Malaysia’s Strategic Imperative Amid U.S. Coercive Manoeuvres

In 2026, global geopolitics is increasingly marked by power politics that test the resilience of international norms, the stability of alliances, and the strategic autonomy of middle powers. Two developments highlight this shift: the United States’ coercive posture toward Greenland and its controversial engagement with Iran’s internal unrest.

These episodes show how Washington’s mix of economic pressure and political brinkmanship whether threatening tariffs against European Union nations in support of territorial aims in the Arctic or signalling military responses in the Middle East that can unsettle global stability.

For Malaysia, these developments are more than distant headlines; they offer critical lessons on safeguarding sovereignty, defending economic interests, and asserting principled diplomacy.

The Greenland standoff became a focal point of international drama when the U.S. hinted at economic coercion and even the use of force to pursue strategic objectives in the Arctic.

Greenland is a semi-autonomous part of the Kingdom of Denmark, but President Donald Trump’s administration revived ideas of asserting U.S. control over the island, including threatening 10 % tariff levies that could rise to 25 % on eight allied European countries that oppose these ambitions.

These threats aim to pressure Denmark and its EU partners into negotiations that many in Europe see as coercive and destabilising. European leaders have responded with unity, rejecting any infringement on Greenland’s sovereignty and reinforcing military and diplomatic support for Denmark’s position, including proposals for NATO surveillance missions in the region.

Malaysia’s reaction has been one of principled support for sovereignty and the rule of law. During parliamentary proceedings, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim affirmed Malaysia’s alignment with the EU and Denmark in rejecting any attempt to “conquer” another country.

He reiterated that negotiations are acceptable, but coercion and forced acquisition of territory are fundamentally at odds with international norms. The former puts Malaysia’s diplomatic posture in harmony with broader global expectations for respect for sovereign equality, rather than power politics that privilege geopolitical goals over legal norms.

While the Greenland crisis tests interstate norms, Iran’s ongoing protests and external responses reveal the risks of entangling external pressure with internal upheaval.

Mass protests that began in late 2025 over economic hardship have morphed into widespread anti-government demonstrations across all 31 provinces of Iran, driven by soaring inflation, a collapsing currency, and systemic grievances against political repression.

Communication blackouts imposed by Iranian authorities have severely restricted information flow, complicating assessments of casualties and conditions on the ground.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) highlights that, unlike prior protest waves, the current unrest is deeply rooted in economic distress and broadened into political dissent amid sustained economic sanctions and escalating international pressure.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and some elements within the government have expressed interest in dialogue, though deeply entrenched political divisions complicate any peaceful resolution. Washington’s public statements including suggestions of military involvement should repression continue - represent a departure from traditional diplomatic caution and risk reinforcing hardline narratives within Tehran that frame protests as foreign-influenced threats rather than organic movements for change.

Adding further nuance, RAND Corporation experts emphasise the strategic context that distinguishes the current protests from previous uprisings: Iran’s leadership confronts internal unrest at a time when its conventional and nuclear capabilities have been significantly degraded by external pressures, including U.S. and allied actions.

This has weakened Tehran’s capacity to deflect criticism or absorb internal shocks, leaving the regime vulnerable in a way that could have profound implications for domestic stability and regional security.

From Malaysia’s perspective, this confluence of internal protest dynamics and external geopolitical pressures highlights three key insights:

1. External leverage in internal conflicts can backfire.

When a powerful state frames internal dissent in another country as justification for possible military or coercive involvement, it risks fuelling nationalist resistance and strengthening hardline elements. In Iran, threats of “strong options” by the U.S. may embolden regime defenders who portray protests as foreign-inspired, thereby undermining the plight of ordinary civilians.

Malaysia’s foreign policy has consistently emphasised non-interference and diplomatic engagement: a stance that reduces the risks of violent backlash and unintended consequences that can arise when external actors intervene in domestic affairs.

2. Economic coercion has broader ramifications.

The U.S. tactic of threatening tariffs over geopolitical disagreements whether targeting EU allies over Greenland or hinting at penalties related to Iran trade: underscores how economic tools can be weaponised to achieve strategic ends.

For Malaysia, an export-oriented economy deeply integrated into global value chains, such economic coercion can create instability in markets, influence investor confidence, and amplify geopolitical risk premiums. The recent slide in the FTSE Bursa Malaysia KLCI amidst heightened geopolitical tensions illustrates how distant political pressures can ripple into domestic financial markets.

3. Sovereignty and legal norms remain strategic assets.

Malaysia’s unequivocal support for sovereignty and opposition to coercive territorial claims sends a clear message about the enduring value of international law. In an era where great powers may test the boundaries of established norms, smaller and middle powers can draw strength from principled stances that align with broad international expectations for state conduct.

Upholding these norms not only fortifies Malaysia’s diplomatic credibility but also builds coalitions with other countries that share an interest in a stable, rules-based order.

In a nutshell, the crises surrounding Greenland and Iran reveal an international environment where coercion, economic pressure, and political brinkmanship are now front-page features of foreign policy. For Malaysia, navigating this landscape requires a balanced approach that champions sovereignty and peaceful resolution while hedging against economic vulnerabilities.

By strengthening multilateral partnerships, diversifying economic ties, and remaining steadfast in support of legal norms, Kuala Lumpur can protect its national interests and contribute to a more stable global order in a world unsettled by coercive great-power manoeuvring.

20.01.2026

Kuala Lumpur.

© All rights reserved.

https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2026/01/1362910/malaysias-strategic-imperative-age-coercive-power-politics