Dollar, Ballots & Debt: How Trump Installed His Man in Argentina to Fight China
When far-right economist Javier Milei swept to victory in Argentina’s parliamentary by-election on October 26, 2025, the world saw more than just another swing to the right in Latin America. They witnessed the opening move in Donald Trump’s new Cold War—fought not in the South China Sea, but in the streets of Buenos Aires.
The “Made in Washington” Victory
Milei’s win didn’t happen in a vacuum. Voter turnout was low. Opposition parties were divided. But behind the scenes, a more powerful force was at work: the direct involvement of the United States. Trump, publicly and privately, threw his weight behind Milei, framing his support as a financial and strategic necessity. The message was clear: a Milei victory meant American money. A loss meant isolation.
For Washington, Milei isn’t just an ideological ally—he is a geopolitical tool. His commitment to dollarizing Argentina’s economy, slashing public spending, and aligning foreign policy with the U.S. makes him the perfect vehicle to roll back years of Chinese expansion in the region.
The election is seen as a test of Washington’s new policies in South America, where Trump made clear his support for Milley as a way to counter Chinese influence in the region
Trump’s Real Fear: China’s Silk Road Reaches the Andes
Over the past decade, China has become a critical partner for Argentina—funding infrastructure, buying soybeans, and offering loans without the political lectures that often come from Washington or the IMF. From space stations in Patagonia to port projects near Buenos Aires, Beijing’s presence has grown steadily. To Trump, this isn’t trade—it is trespassing.
Milei’s victory represents a U.S. counterattack. By installing a pro-Washington leader in one of South America’s largest economies, Trump hopes to:
Push Argentina out of China’s Belt and Road Initiative
Force the renegotiation of Chinese-backed projects
Pull the region back into the U.S. sphere of influence
Chinese infrastructure projects in Latin America
A Nation Caught Between Empires
Not all Argentinians are celebrating. Milei’s radical austerity policies—wage cuts, privatization, and deregulation—have already sparked mass protests. Many see his alignment with the U.S. not as liberation, but as subordination. As one Argentine political thinker noted: “Milei doesn’t serve Argentina—he serves Washington’s geostrategic interests.”
The risk for Argentina is becoming a pawn in a game it cannot control. If Milei’s economic shock therapy fails, the social backlash could be severe. And if he succeeds in alienating China, where will the investment and buyers for Argentine goods come from?
An aerial view of demonstrators against the Milei’s Decree of Necessity and Urgency (DNU) in Buenos Aires, Argentina on December 27, 2023. ( Luciano Gonzalez – Anadolu Agency )
The New Cold War Is Here—And It’s Speaking Spanish
What happens in Argentina no longer stays in Argentina. Milei’s victory signals a new chapter in hemispheric politics—one where local elections are shaped by global rivalries. From Brazil to Chile, Mexico to Peru, the U.S. and China are competing for loyalty, and no ballot is too small to be weaponized.
The era of non-alignment is over. Nations are being forced to choose—and superpowers are making sure they choose correctly.
Argentine President Javier Milei receives an Atlantic Council Global Citizen Award from U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent at the 2025 Atlantic Council Global Citizen Awards in New York City on Sept. 24
Conclusion: Sovereignty for Sale
Javier Milei may frame his mission in terms of liberty and free markets. But behind the libertarian rhetoric lies a darker reality: sovereignty is up for auction, and the highest bidder isn’t always the one with the best intentions.
Argentina is now a battlefield in Trump’s war on China. The only question is: who will pay the price?
A Geopolitical Auction Block. Argentina finds itself a strategic prize in the escalating rivalry between the United States and China. The rhetoric of liberty masks a fierce struggle for influence, with the Argentine people ultimately holding the bill.
Donald Trump’s recent visit to Japan offered more than diplomatic theater—it revealed the unvarnished ideology of American power. Standing on soil still haunted by nuclear annihilation, he described the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a “small conflict.” Two cities erased, more than 200,000 lives extinguished, generations deformed—all reduced to a footnote in Trump’s story of American triumph.
Trivializing Mass Death
The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not a “conflict.” They were a cataclysm. People evaporated into shadows on shattered walls. Survivors suffered for decades from cancers, birth defects, and trauma. Yet for Trump, this horror is not a moral lesson—it is a management model. He sees Japan’s surrender not as a humanitarian tragedy, but as a success story in the “art of the deal”: destroy enough lives, and you can control a nation.
August 6, 1945, when the nuclear bomb struck Hiroshima, shadows instantly imprinted on concrete walls and pavement, leaving a marker of those instantly killed by vaporizing at ground zero
The Blood-Stained Legacy Trump Inherits
Trump is not an exception to American foreign policy—he is its bluntest expression. From the genocide of Native Americans to the chemical warfare in Vietnam, from backing Saddam Hussein to destroying Libya, from occupying Iraq and Afghanistan to arming the genocide in Gaza—the pattern is consistent. American security has been built on the insecurity of others. Trump’s Hiroshima comment lays bare the calculus: human life is collateral in the pursuit of power.
American security has been built on the insecurity of others. Trump’s Hiroshima comment lays bare the calculus: human life is collateral in the pursuit of power.
Peace Through Domination
Trump poses as a peacemaker, but his peace is the peace of the graveyard. He celebrates the U.S.-written Japanese constitution and the ongoing U.S. military presence not as partnerships, but as trophies of submission. His “peace” means surrender; his “deal” is made with the blood of nameless, faceless people—in Gaza, in Ukraine, in Yemen. This is the logic of empire, where war is not a failure, but a business.
A U.S. soldier honoring before Japan’s Peace Memorial—irony in one frame
The Urgent Need for a New International Order
We cannot rely on a system that allows such crimes to be called “small.” The United Nations, international law, and human rights institutions have repeatedly failed to hold the U.S. and its allies accountable. A new, multipolar order must arise—one built not on imperial domination, but on mutual sovereignty and collective resistance.
Nations that have invested in unity and self-reliance—like Iran during the Sacred Defense—have shown that it is possible to force empires to retreat. In a world where “small conflicts” include nuclear genocide, independent nations must form a front of deterrence. Power, not pleas, is the only language empires understand.
In a world where “small conflicts” include nuclear genocide, independent nations must form a front of deterrence. Power, not pleas, is the only language empires understand.
Conclusion: From Hiroshima to Gaza—The Empire Has Not Changed
Trump’s remark was no slip of the tongue. It was a confession. The same thinking that vaporized Hiroshima now fuels the F-35s over Gaza. The same indifference to human suffering that shrugged at Nagasaki today supplies the bombs falling on Rafah.
If we do not build a world beyond American hegemony, the “small conflicts” of tomorrow will be even deadlier. The warning of Hiroshima was meant for all humanity. Trump has shown us: America never learned it.
It’s time to accept that Donald Trump is never going to learn basic stuff about the world…
Donald Trump’s recent visit to West Asia, intended to showcase his role in facilitating a Gaza ceasefire, revealed more about his political desperation than diplomatic achievement. What was billed as a victory tour instead exposed strategic failure and moral bankruptcy.
The Unwelcome Mediator
Trump’s attempt to position himself as a peacemaker was met with widespread rejection. The protocol-bound airport receptions couldn’t conceal the stark reality: nobody sees Trump as an impartial mediator. His historical alignment with Israeli extremism and his administration’s record of escalating tensions made his peacemaker pose implausible to regional actors and international observers alike.
The Newyorker:
Late on Wednesday evening, in a social-media post, Trump finally had something to truly trumpet: “I am very proud to announce that Israel and Hamas have both signed off on the first Phase of our Peace Plan,” he wrote just after 7 P.M. “BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS!”
The ceasefire deal, brokered with the help of America’s Arab allies, such as Qatar and Egypt, calls for Israel to stop fighting within twenty-four hours and to partially withdraw from Gaza, and for Hamas to release by early next week all twenty Israeli hostages presumed to still be alive two years after they were taken during Hamas’s October 7th terrorist attack. At a Cabinet meeting on Thursday, as advisers made plans for Trump to fly to the region on Sunday night for a signing ceremony, the President touted his “momentous breakthrough.”
Strategic Goals Abandoned
The ceasefire terms tell a story of failed objectives. What began as a mission to destroy Hamas and return Israeli prisoners without concessions ended as a negotiated exchange of prisoners with humanitarian provisions. This fundamental deviation from maximalist goals represents not compromise but capitulation—a clear admission that initial assumptions about quick military victory were fatally flawed.
Accountability for Carnage
We cannot discuss Trump’s ceasefire role without acknowledging his responsibility for the violence preceding it. With nearly 70,000 Palestinians killed, Trump must be recognized as Netanyahu’s primary partner in this humanitarian catastrophe. His policies—recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, endorsing settlement expansion, and providing unconditional military support—created the conditions for this slaughter.
The New Yorker:
On Thursday, the Israeli Cabinet was on the verge of approving the initial stages of a ceasefire agreement that will at least temporarily end the war in Gaza. That war, which began two years ago with the Hamas attacks of October 7th, and the killing of 1,200 people, was followed by Israel’s bombardment and occupation of the Gaza Strip, and the killing of nearly 70,000 Palestinians. (A United Nations commission recently labeled Israel’s war a genocide.) The initial phases of the agreement, which President Trump announced on Wednesday, will likely include a release of the remaining Israeli hostages early next week, a release of Palestinians held by Israel, a pullback of Israeli troops from Gaza, and a much-needed surge of food and medicine into the territory.
Even with the ceasefire deal, “I don’t know that Gaza is even a place where humans can continue to live in any meaningful way,” Khaled Elgindy, an expert on the Middle East, said.”Almost everything has been destroyed. There’s almost nothing left, even of Gaza City. All the hospitals are basically not functioning. There are no universities. There are no schools. There are no roads. There’s no sewage-treatment plants, and there’s no infrastructure. Everything has been destroyed. . . . It makes me incredibly sad to say that, because we’re talking about a society of two million people. Gaza City is the largest city in Palestine. It’s one of the oldest places on earth. There’s just so much that has been lost. Beyond just the basic immediate subsistence, can Gaza survive? I don’t know.” In an interview with Isaac Chotiner, Elgindy discusses the contours of the peace deal and what will come next: https://newyorkermag.visitlink.me/kiRFvz
The Political Cost of Failure
Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy has backfired spectacularly. Rather than enhancing his stature, the Gaza crisis has increased global antipathy toward American leadership and alienated young voters concerned with human rights. The very tools Trump relied on—unilateral pressure and disregard for international law—have undermined his credibility when he most needs it.
A Fragile Future
The current ceasefire represents at best a temporary pause in an ongoing conflict. Fundamental questions about Gaza’s governance, reconstruction, and political future remain unanswered. Without a comprehensive political solution, this ceasefire merely sets the stage for the next round of violence—and Trump has demonstrated he lacks the vision or credibility to help achieve one.
The Bagram base, once the heart of the US war in Afghanistan, has re-emerged as a flashpoint in global geopolitics. For Donald Trump, it’s not just a military facility—it’s the key to controlling resources, countering China, and projecting power across Asia. And he’s willing to threaten the Taliban with “bad things” to get it back.
Despite a withdrawal deal signed in Doha in 2020, the former and potential future US president has openly expressed his desire to reoccupy the strategic Bagram Air Base. The Taliban have responded with defiance, vowing to block any return of foreign forces to Afghan soil.
But why is this remote base so important to Washington? The answer lies in four pillars of US imperial strategy: geopolitical positioning, resource theft, regional influence, and overwhelming military capacity.
1. A Front-Row Seat to Contain China
Bagram is more than an Afghan base—it’s a potential US listening post just 500 miles from the Chinese border. In Washington’s new Cold War against Beijing, this proximity is priceless. The base would allow the US to monitor Chinese military activity in Xinjiang, track missile tests, and project power into Central Asia—a region China is integrating through its Belt and Road Initiative.
For a US deep state obsessed with “containing” China, Bagram is the perfect unsinkable aircraft carrier on Beijing’s doorstep.
China manufactures its nuclear weapons deeper within the country, according to nuclear experts, but there is an old nuclear test range at Lop Nur, about 1,200 miles from Bagram.
2. Plundering Afghanistan’s $3 Trillion Mineral Bounty
Beneath Afghanistan’s soil lies one of the world’s last great untapped mineral treasures: an estimated $3 trillion in lithium, copper, gold, iron, and rare earth elements. Afghanistan’s lithium reserves alone rival those of global leaders like Chile and Argentina.
Who controls Bagram controls access to these resources. In the race for green energy dominance, these minerals are not just commodities—they are strategic weapons. The US wants to deny them to China and fuel its own tech and defense industries. This isn’t development; it’s 21st-century colonialism.
3. A Wedge Against Russia, Iran, and Regional Sovereignty
Central Asia is a chessboard where the US, Russia, China, and Iran vie for influence. By re-establishing a fortress in Bagram, Washington aims to:
Disrupt regional integration led by China and Russia.
Pressure Iran from its eastern flank.
Monitor and intimidate Pakistan.
It’s a classic imperial move: plant a military flag to dominate the neighborhood and block the rise of independent power centers.
The spokesperson for Russia’s Foreign Ministry, reacting to Trump’s statements, said that the United States left Afghanistan in a shameful manner.
She added that although Bagram air base is a tempting target, the struggles of the Afghan people against NATO show that they will not give up their national sovereignty.
Maria Zakharova stated: “The Bagram air base, located near Kabul, has been renovated and is undoubtedly considered a tempting target. But Washington knows well that the Afghan people, who fought NATO forces for their freedom, will not abandon their national sovereignty.”
Iran also reacted to Trump’s comments. The Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, citing earlier remarks by Amir Khan Muttaqi, the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Emirate, said that the Emirate is not willing to give Afghanistan’s land to the United States.
Ali Larijani further added that U.S. presence in the region would face resistance and that bombings and military campaigns in the region would be deadly for American soldiers.
He said: “Why should they come? What does it mean that they want to seize Bagram airport? In my view, this issue will not be resolved so easily, and it will also be costly for the Americans themselves. The American people must decide whether they want to constantly hold funerals for their children or not. If they do, then let them come, invade countries, and fight.”
The Islamic Emirate has so far not commented on other countries’ statements about the Bagram air base. However, earlier, Fasihuddin Fitrat, Chief of Staff of the Ministry of Defense, responding to Trump’s remarks, said that any deal over even “one inch” of the country’s land is unacceptable.
Jamil Shirwani, a political analyst, also said on the matter: “They will not come by force and pressure; they don’t have the ability to come, and even they themselves don’t have the demand to re-enter Afghanistan militarily.”
Earlier, China also reacted, stating that fueling tensions and creating confrontation in the region does not have public support. Lin Jian, spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, stressed that his country respects Afghanistan’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
4. Unmatched Military Capacity for Regional Wars
Bagram isn’t a simple airstrip. It’s a massive war hub with two long runways capable of handling the largest US bombers and cargo planes like the C-5 Galaxy. It served as the central nervous system for the 20-year occupation, and the Pentagon dreams of using it again as a launchpad for interventions across South Asia and the Middle East.
In short, Bagram allows the US to strike fast, far, and with devastating force—anywhere, anytime.
For Washington, the base’s strategic logic is clear. From Bagram, the United States could oversee counterterrorism operations, track regional militancy, and monitor Chinese and Russian activity. But the operational feasibility of returning is slim. Militarily seizing Bagram would mean re-invasion, with all the troop deployments, logistics, and costs that toppled three empires before. Diplomatically, the price would be high: recognition of Taliban rule, lifting of sanctions, or large-scale aid – concessions that are potentially toxic in Washington.
History also cautions against optimism. From the British retreats of the 19th century to the Soviet defeat in the 1980s and the US exit in 2021, foreign powers have learned the same lesson: Afghanistan cannot be held without local consent.
Bagram’s strategic importance is unquestionable, but in Afghan politics, symbols matter as much as runways. For the Taliban, ceding the base would be a humiliation, undermining the sovereignty they fought to reclaim.
Trump’s call, then, seems more rhetorical than practical. It signals a desire to reassert US influence in a region increasingly shaped by Chinese and Russian engagement. It may also be a way of further prodding the record of the Biden administration. But the Taliban’s rejection, coupled with their international backing, makes a negotiated return highly unlikely. The alternative – military force – would be prohibitively costly and politically untenable. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/what-chance-does-trump-have-negotiating-bagram-airbase-deal-taliban
The Cost of Imperial Arrogance
Returning to Bagram would be a catastrophic miscalculation—one that repeats every US failure since 2001.
Financial Drain: Billions more taxpayer dollars would be wasted on rebuilding a base only to lose it again.
Human Toll: More dead soldiers, more traumatized veterans, and countless more Afghan civilians caught in the crossfire.
Political Blowback: Trump campaigned on “America First” and ending endless wars. Reoccupying Bagram would be a naked betrayal of his voters and proof that the war machine controls US policy, no matter who is president.
The American people are tired of war. The Taliban will not surrender sovereignty. And the world is watching—no one is buying Washington’s lies anymore.
“The US is embracing confrontation, not deterrence.”
Google AI: The statement “The US is embracing confrontation, not deterrence” suggests a shift in US foreign policy from preventing conflict to actively engaging in it, a claim that is debated but has some recent evidence, such as the potential symbolic impact of restoring the “Department of War” name and rhetoric from some within the current administration emphasizing strength and countering threats from nations like China. However, the concept of “deterrence through denial” still actively shapes US strategy, and the administration’s overall goal remains to avoid war and maintain stability through a strong military and capable defense industrial base.
Arguments for “embracing confrontation”
Rhetoric and actions:
Some government officials, like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, have emphasized the need for strength and capability in the Indo-Pacific, which could be seen as a less defensive posture than pure deterrence.
Symbolic shifts:
The reported restoration of the “Department of War” name is presented as a signal that the United States is openly acknowledging its role as a war-making power, rather than a reactive one.
Focus on counteracting threats:
The new administration is seen by some as focusing strategic attention on countering threats from China, which could be interpreted as a more confrontational approach.
Arguments against “embracing confrontation”
Deterrence remains a core goal:
The official mission of the Department of Defense is still to “deter war and ensure our nation’s security”.
Integrated deterrence strategy:
The US has a strategy of “integrated deterrence,” which includes economic, technological, military, and ideological elements, as well as the role of allies and partners.
Emphasis on peace and stability:
While acknowledging increased tensions, the goal is still to build a constructive relationship and restore peace and stability.
Building capability for deterrence:
Efforts to increase defense spending, revitalize the defense industrial base, and improve military capabilities are intended to end conflicts and restore stability through deterrence.
Conclusion
The assertion that the US is embracing confrontation over deterrence is a strong claim. While some actions and rhetoric might be interpreted as more confrontational, the stated goals and broader strategic framework still include deterrence as a central pillar of US foreign policy, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. The distinction often lies in the interpretation of how to best achieve deterrence in a complex, competitive environment.
To Allies (NATO, Gulf States):
“Washington is unstable, unreliable, and hungry for conflict.”
To the World:
“The rules-based order is dead. Welcome to the era of open imperialism.”
Image 4: Palestine, genocide, and the imperialist lie of the ‘rules-based international order’
4. The Historical Parallels
WIKIPEDIA1947: Last use of “War Department” before rebranding to “Defense Department” post-WWII. WIKIPEDIA(United States Department of Defense)
2024: Trump revives pre-Cold War terminology, signaling a return to unchecked militarism.
5. The Inevitable Fallout
Escalation Risk: West Asia (Iran-Israel), Latin America (Venezuela), and Eastern Europe (Ukraine) are tinderboxes.
Loss of Trust: Allies question US motives; adversaries prepare for conflict.
Legacy: Trump’s presidency may be remembered not for “peace,” but for normalizing war as policy. NEWSWEEK
Call to Action
*“Share this article. Tag media outlets. Demand answers:
Why is a ‘peace president’ rebranding for war?
Will Congress block this dangerous shift?
Is the world ready for Trump’s militarized America?
