Beyond Greenland and Iran: What Actually Comes Next? | Jacob Shapiro

Episode Overview

• This episode presents a speculative geopolitical analysis set in January 2026, exploring a "what if" scenario where Donald Trump is President and global tensions are high.
• The narrative focuses on three major flashpoints: a potential US military intervention in Greenland, the stability of the Iranian regime amidst protests, and the domestic economic struggles of the Trump administration.
• This content is relevant for those interested in scenario planning, geopolitical strategy, and understanding how domestic economic performance drives foreign policy aggression.

Key Concepts

• The Strategic Redundancy of Invading Greenland: The speaker argues that a military takeover of Greenland would be a profound strategic error because the US already possesses "de facto" control through existing treaties (1940 and 1951). Alienating European allies by seizing territory for resources (like rare earths) is counterproductive because the bottleneck for those resources is processing capacity—which is dominated by China—not raw extraction.
• Elite Fracture vs. Popular Protest: While analyzing Iran, the episode posits that street protests and external military pressure rarely topple authoritarian regimes on their own. True regime change typically occurs only when the internal political and military elites decide the current leadership is a liability and defect (the "Venezuela model").
• Foreign Policy as Domestic Distraction: Presidents facing low domestic approval ratings—specifically regarding the economy—often pivot to aggressive foreign policy because their power is less constrained abroad. The episode links Trump's fictional 36% economic approval rating to his bellicose stance on Greenland and Iran, suggesting international volatility is a symptom of domestic weakness.

Quotes

• At 0:58 - "The reason is because if the US intervenes in Greenland militarily against the will of Greenlanders, against the will of Denmark, against the will of its NATO allies and against the will of Europe, it is the end of NATO." - highlighting the immense diplomatic cost of unilateral action compared to the negligible strategic gain.
• At 7:08 - "Protesters are not going to bring down this regime, and American bombs and drones are not going to bring down this regime. What will bring down this regime is when insiders and elites at the current level decide that the current regime is not worth protecting anymore." - explaining the specific mechanism required for authoritarian collapse, contrasting it with the popular view of revolution.
• At 9:48 - "When US Presidents start facing domestic opposition, it is completely normal for them to turn to the one place where their power is relatively unconstrained, which is foreign policy." - providing a framework for understanding why leaders often become more aggressive internationally when their domestic popularity tanks.

Takeaways

• Evaluate resource conflicts through the supply chain: When assessing territorial grabs for resources (like rare earths), do not focus solely on where the mines are; assess where the refining capacity exists, as possessing the ore is useless without the ability to process it.
• Monitor elite cohesion as the leading indicator of collapse: When forecasting the fall of a hostile regime, prioritize tracking military and political defections over the size or volume of street protests.
• Correlate economic data with geopolitical risk: Use domestic economic approval ratings as a barometer for international stability; if a leader's economic trust numbers plummet, prepare for increased volatility and distraction tactics on the global stage.