** Politics & Policy: Trump hints at more military invasions. Here are the countries to watch (5 Jan 2026) **

1. Cuba: a historically fraught target with political symbolism

The president publicly suggested Cuba was “ready to fall” and that intervention there “sounds good,” language that prompted immediate denunciations from Havana and alarm among international law observers for breaching sovereignty norms ^{[3] [7]}. Cuba’s rejection of intervention was swift, and U.S. officials with Cuban ties have been among the administration’s most vocal proponents of tougher measures, implying ideological and diaspora politics factor into the choice ^{[7] [3]}.

2. Colombia: ally turned flashpoint over drugs and proximity

Trump told reporters an operation in Colombia “sounds good to me,” tying potential action to counter-narcotics aims and warning that Bogotá could face pressure if it did not reduce drug flows — comments that provoked an angry response from Colombia’s government ^{[2] [8]}. Colombia’s long history as a U.S. security partner complicates the calculus: decades of cooperation on counternarcotics and military aid mean intervention would carry high diplomatic and operational costs, and Reuters and The Guardian reported immediate condemnation and regional unease ^{[2] [9]}.

3. Mexico: domestic politics and border security as drivers

Trump specifically told Fox & Friends that “something’s going to have to be done with Mexico,” linking potential action to his broader narrative about drug flows and border control ^[1]. Given Mexico’s geographic proximity and deep economic interdependence with the United States, any military contingency would risk massive political and economic fallout — a factor noted across outlets that described the president’s comments as raising alarm both domestically and among allies ^{[5] [7]}.

4. Greenland and Iran: strategic resources and geopolitical alignment

Coverage has also placed Greenland and Iran on a shortlist of places the administration might eye: Greenland for its rare earths and strategic Arctic position, and Iran because it reportedly topped the agenda at a Mar‑a‑Lago meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ^[4]. Those mentions come less from direct presidential threats and more from reporting on geopolitical interests and high-level discussions; they signal that strategic-resource and alliance-driven motives — alongside regional politics in Latin America — shape which countries make the list ^[4].

5. How serious are the threats — rhetoric, policy shift, or doctrine?

Analysts differ: some outlets frame the comments as bluster or opportunistic messaging following the Venezuela operation ^{[5] [1]}, while Reuters, The Bulwark and others warn the Venezuela intervention fits a pattern toward active regime change — including talk of “boots on the ground” and control of resources — that would be a sharp departure from earlier MAGA-era anti‑interventionist claims ^{[6] [10]}. Media critiques also note the legal and political risks: international law, likely regional pushback, and the prospect of protracted conflict that could undermine the administration’s domestic promises to avoid “endless” wars ^{[7] [11]}.

Conclusion: watch rhetoric, alliances and proximate triggers

The countries to watch emerge from three overlapping logics in reporting: direct presidential naming of Cuba, Colombia and Mexico as potential targets ^{[1] [2] [3]}; strategic-resource and alliance-driven mentions like Greenland and Iran ^[4]; and an observable policy pattern toward regime change and resource access noted by analysts and Reuters coverage ^{[6] [10]}. Reporting also makes clear limits of certainty: while the president’s words lower thresholds for intervention and stoke regional alarm, independent reporting differs on whether these are immediate operational plans or escalatory signaling, and available sources do not confirm forthcoming formal offensives beyond Venezuela ^{[5] [6]}.