L’estratègia de Seguretat Nacionals dels EUA ha estat feta pública aqueix novembre passat aixecant opinions divergents sobre el seu contingut sobretot entre els estats europeus i el progressisme occidentals.
Una de les reflexions que em sembla més punyent pels europeus és aqueixa d’Alain Destexhe, que fou secretari general de Metges Sense Fronteres, publicada ahir a Causeur.fr: Miroir, mon beau miroir.
La semaine dernière, la Maison-Blanche a publié la nouvelle Stratégie de sécurité nationale (NSS) des États-Unis. Un document bref — trente-trois pages seulement — mais qui dessine une vision du monde radicalement différente de celle que l’on prétend imposer à Bruxelles ou à Paris. En Europe, l’onde de choc fut immédiate : le chancelier Merz s’est empressé de qualifier certaines formulations d’«inacceptables».
Pour qui observe depuis onze mois la diplomatie américaine sous Donald Trump, rien de fondamentalement nouveau cependant n’apparaît ici : la rupture était déjà là, mais elle s’énonce désormais noir sur blanc dans un texte officiel qui constitue la doctrine d’une administration assumant son ambition. Les élites bruxelloises, parisiennes ou berlinoises auront beau protester, se lamenter, geindre comme elles le font depuis une semaine, elles devront se résoudre à l’évidence: l’Amérique de Trump n’est plus celle de Biden, Bush ou Obama.
Ce texte n’est pas une provocation, mais un diagnostic lucide sur l’état d’un monde multipolaire — et plus encore sur l’état de l’Europe. On aimerait, en France comme dans l’Union européenne, voir surgir un tel exercice de clarté : une stratégie ramassée, articulant vision, ambition et politique en quelques dizaines de pages. En refermant le document américain, on songe au général de Gaulle et à Margaret Thatcher, peut-être les derniers dirigeants européens à disposer d’une véritable boussole. Quel horizon proposent aujourd’hui des figures aussi falotes que Macron, Starmer, Merz ou Mme von der Leyen ?
La doctrine américaine repose sur un principe simple : protéger les Américains et la civilisation américaine, ce qui implique de restaurer la puissance intérieure et de revoir des alliances extérieures. Quatre axes structurent ce recentrage stratégique :
À chaque ligne, l’Europe apparaît en creux. Le contraste frappe : l’Union européenne est submergée par l’immigration de masse, renonce à défendre sa civilisation et s’abandonne à une islamisation rampante qu’elle n’ose ni nommer ni analyser. Elle a sacrifié son industrie au dogme du libre-échange, réprimant par ailleurs la liberté d’expression au prix de condamnations judiciaires, d’amendes dissuasives, voire de fermetures de médias. On ne s’étonnera pas que les dirigeants européens accueillent fraîchement la stratégie américaine : elle révèle leurs renoncements.
La question de l’OTAN surgit alors naturellement. « Sur le long terme, il est plus que plausible que, d’ici quelques décennies au plus tard, certains membres de l’OTAN deviennent majoritairement non européens. Dès lors, il est légitime de se demander s’ils verront encore leur place dans le monde – ou leur alliance avec les États-Unis – de la même manière que ceux qui ont signé la charte de l’OTAN. »
Washington valide ainsi la réalité du grand remplacement qui, rappelons-le, n’est pas une théorie mais, selon l’auteur de cette formule, Renaud Camus, une description des évolutions démographiques. Autrement dit : la pérennité de l’OTAN dépend aussi de l’identité culturelle de ses membres. Une idée que les élites européennes refusent même d’évoquer.
De même, un chiffre assène l’ampleur du déclin continental : l’Europe pesait 25 % du PIB mondial en 1990 ; elle n’en représente plus que 14 % aujourd’hui. À cela s’ajoute un recul vertigineux du niveau de vie relatif : le PIB par habitant français, qui atteignait 92 % du niveau américain en 1990, n’en représente plus que 54 %. Notre continent se marginalise, culturellement comme économiquement.
On aurait tort de voir dans cette stratégie un acte d’hostilité. C’est au contraire un avertissement, presque un conseil d’ami. Trump dit à l’Europe : sois fière de ta civilisation, sinon elle mourra — et toi avec.
La NSS consacre une large place à l’Indo-Pacifique : la Chine n’est pas désignée comme un ennemi, mais comme un concurrent qu’il faut contenir par la puissance industrielle, technologique et le « soft power » américain. Le document revient sur les illusions des années 2000, selon lesquelles l’intégration de Pékin dans l’ordre économique mondial l’amènerait à la démocratie.
En 1999, Bill Clinton, le président démocrate, justifiait ainsi l’entrée de la Chine dans l’OMC : « Cet accord est bon pour la Chine, bon pour les États-Unis et bon pour l’économie mondiale (…). Il servira les réformes et les progrès de l’État de droit en Chine. » On sait ce qu’il en est advenu.
Au Moyen-Orient, l’objectif américain n’est plus de transformer les régimes politiques de la région, mais de prévenir qu’une puissance hostile ne domine les ressources énergétiques et les points de passage stratégiques. En Afrique, Washington veut rompre avec la logique de l’aide : l’avenir du continent dépend de flux d’investissements productifs.
Quant à l’approche globale, la rupture est nette : plus d’exportation de démocratie par les armes, plus de jugements moralisateurs sur les régimes amis. Les termes mêmes de « droits de l’homme » et d’« État de droit » sont absents du document!
Après lecture, on ne peut s’empêcher de rêver ce que serait une France adoptant une telle politique : une stratégie industrielle résolue, un soutien franc au nucléaire, une énergie bon marché, un rétablissement des relations économiques avec la Russie, ainsi que la remise en cause du regroupement familial et du droit d’asile tel qu’appliqué aujourd’hui, qui accélèrent la submersion migratoire. Un rêve qui est le cauchemar des élites au pouvoir.
Post Scriptum, 17 de desembre del 2025.
Aqueix report de l’analista de l’INSS Israel Yacov Bengo el proppassat 24 de juny aporta reflexions escaients per comprendre l’estrategia noramericana:”Peace Through Strength”: America’s Path Against the Emerging Global Threat. One Superpower vs. Five Dictatorships: An Analysis of Global Power Relations“.
This article reframes the current global landscape: the United States faces not a regional conflict but a decisive struggle for its established world order. Five states—Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Qatar—are coordinately challenging American hegemony, using economic, cyber, and cognitive warfare, a dynamic the United States often struggles to fully grasp. Iran, the most vulnerable yet dangerous link, looms as a nuclear threat that would irreversibly shift global power and constrain US influence. With Europe largely sidelined, the United States alone bears the responsibility to act decisively in its own interest, upholding Ronald Reagan’s “Peace Through Strength” over risky isolationism. Failure to act now against this evolving threat will critically undermine long-term US strategic stability, jeopardizing its security and prosperity both domestically and abroad.
The United States finds itself in the middle of a new global campaign—not a war in the traditional sense of tanks and front lines, but a comprehensive struggle for control, ideas, and influence. Facing it stands a coordinated bloc of five dictatorships: Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Qatar. These nations are uniting forces, openly and covertly, consciously and unconsciously, in an attempt to undermine and even collapse the liberal-democratic order the United States has built since World War II.
This is a conflict fundamentally different from 20th-century confrontations. It is not about formal alliances but rather synchronized, sophisticated, and unofficial action. Their tools are varied: the global economy, social networks, advanced technology, supply chains—and powerful psychological, cognitive, and political means. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the world has entered a new phase: strategic competition has become an ongoing operational arena, where warfare is conducted in cyber, cognition, and commerce as well.
The Rational-Authoritarian Axis: Led by China and Russia, this is a conflict over resources, technology, and the structure of international power. China promotes a model of state-controlled authoritarian capitalism, penetrating Western markets and taking over strategic infrastructure. Russia, through hybrid warfare and political influence, seeks to fragment NATO, and undermine America’s self-confidence. North Korea serves as strategic depth for Russia and a proxy player for China.
The Radical-Islamist Axis: Led by Iran and Qatar, this axis presents a distinct and complex challenge. Iran operates openly and forcefully, under a radical Shiite worldview that seeks to impose Sharia as a universal human ideal. Qatar, conversely, as a Sunni state that supports and hosts the Muslim Brotherhood, employs a quieter, more sophisticated method: It funds and promotes a global ideological intifada against American values, utilizing civil society institutions, academia, and the free media of the free world in a manipulative manner. Despite their doctrinal differences and historical rivalry (Shiite Iran versus Sunni Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood), there is a noticeable, often covert, strategic cooperation between these two currents in their shared ideological campaign against US values and the global order.
These two axes converge—ideologically, economically, and militarily—with one goal: to erode America’s self-belief and propose a new social order for humanity, whether under an authoritarian regime or a radical Islamic religious regime.
Among the five dictatorships, Iran is the most vulnerable link—and the only one the United States can still act forcefully against and neutralize before it becomes an irreversible threat. Russia, China, and North Korea already possess nuclear weapons; Iran—not yet. If Iran indeed crosses the nuclear threshold, a hostile global nuclear axis will be formed for the first time against the United States. Four nuclear states, each driven by disdain for freedom, democracy, and the American order, will then dictate the rules.
Therefore, the struggle over Iran’s nuclear program is not merely a Middle Eastern challenge, but a decisive global fault line. It marks the boundary between the continuation of American global leadership and entering a new era where nuclear dictatorships dictate the rules of the game. Such an era would gravely harm US national security:
Undermining American Hegemony and Influence: A nuclear dictatorial axis would push the United States out of global decision-making centers and diminish its ability to shape the future in favor of its interests and those of its allies.
Increased Instability and Nuclear Proliferation: A nuclear Iran would feel immune to its aggressive actions, leading to a deadly nuclear arms race in the Middle East and dramatically increasing the likelihood of regional conflicts that could quickly escalate into a global threat.
Direct Threat to Vital American Interests: Even without a direct nuclear threat on US soil, the existence of a hostile nuclear axis would reduce Washington’s strategic maneuverability, necessitate unprecedented defense investments, and genuinely endanger close US allies in sensitive regions—a danger that could drag the United States into undesirable conflicts.
Damage to Global Economic Prosperity: Global security instability, disruptions to trade routes and energy supply, and arms races would severely harm the global economy, and by direct implication, the economic prosperity of American citizens.
The understanding that “rules of the game dictated by nuclear dictatorships” is fundamentally bad for the United States is critical. While Qatar, as a negative actor, can be handled through economic and regulatory means, the other four will require real military force. Any isolationist approach, seeking to reduce US involvement in the world in the name of “America First,” is likely to achieve the opposite: it will leave a power vacuum that hostile actors will quickly fill, increase risks, and diminish the United States’ ability to respond when the threat is already at its doorstep. Preventing a nuclear Iran is not just a regional issue, but a strategic investment in the long-term security, stability, and prosperity of the United States.
The United States is the only superpower capable—and obligated—to halt the dangerous advance of dictatorial power. This is not merely a matter of strategic interest but a determination of US destiny in a future era of difficult wars in an unstable world. Against isolationist views, it must be understood that “Peace through Strength,” as Ronald Reagan emphasized, is key to American security, in stark contrast to “Peace through Isolation,” which has proven its historical failure. America’s destiny is to be a key player in the world, and it cannot afford to withdraw.
Western Europe, as British author Douglas Murray argues in his book The Strange Death of Europe, has lost the will and ability to defend its values. It has retreated into soft power, economically dependent, toothless. The Russia–Ukraine war sharply illustrated this: Without American support, Kyiv would have fallen, and Europe would have found itself facing direct nuclear confrontation. Today, Western Europe increasingly resembles “the Sick Man of the Bosphorus”—an expression the British reserved for the Ottoman Empire on the eve of its collapse.
However, a crucial point is that the United States is not required to assist its allies if they do not help themselves and take a clear stance. Pressure from public opinion leaders under the slogan “America First” emphasizes that any American involvement must be focused on its national interest. Yet, the American interest demands action: The collapse of the global order—or legitimizing nuclear dictatorships to set the rules—would severely harm US security, its economy, and stability. Preventing such a scenario, despite the burden, is a necessary investment in preserving America’s strength and global standing.
It is clear that the United States has inherited problems on two critical fronts: One is the internal front, where it struggles with its identity and social cohesion. The second is the external front, where it is forced to contend with an expanding axis of hostile dictatorships and complex global challenges. It is impossible to win on one front without losing on the other; the United States must win on both. Security and strength at home are a necessary prerequisite for effective leadership abroad, and proactive, interest-driven involvement in the international arena is vital for maintaining the prosperity and security of the American nation at home.
The world is moving, and it is not waiting for America. This is an all-out struggle—both domestically and abroad. To try and minimize it, or ignore one of its components, means to weaken America’s power against its enemies and to endanger its future.
The United States finds itself facing a pivotal dilemma: Does it prefer to deal with a restrained Iran—but with a readily available nuclear capability—or to act now, with a strategic strike that would restore American deterrence and create a deterrent domino effect also towards the rest of the axis? This is the moment of choice—to lead or to be dragged? To act, or to merely watch from the sidelines—and ultimately discover that chaos will reach their very doorstep?
The United States can and must win on both fronts. It must act now, with determination and wisdom, to ensure its prosperity, security, and leading position in the world.
Post Scriptum, 17 de desembre del 2025.
Abans d’ahir a Desk Russie Jean-Sylvestre Mongrenier opinava “Sur la « Stratégie de sécurité nationale » des États-Unis”.
Post Scriptum, 5 de gener del 2026.
Bona anàlisi del politòleg marroquí Amine Ayoub avui a Ynet: “Locked and loaded: Trump’s ‘Rescue Doctrine’ ends the era of appeasement“.
Us ha agradat aquest article? Compartiu-lo!