COLUMN | The National Security Strategy of the United States

If we want the support of the United States on security and defense issues, we will have it as long as we demonstrate that our actions aim to eliminate or neutralize situations that pose a risk to them. Whoever leads the Foreign Ministry must be clear about this.

We barely recovered from the impact of Maduro’s capture, and we are already witnessing another crisis developing; Iran is in reverse revolution mode, with hundreds of deaths, which is concerning when stability is desired and when actions by the ayatollahs could jeopardize the peace that has been achieved in the Middle East.

Why should the United States be concerned about what happens in Iran after having neutralized that country’s nuclear capabilities, which posed a risk not only to Israel but also to Americans? They should be concerned because the ayatollahs blame them and the Israelis for what happens to them, which means they could attack their interests and troops located in the region.

Of course, the United States is concerned about the loss of human lives, but it is the impact on their interests and national security that could lead them to act against the Iranian regime, one that has been causing them problems for some time, but as long as it does not significantly affect them, they are willing to accept and allow its existence.

The national security strategy, a document published in November 2025 emphasizes two basic and simple concepts, national interest and the security of Americans.

This is why they are willing to accept that the Chinese dominate in Asia, or that the Russians do so in what was the former Soviet Union and countries that belonged to the Warsaw Pact. They will do so as long as they remain only in that and do not seek to grow to the point of jeopardizing the national security of the United States.

It is a mistake to think that the United States is only concerned about what happens in the Americas, or what is called the Western Hemisphere. Obviously, they want to live in a hemisphere where there are no risks to their existence or national security, and they will do whatever it takes to make that a reality, including actions such as removing Maduro, destroying drug boats, or capturing oil tankers that seek to evade sanction programs.

They are concerned about anything or any situation that puts their interests or well-being at risk, whether it is located south of their borders, in the depths of the Pacific, or in Asia Minor. Today, unlike in the past, they do not seek for all countries to be democratic or to follow free market principles. They are more modest; they only want to be sure that they are not attacked or targeted with drugs like cocaine or fentanyl.

Since what they seek could not be provided by the United Nations, the OAS, and other equivalent international organizations, they decided to take the bull by the horns and act directly. They, unlike us, have superlative military power, one that allows them to act anywhere and at any moment. Given this, they do not need a world based on rules, as those rules do not resolve or serve them in any way.

Venezuela, a country located three hours by flight from Miami, was a risk for them due to the drugs that were entering the North American market, due to the export of criminal drug organizations that, taking advantage of illegal migration flows, seek to operate in their country, because the Chinese, Iranians, and Russians prefer them far away, in their spheres of influence, but not at a distance that makes them nervous, and because they do not like the idea that the oil from the Orinoco basin is destined for the Chinese market, a country they prefer to see diminished and without the capacity to affect them.

Of course, Colombia should be concerned if it does not demonstrate that it is doing everything humanly possible to eliminate coca and other drug production in its territory, while also ensuring that they do not leave for North America. If they do not, they will surely suffer the consequences. This is not an issue with Petro; it is about Colombia as a source of drug exports destined for North Americans.

Should Chile be concerned? Absolutely, it should be concerned because there are Chinese investments in sectors that could be understood as strategic, something that does not sit well with the northern country. They have already expressed their opinion on this matter to the Chilean government, which, so far, despite all the rhetoric, has reacted positively to American requests.

The United States has no problem with us trading with China, or with China being our main trading partner. It is also an important trading partner for them, as it is for the rest of the world. What they do not want is an influential or powerful China in the Americas, one that could jeopardize their national security, just as they do not want it to be powerful on a global scale so that they do not feel secure or their interests could be affected.

The national security strategy of the United States may not please some who long for the past, but that is not understanding that things have changed, that there is now a China seeking its own spaces, which they perceive as a threat, something the Chinese are doing more by following the lessons and strategies of Sun-Tzu and their own cultural timelines, rather than in the form and immediacy of the West.

In simple terms, to understand how Americans think and act when it comes to national security, they do not like anything that puts it at risk and will act against what they consider affects it. They have the capacity and means to do so. They will not get entangled in philosophical, religious, or ideological issues. Their approach is 100% pragmatic, grounded, and logical.

If countries like Chile, Argentina, or the rest of the countries in South America help them to be more secure, the rewards and closeness will be evident; otherwise, the punishments and distancing will be clear.

As Ambassador Brandon Judd stated at the reception inaugurating his mission in Chile, his task and purpose is to protect and defend the interests and national security of the United States, nothing more and nothing less. The rest is just noise.

If we want their support on security and defense issues, we will have it as long as we demonstrate that our actions aim to eliminate or neutralize things or situations that pose a risk to them. Whoever leads the Foreign Ministry must be clear about this.