“Imperial” Washington: A Partner That Alarms Europe

Dr. Yasser Mahjoub Al-Hussein

What caught my attention was the focus of the British think tank Chatham House—historically linked to the UK’s governing establishment, decision-making circles, and intelligence community—on placing the recent U.S. operation at the top of its agenda. The institute has devoted a major panel discussion, scheduled for February 19, under the title: “A New Threat? America as an Imperial Power.” This interest cannot be separated from the profound transformations underway in U.S. foreign policy, nor from the growing unease in European capitals over the nature of America’s global role during President Donald Trump’s second term. Chatham House’s very use of the term “imperialism” is sufficient to reflect the depth of European concern, particularly in the wake of the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Has the United States shifted from a hegemonic power that cloaked its influence in the language of international law and alliances to an overt imperial force, unhesitant to use direct power to secure its interests? This question is no longer merely academic. It is now being seriously debated within European decision-making circles and Western think tanks that have long defended the “liberal international order” as a less brutal alternative to classical imperialism.

The current U.S. administration’s foreign policy is characterized by a transactional, utilitarian mindset, disregard for international norms and institutions, and indifference toward traditional allies, coupled with a growing readiness to use military force without collective cover or international legitimacy. The arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro highlighted this shift, appearing less as a purely security-related measure than as a political message: Washington sees itself as empowered to act as a global enforcer beyond the bounds of national sovereignty, based on criminal charges filed against Maduro since 2020.

For Europe, the implications of this transformation are both profound and troubling. The issue is not limited to the future of NATO or Europe’s defense architecture, which relies heavily on the American security umbrella; it extends to direct threats to regional security. Trump had previously floated the idea of annexing Greenland, a Danish territory and NATO member—rhetoric that is now read as evidence of eroding boundaries between ally and imperial partner. Moreover, recent U.S. national security documents have criticized the European Union in unprecedented language, calling for the “cultivation of resistance” within European societies and emphasizing American dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

This approach places NATO itself under strain, as it is increasingly perceived as an instrument of U.S. hegemony rather than a balanced defensive alliance. As a result, several European states are seriously considering strengthening their strategic autonomy and reducing their dependence on Washington.

The use of the term “imperialism” here is not rhetorical posturing so much as a reflection of a clear historical definition: the expansion of political, economic, and military influence beyond borders, the imposition of will by force, and the erosion of other states’ sovereignty. What is new in the American case is not the pursuit of influence, but the abandonment of “soft persuasion” and multilateral alliances in favor of coercion and diktat—evident in new trade policies and tariff regimes that have harmed allies before adversaries.

The Maduro case underscores the U.S. administration’s willingness to use force as a central tool of foreign policy, within a worldview that treats Latin America as Washington’s exclusive sphere of influence. In this context, states are confronted with a binary choice: submission or confrontation—a dynamic that has drawn international اعتراض from major powers such as Russia and China, which described the move as a violation of international law.

For Moscow and Beijing, this American shift represents both a threat and an opportunity. Russia faces a more impulsive and less predictable adversary, while China confronts a more openly confrontational U.S. policy that combines economic warfare and sanctions with reinforced military alliances. Some analysts argue that this approach accelerates the erosion of the existing financial order and hastens the transition toward a multipolar world.

If Europe is uneasy, anxiety is even more pronounced in the developing world. Weaker states now find themselves facing a harsher international system in which international law is marginalized and relations are reshaped according to raw power. In such a world, the arrest of a sitting head of state risks becoming a precedent rather than an exception—signaling a more volatile and dangerous phase in global politics.