Sometimes history turns not with a great battle or a grand speech, but with a cluster of decisions that, taken together, feel as if the compass of global politics has shifted. In the first days of 2026, one such week unfolded — a series of bold moves by the United States that have prompted commentators and historians to reach for old books, familiar phrases, and even ancient policy models to describe what they’re witnessing. Were the “forever wars” really ending? And if so, did something new and broader rise in their place — something that looks more like an empire revived on the stage of world power?

At the center of this debate is the Venezuela operation — a swift U.S. raid that captured President Nicolás Maduro and his inner circle without leaving American boots stationed for long. For many on the right, especially segments of the MAGA movement, this moment was interpreted as the end of America’s long “forever wars” — costly engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere that stretched for decades. President Trump’s swift extraction and his apparent lack of intent to embark on nation‑building were touted as a departure from the post‑9/11 model of foreign policy.

But for global observers and longtime critics of U.S. foreign engagement, the narrative is more complex — and less reassuring. The same actions that seemed to signify an end to protracted military commitments also revived older templates of American global assertiveness: gunboat diplomacy, territorial acquisition rhetoric, and economic self‑interest writ large. Some journalists and analysts have pointed out that elements of these recent moves echo interventions from over a century ago — from U.S. gunboat expeditions in Latin America to banana wars and colonial‑era occupations. Those actions, which once defined formal imperial practice, now jostle with modern tools and modern rhetoric in a way that leaves allies and rivals alike wondering whether a new form of empire is emerging.

Remarkably, even as Washington embraced a message of minimizing on‑the‑ground commitments, other signals suggested a resurgence of power projection. Trump’s announcement about using Venezuelan oil and broader ambitions for strategic assets — from Greenland to economic influence in the hemisphere — struck many as a return to realpolitik and territorial ambition, albeit repackaged for a different era. Where past wars extended into nation‑building, this moment feels more transactional: control of resources and influence without prolonged occupation.

This tension — between the desire to close one chapter of military involvement and the impulse to assert influence more brazenly elsewhere — has left NATO allies and other observers uneasy. They see what looks like a blended strategy, where direct large‑scale wars are replaced by targeted interventions, resource leverage, and geopolitical signaling that still place the United States at the center of international disputes and hierarchies.

In this light, the question posed by analysts — whether the world has truly moved from “forever wars” to a new kind of empire — is more than rhetoric. It reflects a moment in which global power is being reimagined: not as endless occupation, but as rapid, assertive, and at times unilateral action backed by overwhelming capability. If the last few years marked the end of one kind of global engagement, the first week of 2026 may mark the beginning of another — one that critics warn looks very old and very new at the same time.

AI Image Disclaimer “Visuals are created with AI tools and are not real photographs; they serve as conceptual illustrations only.”

Sources CNN analysis by Nathan Hodge Ground News aggregated reporting Related historical context on U.S. imperial diplomacy