HIKMA SUMMIT
OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Sandbox bully

The Panama Canal links the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, speeding up transit times between the West and East coast of the United States, by comparison with the longer route around Cape Horn. It is perhaps the absurdity of Trump’s claims and how his actions never seem to be predictable that resulted in BlackRock, the biggest US company buying and taking control over the Balboa and Cristobal ports (Panama Canal) ; for no less than 23$ billions. 

The deal follows increasing pressure from Washington to curb Chinese economic involvement in strategic infrastructure projects. In February, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio traveled to Panama, urging the country to distance itself from Beijing. Shortly afterward, Panama withdrew from China's Belt and Road Initiative.

In the long run, the Trump administration aims to reestablish control over critical maritime routes as a means to counter threats from China and maintain economic stability. This strategy is driven by the desire to enable safe and efficient shipping, which is fundamental to U.S. trade interests  and reduction of living cost that Donald Trump so fervently promised.

Another shortcut for providing a “new standard of living” is the monopole of resources. To this effect, Greenland seems to be the perfect candidate. Since he was elected, Trump has on several occasions expressed his wish to take control of Greenland, an Arctic territory currently under Danish rule. Again, his logic is eminently strategic and economic. In the first place, Greenland has rich mineral resources and perhaps oil and gas reserves. Above all, however, the melting of the ice cap has opened the way to new Arctic Sea routes. At the same time, given its proximity to Russia, the United States' presence there would also have an important military and strategic dimension.

Dreaming big, dreaming abroad 

Similarly to the Panama Canal, the Suez canal is of central importance in the new maritime expansionist vision of the US. The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas took effect on January 19th, just prior to Donald Trump's inauguration. Initially, this agreement sparked optimism for a reduction in regional tensions and an end to Houthi assaults on vessels in the Red Sea. This would enable ships to start using the Suez Canal again after 18 months of rerouting around Africa via the Cape of Good Hope. However, the ceasefire is quite fragile, and the approach taken by the new Trump administration does not seem to support a return to stability. By exerting pressure on the involved parties, specifically on Gaza, Trump aims to quickly reopen this vital trade route. Decreased freight rates would benefit American importers and could help achieve the political goal of reducing inflation, even though transportation costs typically have a minimal impact on the overall price of consumer goods.

Trump's vision on Gaza, or his  “Middle East Riviera”, could also entail transforming the palestinian territory into a seaside resort to the glory of Donald Trump. With the recent video posted on the official presidential account, some speculate a deeper meaning. The reemergence of an idea dating back to the 1960s: the Ben Gurion canal project. Named after David Ben-Gurion, Prime Minister of Israel and emblematic figure in the creation of the Jewish state, this bold project plans to connect the Gulf of Aqaba, at the Southern end of Israel (Eilat), with the Mediterranean Sea, at Ashkelon. If built, the 292.9 km long canal, nearly one and a half times the length of the Suez Canal, would not only be an engineering feat but also a major strategic and economic lever in a region that is constantly changing.

Big fish in a small pond 

Yet, the US not only operates as a commercial expansionist power, but as a military one too. Having already the biggest fleet in the world, one has to expect a stable system that can support them. Maritime powers follow fundamentally different security paradigms than continental powers, with institutional strength being the foundational factor in their success. Unlike land-based empires focused on territorial control, maritime powers derive their strength from stable institutions that enable commerce, alliance management, and global power projection.

The Indo-Pacific region represents the ultimate test of maritime power projection. Distances are vast, allies are diverse, and adversaries are formidable. The U.S. ability to maintain freedom of navigation and respond to crises depends on what Dr. Sarah C. M. Paine terms the “coupling” of military capability with institutional capacity – the ability to make decisions swiftly, coordinate with allies, and deploy multiple instruments of national power in concert.

However, since the election of the new Trump administration, institutions are starting to crumble from inside. As a true businessman, Trump focused on cutting the cost and betting on commerce; but the traction gained as a new world businessman could cost the US its military [marine] forces.

Last month, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), though not an official government department, implemented directives aimed at radically reshaping federal agencies. The planned elimination of 90 percent of foreign aid contracts, totaling $60 billion, will eviscerate soft power tools that complement military presence.The State Department’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs – the nerve center for alliance management in the region – faces particular uncertainty. Project 2025’s blueprint explicitly targets the diplomatic corps, arguing that career diplomats often resist conservative presidents’ agendas.

"Civilizations die by suicide not by murder" - Arnold Toynbee's

From this, three critical vulnerabilities are emerging that could prove disastrous in a regional confrontation: collapsing diplomatic channels, strategic planning paralysis, and the unraveling of alliance frameworks. The U.S. faces the risk of being unable to effectively manage crises, as institutional memory and relationships built over decades are lost. This deterioration could not only  lead to miscommunication but also to an inability to de-escalate conflicts, particularly in high-stakes scenarios such as tensions with China or North Korea.

The US maritime ambitions represent a desperate attempt to reassert American global dominance. However, these efforts are simultaneously being undermined by a systematic dismantling of the very institutional frameworks that have historically sustained U.S. maritime power. The irony is stark: in an attempt to project strength, the nation might be systematically undermining the very foundations of its global influence. The US may be still able to create new roads, but will they be able to maintain control over them ?