Talk:American expansionism under Donald Trump

Edit war

So, it looks as though the original author switched it back without engaging. Not only is their entry biased, but it's also inaccurate. "Federal Canadian officials in Ontario" didn't threaten to disrupt energy exports to the US, that was Ontario Premier Doug Ford (a Canadian civics lesson seems to be in order). I'm going to change it back, and I invite whoever did this to discuss any disagreements they might have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViveleCanada (talk • contribs) 12:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

If you were the one adding in the disputed edits, then WP:ONUS is on you to discuss why your additions should be included. Until then, the old version of the article stays up. That's typically how it works. You shouldn't be changing it back, that's a breach of policy (unless I'm misunderstanding the situation here). I see you're a new user so I'm just letting you know how the process works. HarvardJock (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes on the basis of the following sources Carnegie Endowment for International Peace On one side, Trump appears to be interested in the Venezuela model in Iran, which is predicated on aligning with a pragmatic regime insider and accessing vast oil reserves and other resources., CBS Late Sunday, Iran announced that Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei would replace his father as Iran's supreme leader. "I have no message for him. None, whatsoever," the president said, adding that he has someone else in mind to lead the country (Emphasis mine), Financial Times Donald Trump has said he wants to “take the oil in Iran” and could seize the export hub of Kharg Island and NBC Trump’s team members themselves have refused to rule out seizing Kharg Island, which accounts for more than 90% of Iran’s oil exports. Current and former American officials say such an assault would be an attempt to collapse the regime's economy and break its stranglehold on global markets. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  A few additional sources not currently being used include The Daily Beast EMPIRE BUILDERS. By: MURPHY, TIM, Mother Jones, 03628841, May/Jun2026, Vol. 51, Issue 3, and I saved one of the best for last: A year in, Trump and his major policies are uniquely unpopular, polls show By: Amber Phillips, Washington Post, The, 01/22/2026 Trump is redefining himself as an aggressively expansionist president. He ousted Venezuela's leader and asserted the U.S. is running the country. He is considering military strikes against Iran... Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Yes I've already linked these sources in the 2026 Iran war discussion page, and they do indeed mention that the 2026 Iran war connects to a wider trend of American expansionism under Donald Trump: PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• The Diplomat: For a president whose overseas dealmaking and transactional approach have long been framed as serving “MAGA” priorities, his growing expansionism – from ambitions involving Greenland to a military operation in Venezuela and now a prolonged conflict with Iran – has undermined his foreign policy legacy and weakened his reputation as a leader who would avoid entangling the United States in “forever wars.”
• Open: What began as a regional conflict with global implications turned into a world-spanning crisis driven by a regional war. This is the enduring lesson of the Iran war. More fundamentally, Trump has barely disguised his neo-im­perial yearning, which may explain his growing expansionist itch. From renewed pressure for US control over Greenland and the Panama Canal to open-ended military intervention in Venezuela and talk of redrawing borders or relocating populations, he has revived a logic more familiar to the age of empires than to the post-1945 international order.
• National Herald: The military campaign against Iran, launched with the aim of degrading its strategic capabilities and reshaping regional dynamics, has also revealed the limits of America’s coercive power. What was presented as a quick, decisive operation has turned into a protracted, uncertain conflict, with Iran waging an asymmetric war on its own terms... These concerns are not entirely without merit, but the paradox of Trump’s foreign policy lies in its unintended consequences. By abandoning the ideological framework that once legitimised American power, it weakens that power. By engaging in expansionist actions and costly conflicts, it accelerates strategic over-stretch. By focusing on short-term dominance rather than long-term stability, it creates conditions that favour the rival it seeks to contain.
• SCMP: The old habit is to read these stories one by one. Panama. Venezuela. Greenland. Iran. A better way is to read them as points on a single map. That map tells a more fundamental story. The contest is no longer only about borders or regimes. It is about what I call “enclosure”. We are entering an era where power is measured less by how much territory you hold and more by how many gates you can shut and for how long. Panama has locks. The Strait of Hormuz has risk. The Arctic has access. Oil has choke points. In 2026, the struggle is not about persuasion. It is about control of passage. The superpowers are fighting for the keys.

• No As I expanded on in the discussion section, American Expansionism captures the desire to decide another country's internal affairs in times of peace. The aim towards Iran may well turn expansionist following the conflict but it is too soon to make that statement.Czarking0 (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  The article doesn't provide "times of peace" being the determining definitive factor. Regardless, given the ambitions of Trump/US regarding Iran, deciding "another country's internal affairs in times of peace" seems to have been the plan and multiple sources, mentioned here by all the other users thus far, have provided sources towards that aim. Not to mention the military means, which is self-evident, and does in fact fall under the definition of expansionism for our purposes here. HarvardJock (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Yes because, as this article states, American expansionism is not just about explicit territorial gains but influence. Trump's stated goals for Iran have consistently fluctuated, but they've all had the common theme of gaining a US influential advantage over Iran (at least he attempted to do so). Trump considering taking over the Strait of Hormuz: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-iran-cbs-news-the-war-is-very-complete-strait-hormuz/ --- Trump seeking to take the oil in Iran: https://www.ft.com/content/3bd9fb6c-2985-4d24-b86b-23b7884031f5?syn-25a6b1a6=1 (Venezuela model). Not to mention the more obvious reason that the core goal of a regime change, which could potentially turn Iran into a weaker state, would be beneficial to US-Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. I also second the input of the other users, who have given great opinions. The article's description, in its essence, also already does a good job explaining and giving background for why it's totally rational to include the Iran war as a part of Trump's expansionism in terms of American influence. HarvardJock (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• No, as what makes Trump's antics notable are the repeated threats of annexation, proper territorial expansion, etc. All other stuff (Venezuela, Iran, etc.) can just be fitted into standard foreign policy, build spheres of influence. Frankly, I think this article needs to be cut down; seems to be drifting into WP:OR with some of the topics included under the umbrella of "Trumpist expansion." Oh, and considering that this was inspired by this convo on Talk:2026 Iran war, this should further be another reason why this shouldn't be included unless we want to start applying British Imperialism or Religious conflict to the |part_of= of every infobox in articles relating to British wars, the Kappel Wars, etc. — Knightoftheswords 07:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
• No, because it's too soon. I'm looking online right now with search filters set to only show stuff published during the Iran war and there's barely anything to be found at all. Now we have to remember that if there are only a handful of reliable sources, most of them relatively new, even mentioning American expansionism in connection to the Iran war then it's not reasonable to demand a reliable source has explicitly refuted that claim or else it has to be right to include it. This is honestly verging on being a straight up WP:DUE situation. We have, what, one National Herald article, an opinion piece in the Diplomat and an article from an Indian magazine? The discourse on this subject is so woefully lacking at this point in time that I can't see how it can be WP:DUE to include anything on it alongside the other stuff this article deals with, which has tons of commentary linking it to the idea of modern American expansionism.

I'm more than willing to revisit this later as I don't fully buy the argument that the term expansionism cannot be used at all unless there is some open intent at acquiring sovereignty over territory, but right now it looks to me as if we just don't have enough WP:RS to work with. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 13:52, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• No. The discussion above seems to have taken place largely when taking Kharg Island- or even a ground invasion- was still on the table and being discussed about seriously. Speaking in hindsight when the war has largely shifted, while things of course can change, it seems that an actual push to overthrow the regime or take over Iran is no longer on the table. Thus, with the benefit of waiting a few weeks, I don't think this is an example of expansionism. Cherrytxrt 📧 22:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure "well they're losing" is a reason to exclude. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's not, hence why I didn't say that. I'm saying the reason why many others above have said Yes is because of speculation around Kharg Island or taking the oil, neither of which has happened. I am saying the assumptions which others have made when saying Yes no longer hold true. Cherrytxrt 📧 13:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Do you have any sources saying they no longer intend to take Kharg Island? Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/trump-public-bravado-private-fear-59814dca?mod=hp_lead_pos7

  "Trump has resisted sending American soldiers to take Kharg Island, for example, the launch point for 90% of Iran’s oil exports. While he was told the mission would succeed, and the territory’s capture would give the U.S. access to the strait, he worried there would be unacceptably high American casualties, the people said. They’ll be sitting ducks, the president said." Cherrytxrt 📧 13:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Trump changes his agendas a lot on abrupt whims, such as on Greenland — it doesn't exactly change that he had expansionist agendas on Greenland or Iran. Also, these insider sources aren't always inherently reliable, especially for something like the Trump administration, which often deceives its audiences. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but "abrupt whims" aren't what we use as sources. You are essentially just speculating that he will take more aggressive actions in the future which, if it actually happens, would justify inclusion.

  The Wall Street Journal is a reliable source, so unless there is evidence to the contrary that this is made up, this isn't a concern. Cherrytxrt 📧 11:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  It’s not about whether he actually executed his expansionist plans in practice but whether it’s something he considered in the first place. But that’s beside the point here, since in my earlier points, I said that multiple authors consider this war to be part of a wider pattern of expansionist activities, and his suggestion of annexing territories from Iran and renaming a strait is similar to what’s been listed as expansionist here. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Renaming a strait is not evidence of expansionism, as otherwise renaming the Gulf of America would be evidence that he wants to take over territories in the Carribean. He also could easily rename the strait in the same way he renamed the Gulf of America- he could do so tomorrow, in fact, but has pointedly chosen not to.

  If Trump wanted to annex territory, he would not have acted in the way that the WSJ reported in my article above; he was advised that he had an opportunity to seize control of the entire strait and annex Iranian territory (which, if it had happened, would be the most obvious justification to include Iran in this article), and actually decided not to.

  I also have already acknowledged that multiple editors above have considered the possibility of territorial annexation, and I have already said above that, with the benefit of hindsight, such speculation has remained unfounded. Cherrytxrt 📧 15:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  That's a big claim to hang on a single Washington Post article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's not a big claim at all. The claim is that Trump was given an opportunity to seize Kharg Island, and he didn't. We know for a fact that Kharg Island has not been seized, and we also know that there has been weeks of speculation that he might seize it.

  The only other claim I see in my post- that Trump has not renamed the Strait of Hormuz- they're also true, not because they hang on any article, but because he hasn't.

  And if you are questioning the reliability of the WSJ, again, the WSJ is by consensus a reliable source. I would appreciate an explanation of why the reliability of the article is being questioned for that reason. Cherrytxrt 📧 16:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Again, expansionism as discussed in this article does not have to have been executed in practice, just considered at the very least under the Trump administration. We're not saying the WSJ is unreliable; we're just questioning the extent to which anonymous sources under this presidency are reliable since they lie a lot and may aim to mislead Iran during this war. I don't even know how people see this war as separate from his expansionist patterns, but again, that's beside the point here. The question posed in this discussion is, "Are there sources proving that this war falls under the topic of expansionism under Trump? And the answer is yes. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  I was about to comment something similar, though with more detail. The US failure in accomplishing a single one of their purported objectives (rhetorically or realistically) is not grounds, in my view, to exclude Iran from this expansionism article. At the very least, Iran should be discussed as a part of US attempts at expansionism, but given less weight compared to, say, Venezuela. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

Courtesy pings to: @Scryme, @Sanad The Libyan, @Lothengrun de Spigel, @Wikieditor662, @BrechtBro, @ Kalpesh Manna 2002, @Durranistan, @Ahammed Saad, @ HarvardJock, @ PrimalMustelid @Placeholderer, @VitoxxMass, @Santasa99, @Knightoftheswords281, @EditorShane3456 you were all involved in the discussion at the other page. I have excluded a notification for temporary accounts who participated in the prior discussion as they should not have per the logged-in, extended-confirmed edit requirements of discussions that are within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic area. I have not scrutinized the EC status of logged in editors who participated in the prior discussion. All editors please be aware that this discussion is subject to the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic area active remedies as well as the Post-1978 Iranian politics contentious topic area active remedies. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

No. Expansionism means having the goal of expanding as a policy, so is imperialism. This would fall under "Military actions taken under Donald Trump's presidency". shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Two things. First you might want to log you !vote in the survey section. Second, please remember to avoid WP:OR and to concentrate on sources. Do reliable sources suggest this is expansionism or no? Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag. I'll place my reply above in the Survey section. HarvardJock (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I provided my opinion under the Survey section by adding it in the section manually, without using "reply" or any features like the suggested !vote feature another user described. My opinion is still counted right? Or should have I done it differently? HarvardJock (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Your vote will count Czarking0 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Awesome! HarvardJock (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Preventing Iran from deciding the direction and duration of the conflict does not amount to expansionism. Sources supporting that the Iran war is part of US expansionism should discuss US policy goals after the conflict. At this time, I find it hard to believe that Trump has a clear post-conflict goal. Here is source supporting the first part of my point.

The Venezuela model, in other words, will not work in Iran. In fact, a singular and spectacular strike on Khamenei might have the opposite of its intended effect. Rather than fostering division and thus jeopardizing the regime, remaining officials would be more likely to close ranks, at least initially. They would keep the system running and try to seek revenge. To some analysts, the fact that limited strikes will fail is reason enough to think twice about employing the military. “Iran will not cave to major demands simply because of a bombing campaign,” wrote Nate Swanson, a former White House adviser on Iran, in a cautionary Foreign Affairs piece. “An attack by the United States on Iran could result in unexpectedly deadly retaliation—and a much longer and potentially damaging conflict.” Unless Iran is bluffing, this analysis is correct. But it is not a compelling reason to avoid using the military. Iran is the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, one of the most outright anti-American governments in the world, and the country with the largest ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East. Nearly a half century of experience has shown that the Islamic Republic will not meaningfully moderate any of this behavior or treat its citizens any better. Washington now has a historic opportunity to bring down the regime, and it cannot pass it up out of fear. Indeed, the fact that Iran would almost certainly escalate in response to a limited U.S. strike is all the more reason to go big from the beginning and avoid settling into the kind of gradual escalation that turns wars into quagmires. Washington cannot let Tehran dictate the pace or terms of the conflict.^[2]

Czarking0 (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I mean that might make sense in a timeless void where History didn't occur but in real the context is the war that the US started. Seemingly on a whim. Simonm223 (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2026 (UTC)