Arabic
Persian
English
Redefining the “Sphere of Influence” in the 21st Century
For more than two centuries, U.S. foreign policy toward its southern neighbors has rested on a single foundational principle: the Monroe Doctrine. Introduced in 1823 as a defensive warning to European colonial powers, this doctrine gradually evolved into a manifesto for interventionism, regime change, and economic domination.
Today, however, economic data and geopolitical developments indicate that the function of this doctrine has shifted. Confronted with a national debt exceeding $37 trillion and emerging challenges from China and the BRICS bloc, the United States is no longer returning to the Monroe Doctrine for “expansion,” but for “survival.” By examining historical documents and contemporary economic data, this article argues that Washington’s renewed focus on the Western Hemisphere signals a strategic contraction and an acknowledgment of the realities of the emerging global order.
Dissecting the Monroe Doctrine: The Historical Roots of Occupation
The Monroe Doctrine was delivered to the U.S. Congress on December 2, 1823, by President James Monroe. Its stated message was simple: the Americas were no longer to be targets of European colonization. In practice, however, the doctrine enabled the United States to establish itself as the sole dominant power in the Western Hemisphere.
Historical Data and Evidence
According to historical analyses, this doctrine laid the groundwork for more than 200 years of direct and indirect intervention. One of the earliest and most prominent examples is the U.S.–Mexican War (1846–1848).
- Territorial annexation: Under this mindset and the concept of Manifest Destiny, the United States imposed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, seizing approximately 55 percent of Mexico’s territory.
- Separated territories: California, Texas, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Colorado were lands directly detached from Mexico and incorporated into the United States.
This approach was later intensified by the Roosevelt Corollary in 1904, which formally granted the United States the right to intervene militarily in Latin American countries as an “international police power.”
The Political Economy of Intervention: The Cost of Endless Wars
In the twentieth century and the early twenty-first century, the United States—relying on its economic and military power—expanded its interventions into the Eastern Hemisphere (the Middle East and Asia). However, recent data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and reports from the U.S. Treasury indicate that this trajectory is no longer sustainable.
Debt Crisis and the Inability to Fight Multi‑Front Wars
Economic analysts argue that America’s “strategic capacity” to simultaneously manage crises in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia has sharply declined.
- Cost of wars: According to the Costs of War Project at Brown University, post‑9/11 wars have cost the United States approximately $8 trillion.
- National debt: U.S. national debt has surpassed $37 trillion. The debt‑to‑GDP ratio is at historic levels, making the financing of new large‑scale wars without triggering hyperinflation increasingly difficult.
This economic reality has forced Washington into a strategic reassessment: a relative retreat from costly management of the Eastern Hemisphere and a renewed focus on “Fortress America” in the Western Hemisphere.
China’s Emergence in the Backyard: The Breakdown of Dollar Hegemony
The most significant current challenge to the Monroe Doctrine is China’s soft yet deep penetration into Latin America. Unlike the United States, which has relied on hard power and military tools in the region, China has entered through economic and infrastructure‑based instruments.
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Latin America
Chinese investment in South America is no longer limited to raw‑material purchases. Beijing is building critical infrastructure that directly challenges U.S. strategic control.
- Trade volume: China–Latin America trade increased from 12billionin2000∗∗toover∗∗12 billion in 2000** to over **450 billion in 2022.
- Infrastructure investment: Countries such as Peru, Chile, and Brazil are developing ports and energy networks in partnership with Chinese companies.
The Threat of De‑Dollarization
A crucial point highlighted in recent geo‑economic analyses is the effort to remove the dollar from energy transactions. Venezuela and Brazil are prominent examples of this shift:
- Oil for yuan: Venezuela’s oil sales to China denominated in yuan—prior to the military intervention and abduction attempt against Maduro—not only blunted U.S. sanctions but also reduced global demand for the dollar.
- Declining dollar reserves: If major oil exporters (such as Saudi Arabia and OPEC+ members) move toward alternative currencies, returning petrodollars to the United States will decline, weakening America’s ability to export inflation to the rest of the world.
As noted in strategic documents, if dollar hegemony fractures, the U.S. economy will face an unprecedented inflationary crisis. Consequently, control over Latin America—as a nearby energy source and consumer market—is for the United States a matter of life and death, not merely political influence.
The National Security Strategy and the Admission of a New World Order
A review of the U.S. National Security Strategy documents under recent administrations shows a clear shift in language—from “counterterrorism” to “Great Power Competition.”
Geopolitical Contraction
The United States has implicitly acknowledged that, within a multipolar new world order, it can no longer act as the global policeman. Refocusing on the Western Hemisphere in line with the Monroe Doctrine is an effort to secure nearby borders and vital resources.
- Russia and Iran in Latin America: The military and diplomatic presence of Russia and Iran in countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua directly challenges the Monroe Doctrine.
- U.S. response: Intensified economic pressure, support for regime change, and attempts to impose exclusive trade agreements represent Washington’s reactive response to this influence. Sporadic, high‑risk military strikes against certain countries—including Iran—are also analyzed within this framework and could impose heavy costs on the United States.
This return to the Monroe Doctrine, unlike the nineteenth century when it reflected a rising American power, in the twenty‑first century signals managed decline and an effort to preserve a secure zone against emerging Eastern powers.
US military spending from 2003 to present
No comment