The Global Framework: The U.S., China, and Control over Energy Resources
Under Trump, U.S. foreign policy is being built around strategic confrontation with China. The key objectives of this course include:
- emphasizing America’s military and technological superiority over any country in the world;
- demonstrating China’s inability to protect its allies and pushing Beijing out of its traditional spheres of influence;
- preventing a potential Russia–China alliance and reorienting most post-Soviet states toward the United States;
- securing a regulatory role in the global oil and gas market with decisive influence;
- restricting China’s access to cheap energy resources;
- reaffirming America’s status as the “policeman of the world” with the exclusive right to use force.
These goals are not fully shared by the core of the influential MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement, which is more focused on solving domestic U.S. issues and often leans toward isolationism. The most influential representative of this movement within the current administration is Vice President J. D. Vance.
It remains unclear how sincerely the current president embraces MAGA values versus using them to secure support from Republican voters. However, one thing can be stated with certainty: Trump systematically monetizes his power. Expanding America’s geopolitical influence in confrontation with China only broadens his business opportunities.
Venezuela as a Template
When designing a military operation against Iran — not a full-scale war — the Trump administration relied on what it viewed as the successful precedent of Venezuela. In a matter of hours, Washington managed to replace the country’s leadership with a more loyal government, gain control over the oil sector, break Caracas’ alliance with Beijing, and cut China off from cheap Venezuelan oil.
The United States publicly demonstrated China’s inability to defend its allies, which will likely have long-term consequences for the architecture of Beijing’s global partnerships. Speaking of monetization of power, it is worth noting that certain American companies have already received rights to invest in and extract Venezuelan oil. And it is precisely the sitting presidential administration that decides who those fortunate companies are — those granted access to one of the world’s largest oil reserves.
The same logic applied to Iran, but there was no lightning-fast victory. The military operation evolved into a full-scale war, and the main question now is how long it will last.
Will There Be a Ground Operation?
It is difficult to agree with the widespread claim in the media that a U.S. ground operation in Iran would be doomed to failure. The American military is arguably the most technologically advanced in the world and is capable of rapidly deploying the necessary personnel and equipment to the region. Moreover, in any hypothetical ground campaign, the United States would clearly not act alone, but together with allies — primarily Israel and the Gulf states currently under Iranian missile attacks.
The rapid rise in oil prices — and consequently in the prices of goods, services, and manufacturing — is creating growing economic difficulties for China. Beijing is by no means interested in a global economic crisis; on the contrary, it seeks the quickest possible end to the active phase of the war. As a result, Iran remains effectively isolated against a coalition of allied powers and various proxy forces such as Kurdish groups. Russia is largely irrelevant in this context due to its inability to open a second front in the East.
Additionally, parts of the Iranian population may initially perceive the United States — having eliminated the hated ayatollah and the leadership of the IRGC — as liberators, potentially generating short-term support for the military campaign. In this sense, it matters less whether the allies occupy all of Iran or only part of it — the current Iranian regime is unlikely to survive.
At the same time, a ground operation against Iran would be enormously expensive in every sense. It could last for months, cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers, and, most importantly, unfold during the peak of the U.S. election cycle. No American president has ever won elections amid a prolonged and bloody war that lacks public support. According to recent polling in the United States, the operation against Iran is viewed negatively by respondents across all political parties.
Another possible scenario would involve a limited operation targeting Iranian islands near the Strait of Hormuz. Iran controls Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs, where it has deployed military assets and from which it exerts control over shipping routes. Neutralizing these islands without a full-scale invasion could reopen the strait, drastically reduce maritime risks, allow Trump to declare victory, and shift voter attention toward other issues.
Of course, such an approach would not end the war or prevent further Iranian strikes. But that would then become primarily Israel’s problem, together with its regional allies.
What This Means for Ukraine
For Ukraine, a prolonged war in the Middle East means one thing above all: reduced attention and fewer resources from allies. The strategic focus has already shifted eastward, where more and more countries are becoming drawn into the conflict.
A prolonged war benefits only Vladimir Putin. First, he will attempt to strengthen his negotiating position with the United States through influence over Iran’s leadership. Second, in the short term, Russia’s budget revenues will grow: China, having potentially lost access to cheap Iranian oil for an indefinite period, will increase demand for Russian energy resources.
But there is another side to the equation. A prolonged conflict in the Middle East involving the United States could, first, trigger a global economic crisis and, second, sharply reduce Republicans’ chances of winning congressional elections this autumn. Democrats have already stated that, should they prevail, they would pursue impeachment proceedings against Trump. Unlike during his first term, this time such efforts could succeed.
That is why it is critically important for Trump to conclude the Iran issue as quickly as possible and redirect Americans’ attention toward other rapid victories. Aside from the realistic “takeover” of Cuba and the unrealistic idea of Greenland, forcing through a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine is becoming an increasingly attractive option for the Trump administration — a comparatively cheap and electorally advantageous deal.
Moreover, the monetization aspect is present here as well: decisions about which companies will extract oil in the Arctic (following proposals by Kirill Dmitriev) or which firms will “rebuild” Ukraine will once again fall under the authority of the Trump administration. The sums involved amount to hundreds of billions of dollars.
Forecast
Agreements on a potential peace settlement are likely to be reached by the end of summer 2026 — or even earlier. This could open the way for political elections in Ukraine later this year.