The latest round of strategic attacks in the Middle East shows a changing American foreign policy in the 21st century. The second Trump administration did not simply rediscover the 1823 Monroe Doctrine; it has evolved into what critics and supporters alike are calling the Donroe Doctrine. This change is the substitution of the liberal international order with hard-edged spheres of influence, turning the hints of the campaign into a violent reality in Iran.
The Trump Corollary
In his 2024 campaign, Donald Trump often referred to revitalized Monroe Doctrine, which most analysts dismissed as just rhetoric to limit Chinese influence in Latin America. But the 2025 National Security Strategy and the following Trump Corollary have demonstrated that this was not an empty boast. The hint has acquired a material aspect by the occupation of strategic assets, the military action on Venezuela, and the high-stakes war with Iran.
The Donroe Doctrine is the physical embodiment of the idea that sovereignty is conditional. The United States does not simply defend the Western Hemisphere in this worldview against European (now Chinese and Iranian) infiltration; it claims a management right over world resources. The strikes on Iran are the continuation of this logic. The White House claims that since Iran has used its relationship with Venezuela and Cuba to extend its power to the Americas, it must be neutralized as an invasive non-hemispheric competitor that refuses to stay within its own borders.
A Doctrine Globalized
The first significant test of this globalized Monroe Doctrine is the current war situation with Iran. The original 1823 text was a defensive one, warning European monarchies to keep off the Americas, but the Trump Corollary presents an offensive nature. It is based on the premise that any country that threatens American preeminence or access to important geographies is a target. The February 2026 strikes were particularly directed at leadership and nuclear facilities after the diplomacy was declared dead, signaling a shift toward results over rules.
The reasons that led to the war are multifaceted, starting with a desire for resource sovereignty. By attacking the energy infrastructure in Iran, the administration aims to make sure that world energy markets will be under American-aligned management. This is accompanied by a resolve to cut the axis between Tehran, Caracas, and Moscow. To the White House, the assembly of Iranian Mohajer-6 and Shahed-type drones in Venezuela at El Libertador Air Base was a direct contravention of the Monroe Doctrine. Moreover, the war can be seen as a kind of Great Reset of alliances, suggesting that if allies do not take primary responsibility for their own defense, the US will focus its lethal power solely on redrawing the map to suit its own industrial and security needs.
Motives: Protection or Plunder?
The motives of President Trump tend to be a combination of 19th-century mercantilism and modern populism. He exploits the history of American exceptionalism and American power through the Monroe Doctrine. Yet above the slogans of America First lies a more pragmatic ambition to have command over world supply chains. This Trump Corollary treats the Western Hemisphere as a fortress, economically and militarily, with the Middle East as a sort of peripheral zone where threats to this fortress are extinguished by using surgical strikes.
The adoption of hard power by the administration is a calculated gamble. The US move to override the UN Security Council and international laws is an indication that the era of globalist institutions is over. The reason is to build an American industrial supremacy, a Golden Age, in which the Western Hemisphere is a fortress and the rest of the world is a market to be controlled, not a community to be led.
The Risk of Empire
The threat of this Donroe Doctrine is the precedent it creates. Proclaiming such a wide sphere of influence as to encompass the Persian Gulf, the US is inviting other forces, China and Russia, to do so in their respective neighbourhoods. As world watches the devastation in Iran the question arises: Is the price of this new sovereignty a world forever shattered into warring empires? The Monroe Doctrine was to safeguard the New World against the old; the Donroe Doctrine is a danger of transforming the New World into the architect of a global conflict that resembles the imperialisms that the Founders were trying to escape.
