Within Israel, the preference for an American president, if they could cast a vote, falls overwhelmingly in favor of Trump. Yet irrespective of who assumes the U.S. leadership, the eventual consequence on Israeli society, which currently shows resistance to Palestinian statehood and the two-state solution, may be negligible. It appears that this deeply rooted sentiment within the Israeli populace and government would hardly see a shift due to a change in the U.S. presidency. Certainly, a Trump-led America poses no threat to the significant status quo in Israeli policy.
Speculation of a President Harris demands a different forecast. It’s presumed that, under her leadership, Israel might experience greater external pressure to implement a cease-fire and engage the Palestinians in dialogue. However unlikely it is, it would appear she could impose drastic measures such as diminishing military support for Israel, thus making her potential presidency lesser preferred for Israelis.
A Trump presidency, on the other hand, would likely maintain a different stance. His bold rhetoric towards Israel’s sensitive subjects, such as the potential for Jewish settlers to reclaim residency in Gaza, is likely to be met with greater tolerance. Indeed, his assertive posturing on Iran is quite well received among the Israeli population. While Trump may not be in favour of attempting to destabilize Iran’s regime, his outwardly cautious attitude adds to his appeal.
The significance of these U.S. elections extends far beyond its borders, reaching countries like Russia and Ukraine. Trump’s assertion that the invasion of Ukraine by Russia falls on Ukraine’s own President Volodymyr Zelensky does not sit well. The Ukrainian populace is nervous about the notion of a Trump-dominated America enforcing a hasty, Russia-centric peace agreement.
The expectation is that a President Harris would provide military support to Ukraine, reinforcing their defence against Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin, however, perceives the positions of both Trump and Harris towards Ukraine as quite similar, politically. Putin’s primary interest lies in securing a diplomatic win. He firmly believes Ukraine to be a U.S. puppet nation and, therefore, any negotiation must involve the U.S. President directly.
There are those who suggest that Putin might, in fact, find negotiating with Harris a feasible prospect. This perspective may appear insincere or even contrary to expectations, but from Putin’s position, it could be plausible. An undeniable consequence of a Trump-win would be America’s withdrawal from global engagements and particularly Europe, a region Putin considers his rightful place of influence.
No matter who claims victory in the upcoming elections, one thing is certain: both candidates will be hawkish on China. The sentiment among Beijing’s leadership, however, is split about who might best serve their interests. Witihn the larger European context too, the impending U.S. elections signal the close of an era, regardless of the outcome.
European perspectives on a potential Trump-win vary widely, with some viewing it as havoc-inducing while others perceive it as beneficial. Trump’s proclamation of imposing a 20% tariff on all European exports to America threatens to wreak havoc on the continent’s economy. This critical U.S. election acts as a global gauge on international trading systems, its repercussions likely to be felt worldwide.
African perspectives exhibit intriguing differences towards both Trump and Harris. Despite his infamous derisive comments about African nations, some regard Trump as emblematic of the strong, action-driven leadership found among several African autocrats. Harris, albeit less familiar to most, is nonetheless known among some African circles for her time spent in Zambia during her youth, as her Indian-diplomat grandfather was stationed there.
Her African ancestry is acknowledged and cherished deeply within the continent, casting her as a figure of continental importance. Moving towards the Americas, Mexico awaits the election results anxiously, for a Trump-win could have severe consequences. As the largest trading partner of the U.S., any impositions of heavy tariffs would impact Mexico significantly.
In addition, Mexican leaders are wary of sharing a border with a president who has, in previous instances, threatened military action on their soil. The stakes are monumentally high for Mexico. The United States, historically, has been the largest emitter of carbon, coming in at second currently, next to China. The upcoming actions of the U.S., particularly related to climate change, are set to wield a global impact.
Unquestionably, a Trump presidency would likely continue the audacious approach towards Iran. Trump’s vocal assault on Iran appeals to many Israelis, even if it seems he may not risk destabilizing Iran’s regime. The possibility of a kindly Trump outlook on Israel’s rigid stance towards Jewish settlers reentering Gaza further increases his desirability among Israelis.
As Russia continues to view Ukraine as a U.S. proxy, Putin perceives value in negotiating a deal for Ukraine directly with the U.S. president, irrespective of whether that president is Trump or Harris. This perspective may appear disingenuous or counter-intuitive, but it does reveal Putin’s conviction that the only prospect of a settlement is through the American presidency.
The Trump mantra of putting ‘America First’ indirectly offers Putin his ‘rightful’ influence over Europe. Concurrently, a ‘hawkish’ stance on China remains a certainty regardless of the election’s victor. However, Beijing’s elite is divided on the candidate who might offer the best prospects for China.
Irrespective of Trump’s previous derogatory remarks about African nations, a segment of Africans view him as a strong and decisive leader. Yet, the African opinion of Harris is shaped more by her familial links and her time in Zambia, creating a deep sense of identification with her.
On a global scale, the election also signifies a critical point for climate change. The U.S., as one of the major carbon producers, has the power to significantly mold global environmental policies and actions. Thus, the significance of these elections transcends national borders, promising to make an impact on a truly international stage.