prioritizes its own hemisphere

prioritizes its own hemisphere, the EU is forced to choose between being a junior partner in an American-led Atlanticist bloc or developing independent military capabilities. * Eastern Europe: This region becomes a "shatter zone" where and Western spheres overlap, leading to constant instability and a return to "buffer state" politics.

6. Latin America and Future U.S. Policy

Events in 2025–2026 indicate that the active re-application of the doctrine under Trump is now a reality. * Targeting China: The focus has shifted from "anti-communism" to "anti-Chinese infrastructure," with Washington using the doctrine to block "Belt and Road" projects.

* Military Dimensions: U.S. movements in early 2026 suggest a readiness to use force to "clear" the Western Hemisphere of external influence.

7. Theoretical and Assessment

The re-normalization of Monroe doctrines signals a retreat from a rules-based international order toward a neo-mercantilist imperial system. Multipolarity is not resulting in a "global village," but in a world fragmented into fortified spheres of influence, undermining the sovereignty of small states in the "near abroad" of great powers. Extension to the Arab and Islamic World: The "Eisenhower Doctrine" Although the Monroe Doctrine was geographically designed for the Americas, its "geopolitical logic" (enforcing exclusive spheres and barring foreign powers) migrated to the Middle East in the mid-20th century. * The Eisenhower Doctrine (1957) as a "Middle Eastern Monroe Doctrine": Following the 1956 Suez Crisis, President Dwight Eisenhower declared the U.S. would use military force to aid any Middle Eastern state requesting help against "communist aggression." This was a clone of the Monroe Doctrine; Washington sought to fill the "vacuum" left by British and French colonialism. * Application to Muslim Peoples: This logic justified interventions in Muslim-majority states under the pretext of protecting regional sovereignty while securing oil flow and supporting allied regimes (e.g., in 1958). * The Carter Doctrine and Gulf Security: In 1980, Jimmy Carter expanded this, declaring any attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf as an "attack on the vital interests of the United States." Analysts view this as an "Oil Monroe Doctrine." * Impact on Sovereignty: Like in Latin America, this led to the marginalization of national sovereignty and turned the region into an arena for Great Power competition, fueling resistance movements that rejected American tutelage.

Conclusion

The logical conclusion of this analysis is that the return of "Monroe Doctrines"—whether "Donroe" in Washington or "Eurasian" in Moscow—heralds the end of liberal globalization and the beginning of an era of "Geopolitical Feudalism."

In this new system, superiority is no longer measured by the ability to impose universal values, but by the ability to draw clear geographical boundaries and prevent rivals from crossing them. For the and Islamic world, this logic means the region will remain a hostage to the struggle over "vital spheres." The future of international stability depends on the ability of emerging powers in Latin America and the Middle East to break this "Monroe Cordon" and seek a true multipolar system based on sovereign balance rather than imperial protectorates.