Assessing Emerging Global Threats in 2026
By: COL Dencio S. Acop (Ret), PhD, CPP | Published: January 21, 2025
Reading Time: 9 minutes
PERTH, Australia — Natural resources and geopolitical terrains vital to national interests and security are the centers of gravity fueling wars and future wars in 2026 and beyond. Building on the year-end analysis of the International Crisis Group (ICG), these key elements are the reasons behind nations’ scrambling for increased share of the world’s land masses.
They are borne out by all the fighting happening in Ukraine, Sudan, Myanmar, the Sahel, Haiti, Gaza, Iran, along with the border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, India and Pakistan, and Rwanda’s annexation of two provinces in Congo.
These ongoing conflicts are all expected to continue through 2026 further validating the trend of violence spiking worldwide. As if these were not enough, major wars now appear to be erupting with unnerving frequency. Never to be outdone, US president Donald Trump seems to be always embarking on supposed solutions to domestic and world problems, but which could likewise create other problems due to their indifference to domestic and international rules of law. (Also read: The price of doing business with Trump’s America)
As the ICG put it, Trump “returned to power promising peace to a world ablaze, putting himself at center stage in many wars and trouble spots, has brought fresh attention to peacemaking, after years in which diplomatic efforts to end conflicts had been failing, but Trump has not calmed the global turmoil he was vocal about on the campaign trail. In fact, he has made them worse. His deals, often built on other countries’ diplomacy, have brought respite to some battlefields but no lasting peace anywhere.”
By all indicators, three factors contribute to how global threats will evolve in 2026 and beyond. These are: Donald Trump, the return of “might is right” international relations, and all those who disagree with the first two.
Subscribe to the API Newsletter
Bite-sized updates sent straight to your inbox.
Success!
First Name
Last Name
By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The first factor is undoubtedly Donald Trump. From Iran to Venezuela and now Greenland, Trump has clearly stamped his imprint upon the world. ICG calls out this imprint as Trump’s “lawlessness, revisionism, and cavalier use of force”, but I’d go as far as to add that the American leader’s lack of government experience and personal flaws are undermining his policy execution as commander-in-chief of a global power. (Also read: Assessing the US under Donald Trump)
ICG views Trump’s unorthodoxy as emerging from his inexperience. I firmly echo this view. Having zero public service before the presidency, how can Trump know the art and science of effective governance and leadership over a constitutional democracy like the United States?
For instance, how deeply aware and committed is the president to America’s traditional values grounded upon a moral liberal order which has been the cornerstone of American greatness catapulting it to global leadership since World War II? Had his dodging military service in the past have anything to do with his disrespect of men and women in uniform – the same ones he now calls upon to execute his adventurism given how shabbily he has treated them on several occasions? (Also read: Trump marks first 100 days but focus on security riddled with holes)
The private sector is vastly different from the public sector. The goals alone of these sectors betray their fundamental difference. While one is focused on the maximization of bottom-line profits, the other prioritizes the more selfless goal of national interest over personal gain. With government experience, Trump would have known that many of the world’s problems at head-of-state level are complex and therefore, need to be resolved holistically and bipartisanly, and not rashly, as he is wont to do with his quick deals and unilateralism.
Dictating upon a solution without complete staff work may negate one symptom but give rise to others perhaps even more vile. Critics of Trump mince no words characterizing the US attack on Venezuela as nothing but a diversion from Trump’s explicit complicity in the Epstein files. No less than former president Bill Clinton has publicly called for the release of ALL files connected with the Epstein case. Portions exposing Trump’s alleged criminal behavior in those controversial files have been reportedly suppressed by the Department of Justice, no less. Such redactions or withholding are illegal, inviting further accusations of a cover-up.
The second factor is the rising use of realist or “might is right” international relations. Also dubbed as realpolitik, this type of relationship between and among nations has generally been in decline since the end of the Second World War. While more powerful nations lorded it over less powerful ones, the painful lessons from the last great war as well as effective mechanisms for peace like the United Nations held violence at bay for the most part of the last half century.
Idealist international relations, which adopted the peaceful resolution of conflicts through negotiated consensus among all stakeholders, became the preferred option. But with the rapid growth of technological advancements that now blur the once clear boundary between the international rule of law and lawlessness, as well as the fading away of generations past who’ve been through the horrors of war, the world today is a diminished version devoid of the critical lessons of the past and on the verge of reinventing it.
“Might is right!” Trump said so himself after he ordered the US military to violate Venezuelan sovereignty and kidnap its leader. Without congressional concurrence, Trump unilaterally brought US power to bear on the less powerful. It wasn’t the first time, as he did it in Iran, and certainly will not be the last. Already, Trump is recklessly dangling before the world, designs to annex Denmark’s Greenland, as he had likewise tried to intimidate Canada and Mexico early in his term. To which the British prime minister reacted stating that Trump is courting turning against NATO along with all the non-military sanctions that the western powers could unleash upon the US by way of retaliation.
Apart from actual violence, Trump’s “might is right” tactics have included leveraging dependency on the US mostly threatening tariffs or dangling business opportunities. But Trump and his lieutenants may be oversimplifying the problem, assuming that like China, all “belligerents” can be bought by money or intimidated by military power. Which brings us to our third factor.
The last factor is that while Trump and other world leaders like him view “might is right” as the more effective weapon today, truth is that there are “belligerents” out there who are unwilling to subordinate core interests to profit. Ukraine is a good example. Vladimir Putin used “might is right” to invade Ukraine. Now, Trump is employing the same realist international relations approach to end the war based on US and Russian interests but not Ukraine’s.
Unintimidated and backed by NATO, Zelenskiy did not budge. Other “belligerents” unwilling to sacrifice core interests to profit are the Israelis and Palestinians. A two-state solution in Israel is like stating that Jews will abandon a core belief in Judaism or that Palestinians do the same and migrate outside the land that had originally been theirs.
Another example is Taiwan which has resisted China’s power since the Second World War. The countries earlier cited which have been fighting tooth and nail to defend their territories are not giving up their sovereignty for profit.
The latest crisis in Iran is one more case in point. Since Trump’s first bombing of Iran, he again threatened to attack the country to protect thousands of protesters many of whom are being executed for going against their repressive government headed by the supreme leader Ali Hoseini-Khamenei. To avoid US intervention, Iran has halted 800 planned executions of protesters. The country is now trying to second-guess what Trump will do next.
At first glance, the audacious move by the US appears to be consistent with its traditional image as the global champion of human rights consistent with its democratic principles. But is it really, or is Iran’s most recent belligerence just an excellent window of opportunity to take the country out?
It is no secret that Iran is considered by the US as a hotbed of global terrorism and a potential nuclear power. It must be said though that getting rid of Iran is not without its fatal consequences not only for the US but for world peace. Iran is backed by global allies China, Russia, and North Korea, all nuclear powers and US adversaries.
While Iran is regionally backed by the “Axis of Resistance” composed of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, some armed groups in Iraq, and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, this axis over the last two years suffered severe losses mainly to Israel thereby significantly diminishing their threat. But Iran is still backed as well by other Islamic states like Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, and Iraq.
Iran is one “belligerent” which will not subordinate its core interest to secular power which is wherein lies the danger. Since Iran ousted the Shah in 1979, the authoritarian regime has governed the theocratic republic with laws based on Ja’fari Shia Islam harassing and arresting religious minorities, including Baha’is, Christians, Sunni Muslims, Zoroastrians, and Jews.
In short, the US better remember the lessons of Vietnam and Afghanistan because a war with Iran may end up like them, or more. While Trump’s real estate background is what’s been brought to the table at the White House, annexing or attacking this or that country using “might is right” can hardly solve America’s or the world’s problems. It will only create more problems for both, because it sets aside the international rule of law. It also encourages other powers, like China, to do the same.
Russia’s already done it and so it may be Trump who’s imitating Putin and could learn a few lessons from him. “Might is right” has not subdued Ukraine after four years and the hardships from the war are still ongoing. Since Trump has distanced himself from the UN and NATO, not to mention Democrats at home (and even an increasing number of Republicans), who can he count upon now as his allies?
Meanwhile, China is playing the role vacated by the US. It is now China calling out the US for violating the international rule of law in Venezuela. Countries antagonized by the US are being courted by China to its fold. One thing is clear in the world today. Many countries have increased their military spending. Others are re-arming or acquiring nuclear capabilities, such as Japan and South Korea.
China is still expected to reacquire Taiwan within the next two years. Justifying its move, China has stated that it is an internal matter which only the Chinese people can resolve. Still, like any other ongoing or potential dispute, it will not be without its adverse consequences to regional and global security in today’s intricate system of alliances of every kind.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that despite leaders’ best attempts to use their instruments of national power just below the threshold of war to attain their national interests, hoping that everything does not escalate into actual hostilities, the fact that weapons and “might is right” co-exist is inching all who possess them to use them – offensively for the aggressor, and defensively for the attacked.
The post Assessing Emerging Global Threats in 2026 appeared first on asiapacificinsights.com.