What will the US election mean for its foreign policy?

Recent developments in the primary elections suggest a disquieting familiarity for American citizens as they contemplate the impending clash between incumbent Democratic President Joe Biden and former Republican President Donald Trump. The prevailing sentiment among observers is one of deja vu, reminiscent of the contentious showdown witnessed in the 2020 election. Notwithstanding any unforeseen developments, the prevailing trajectory suggests a repeat of the previous experience.

Discernible patterns have emerged throughout the primary elections, reinforcing the likelihood of a Biden-Trump rematch. This anticipated repetition prompts reflection on the electorate’s desire for novelty and fresh perspectives. Despite aspirations for change, the political landscape appears entrenched in familiar faces and established narratives.

An underlying sentiment among the populace is a craving for new, youthful leadership — a sentiment not readily fulfilled by the prevailing contenders. As citizens yearn for a departure from the status quo, the prospect of another electoral showdown between Biden and Trump underscores the endurance of entrenched political dynamics over aspirations for renewal.

While domestic concerns such as economic inflation, healthcare and immigration understandably dominate the discourse among American citizens, the international community eagerly awaits insights into the future direction of US foreign policy. Eyes worldwide are fixed on the candidates vying for their parties’ nominations, eagerly anticipating their positions on global issues as articulated in debates and campaign remarks.

Despite aspirations for change, the political landscape appears entrenched in familiar faces

Dalia Al-Aqidi

The significance of America’s foreign policy cannot be overstated. Its decisions and actions reverberate across the globe, impacting economies, security and diplomatic relations. As such, the world scrutinizes the presidential contenders, seeking clues and assurances regarding the trajectory of US engagement with the international community.

Understanding the nuances of US foreign policy is paramount for nations and leaders navigating an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape. The rhetoric and policies espoused by the presidential hopefuls have implications for diplomatic relations, strategic alliances and shared global objectives. As the presidential race unfolds, the international community remains attuned to the nuances of each candidate’s foreign policy platform. The stakes are high and the world watches with anticipation, knowing that the outcome of America’s presidential election will reverberate far beyond its borders.

The divergent approaches to foreign policy of Biden and Trump underscore significant disparities in how they address critical global issues. These differences reflect nuanced perspectives on international relations and strategic priorities, shaping the course of action taken by their administrations.

Each candidate’s attitude to the Ukraine conflict and Washington’s military aid to Kyiv reveals their differing foreign policy strategies. Biden prioritizes robust support to counter Russian influence.

On multiple occasions on the campaign trail, meanwhile, Trump has expressed his support for Russia intervening in NATO member states that fall short of their defense spending requirements. He has disregarded the alliance’s collective defense clause, suggesting that he would not automatically defend nations that fail to contribute financially. Trump also attributed improvements in NATO’s financial situation to his presidency.

If Trump secures victory, he is likely to escalate America’s involvement in the Middle East

Dalia Al-Aqidi

Biden promptly responded to this narrative by expressing his concern over Trump’s assertion regarding Russia, characterizing it as alarming and dangerous. He said that Trump’s statements could empower Russian President Vladimir Putin to perpetuate further conflict and violence, mainly targeting Ukraine, while also extending the threat to Poland and the Baltic states. Biden denounced such prospects as deeply troubling.

At last month’s Conservative Political Action Conference gathering, Trump conveyed a stance unsympathetic to Palestinians in the context of Israel’s war on Gaza, given his recognition of the threat posed by radical Islamist groups such as Hamas. Consequently, he would not be anticipated to advocate for pressure on Israel to agree to a ceasefire.

Trump also underscored Israel’s perceived safety during his tenure in the White House, attributing this to his administration’s policies. He specifically highlighted Iran’s support of Hamas and asserted that his approach toward Tehran had diminished its ability to support such proxies. “Iran was broke, and they had no money for Hamas, and they had no money for Hezbollah. They had no money for anything,” Trump told CPAC attendees.

If Trump secures victory in November, he is likely to escalate America’s involvement in the Middle East significantly. His administration would likely engage with numerous Arab countries, alongside Israel, to combat extremism and counter Iranian influence in the region. Furthermore, Trump’s approach toward Iraq suggests a willingness to target senior leaders within the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, particularly in response to threats against American forces in the area. The possibility of a scenario akin to the targeted killing of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani cannot be discounted.

In regard to China, tensions with Washington escalated during Trump’s first term, particularly concerning trade matters. His decision to impose tariffs on Chinese goods in 2018 and 2019 exacerbated these tensions.

While the Biden administration has not rescinded these tariffs, it has implemented additional restrictions. The former president has promised his supporters further tariffs on Beijing, potentially surpassing 60 percent. Regardless of the occupant of the White House, it appears improbable that the relationship between the world’s two largest commercial centers will undergo substantial change.

In the case of Biden, continuity is anticipated in his policy approach, with no substantial deviations expected. Although there may be some alterations to his Cabinet composition, these adjustments are projected to exert minimal influence on the overarching policy trajectory.

• Dalia Al-Aqidi is executive director at the American Center for Counter Extremism. X: @DaliaAlAqidi