powerful and repression closely managed.

But if the Iranian people succeed in ousting their current government, there could be very interesting outcomes. Perhaps other states in the region will want to capitalise on its instability and seize its mineral and oil wealth. Could we see a similar strike in Iran as we saw in Venezuela? Anything is possible. Could we see other nation-states in the region resist a Westernised democratic state on their doorstep? Perhaps Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE will use their tremendously powerful militaries to intervene, further at the expense of Iran’s current ruling party but also at the expense of those who wish to have an Iran which is more liberal and less controlled by a theocratic and militarised authority. Whoever controls the Strait of Hormuz has a greater influence over international politics. So, that is my prediction, and perhaps in line with the unintended consequence of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions which eliminated Iran’s regional threats. Russia and China will want the status quo to maintain given its security and economic links to Iran, so they will be watching events closely. Could they possibly intervene? I doubt it given both are preoccupied with Ukraine and Taiwan respectively. I realise that the prediction these widespread protests in Iran leading to interventions by several neighbouring states, but perhaps what Maduro’s capture has taught us is… be prepared for anything to happen. State military intervention has been proven successful, thus far.

Much like we saw since the beginning of Trump’s presidency, Trump chooses which conflicts to end and only utilises US power if it is safe to do so to avoid protracted engagements. The US commander-in-chief will continue to exert US influence where it can to settle disputes, acting as the US has done for many decades now as the world’s policeman. Or in a sense, taming international anarchy. But border disputes will occur.

According to Google:

Nation-states currently experiencing civil war or significant internal conflict include Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, the Central African Republic, Haiti, and parts of Bangladesh, with major ongoing conflicts involving terrorist insurgencies or gang warfare in regions of the DR Congo, Mali, Nigeria, and Mozambique.

With all of these nation-states, we will continue to see influential states influence parties within to guarantee more favourable outcomes as they deem it. At a glance, it is clear to see what all these nation-states have in common: There are religious and ethnic tensions. This is due to history and to some extent a product of colonialism. So, in a sense, we see history repeating itself. We see tribalism occurring at the sub-state level.

One merely has to look at how Africa, South Asia and the Middle East was carved up by nation-states which dominated in the previous centuries, to see where civil conflict zones exist today. Syria had a civil war which eventually ousted Assad, and the rival groups there are still exist, either backed by Turkey, Russia, US, France, and Great Britain etc. along with other groups which formed concurrently with the vacuum of power left by Saddam’s capture and overthrow. If you look at Somalia today, you see relatively new nation states that are unrecognised internationally which surround the original country: Puntland, Jubaland, Somaliland etc. and you start to understand how difficult nation-building and ensuring security can be. Yet, the US, China, Israel and the UAE pick sides which align with their desired political outcomes. We will see more of that to come, perhaps even more nation-states arising and more inter-governmental organisations superseding the nation-state grow in influence too.

But, religion and ethnic divides, artificially created, will continue to exist. How can we ever hope of deterring conflict when there is so much that divides us. Power is all but separates us. Therefore, as 2026 progresses, for all the issues in then world as they are, most of the attention will be on those with power to exert the greatest influence. And all we can do as individuals is hope that they, ultimately, create a more stable world. There is a remarkable amount of stability in the world. We see nation-states that are developed and on the whole pacifist, manage ethnic and religious tension well, but we can only hope that remains the case.

We can only hope.