I recently came across a quite shocking geopolitical analysis that I can't help but share.

From last January when Maduro was directly taken by U.S. special forces, to the end of February this year when Iran’s top leader was killed in an airstrike, and to Syria transforming from a sanctioned country into an investment destination—these three fronts seem disparate but actually reveal the same logic: Trump is turning foreign policy into a corporate acquisition.

Let's start with Venezuela. The U.S. isn’t engaging in traditional regime change; instead, it’s directly controlling a country’s resource lifelines. Trump proudly stated in his State of the Union that the U.S. has taken over more than 80 million barrels of oil, and the Energy Secretary openly said—American companies have committed hundreds of millions of dollars to repair oil fields, and the new regime is entirely dependent on U.S. cash flow. This isn’t sanctions; it’s resource custody.

The changes in Syria are even more subtle. In June last year, Trump issued an executive order lifting sanctions on Syria, and the EU quickly followed. But the underlying demands clearly reflect U.S. geopolitical goals—joining the Abraham Accords, expelling terrorists, and helping the U.S. prevent the resurgence of ISIS. Syria, once isolated, suddenly becomes a key pawn in the U.S. dismantling Iran’s "Resistance Arc." Meanwhile, the U.S. is also pressuring the Supreme Court to end temporary protected status for 6,000 Syrians, claiming "Assad’s regime has fallen, you should go home." The simultaneous lifting of sanctions and expulsion of refugees vividly demonstrates the cold-bloodedness of these deals.

As for Iran, it’s a full-scale military showdown. The February 28 "Lion’s Roar Operation" was not just a typical bombing of nuclear facilities like last June but aimed to completely destroy Iran’s command system. Reports say this airstrike killed over 200 Iranians, including 150 children at a primary school. Most notably, Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei was killed in this attack. In response, Iran announced it would close the Strait of Hormuz—the choke point for 20% of global oil shipments. International oil prices surged, and the global supply chain faces a new round of shocks.

I’ve noticed an interesting pattern: these three countries meet three conditions—they all possess energy or minerals that the U.S. urgently needs, are located in critical geopolitical positions, and have internal contradictions or vulnerabilities that can be exploited. Some experts point out that Trump’s foreign policy in his second term shows a clear "selective restraint"—being cautious with major powers like China and Russia, but boldly taking action against Iran, Venezuela, and similar "low-cost power displays."

What’s the most ironic comparison? In less than a year of Trump’s second term, the U.S. military has conducted strikes in 7 countries, with over 600 airstrikes—matching the total during Obama’s 8-year tenure. Trump, who once promised to "avoid unnecessary wars," now happily accepts the Nobel Peace Prize "gift" from Venezuela’s opposition.

Deeper still, the U.S. is normalizing "regime change." If a major power can arbitrarily arrest another country’s president or assassinate its top leader, then the international order established after WWII—based on sovereignty and equality—may really regress to 19th-century jungle law. When the rule-makers start trampling on rules, other nations are left with only two choices: submit to power or accelerate their own arming.

Venezuela’s oil continues flowing to U.S. refineries, Syria’s reconstruction contracts are being divided among Gulf states, and Iran’s skies are still filled with bombs. This lightning-fast campaign across three continents is never really about "democracy" or "counterterrorism," but about resource control and dominance over shipping routes. Trump’s countless midnight raids tell the world: in this new era, there are no fence-sitters—only gas stations.