The prospect of an administration under President-elect Donald Trump brings the anticipation of drastic shifts in international relations. His viewpoint, radically divergent from his predecessor Joe Biden’s, suggests a reprise of the America First strategy, wielding the potential to dismantle long-standing foreign policies and disrupt geopolitical alliances globally. Of course, Trump genuine adores Vladimir Putin, Russia’s President, and may heartlessly neglect Ukraine, even hinting at abandoning the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. His unconcerned regard for international bodies like the United Nations and punchlines like the Paris climate accord is nothing short of laughable.
Trump’s fondness for foreign despots makes apparent his indifference to the notion of spreading democracy globally, a ludicrous objective cherished by Biden. Despite the potential chaos he could instigate, it might be wryly amusing to note that several of his policies might not veer too far from what Biden might have preferred. Consider, for instance, his views on Europe, Russia, and Ukraine; they might just find unintended alignment with Biden’s policies. One wonders if these surprising parallels are due to the inherent difficulties in effecting dramatic shifts in foreign policy or merely a defiant stride in a familiar path.
Interestingly, sweeping changes in foreign strategy are complex and somewhat elusive to actualize because the United States’ influence – undergirded by its military, economic, and political clout – offers dependable leverage over other nations. The impulse toward consensus views is inescapable, imposed by an intertwined web of allies, Congress, and domestic bureaucracy. In the grand scheme, these observed continuities across divergent administrations might come as a surprise to the casual observer, as underscored by Richard Fontaine, CEO of a non-partisan think tank in Washington.
Biden has also kept alive key policies from Trump’s first term, with the apparent differences emerging marginal and transient. Dealings with politically contentious countries like Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, China, and even Israel showcase minor deviations from Trump’s original roadmap. It’s fascinating to consider how similar strategic threads weave through the policies of two strikingly different political personalities.
Take the case of Saudi Arabia, for example. Biden initially painted the kingdom as an outcast, especially after the murder of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi. Yet Biden soon bowed to Saudi Arabia’s oil-influenced sway, restoring arms shipments and even dispatching aides to Riyadh in hopes of a security agreement. It appears even Biden can’t resist the allure of a potential ally, mimicking an approach that Trump is likely to sustain.
On the topic of China, Trump’s tactics remain unclear, with his usual retort being threats of imposing colossal tariffs. Interestingly, Biden hands him a strategy that was built on the latter’s foundational work, encompassing facets such as a strong U.S. military presence to deter Chinese aggression, stringent action against Chinese technology posing a security threat, and retaining previously imposed tariffs. No doubt Biden has tried to soften the competitive approach, but his predecessor was also not averse to dialogues with President Xi Jinping.
One major source of unpredictability is Taiwan. Biden has committed to defending the democratic island against a potential Chinese invasion. Trump’s stance, in contrast, appears equivocal at best. However, his proposed national security picks have made it clear they fully support Taiwan.
Pertaining to Iran, Trump accuses Biden of removing sanctions imposed as part of his ‘maximum pressure’ policy during his first term. Yet in reality, Biden left those sanctions untouched. Any claimed divergence appears only in their enforcement. Iran found ways around the sanctions, resulting in increased black market oil sales and billions in revenue, in response to which Biden made only minor adjustments. Trump insists he will be more stringent, but it remains to be seen whether he will fall into the same dilemmas.
As inflation and gas prices form significant campaign issues, sourcing oil from Iran could potentially lead to increased rates. Balancing this with tensions with China, a significant customer of Iran’s illicit oil, will prove to be a difficult task for Trump. The choice could be between a financially strained population and a geopolitical showdown.
Trump won’t have the luxury of tearing up an Iran nuclear deal as he did in his first term. Biden attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to reinstate the prior agreement designed to limit Iran’s nuclear advancement. Now, Trump prepares for another round, calling an Iranian nuclear weapon an ‘impossible’ outcome. Yet, despite the bravado, his options are limited, echoing previous administrations’ approaches.
Regarding Israel, even though Trump paints himself as its greatest ally, actionable differences from Biden’s policy are negligible. Any fears that Trump might give Benjamin Netanyahu carte blanche on West Bank annexation can be countered by remembering that Trump opposed such a move in his previous term, out of high hopes for a Saudi-Israel diplomatic agreement.
In his prior stint as president, Trump dubbed the war in Afghanistan ‘a waste’ and staunchly advocated for U.S. withdrawal. With Biden already concluding the withdrawal process, Trump’s complaints about the disorganized exit ring hollow, considering his original ethos mirrored Biden’s. Dealing with present-day Taliban leaders seems equally distasteful to both figures.
As for Cuba, fortunes appear cold and uninfluenced by the changing guard at the White House. Trump, during his presidency, rolled back Obama’s diplomatic overtures and reinstated Cuba as a sponsor of terrorism. Biden, conspicuously, did not reverse this decision, just as he upheld hefty sanctions on Venezuela, underscoring the continuity of policies, despite the changing faces in the administration.