Analytical forecast

By Arman Karamian

Introduction: The Political Climate of the World Today

The world watches as the presidential elections in the United States rage on mainly in a two-waybattle between the republican nomineeDonald Trump and the incumbent democrat nominee, vice-president Kamala Harris. As the world watches, so do the American people. It is believed that around two-thirds of the American populace is unsatisfied with the United States’position in global affairs as of 2024. This has made foreign policy a hot topic issue for everyone everywhere.

The United States wields considerable influence on various global issues, from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine to the unrest in the Middle East. The stance taken by the US significantly shapes the course of global affairs. The prospect of a potential second term for President Trump has raised concerns among Europeans. This development has sparked unease and uncertainty in Europe. The Brookings Institution, along with numerous others, has deliberated on the prospect of NATO under the Trump administration. There have been discussions about the concept of "Trump-proofing" the organization among some European NATO members, in anticipation of President Trump's speculated lack of commitment to NATO. Additionally, efforts have been made to engage with President Trump, recognizing the potential challenges in garnering his support for NATO. In the Middle East, non-aligned regional actors are expressing optimism concerning the possibility of a Trump presidency, particularly in relation to their stance on Iran.The Arab Center Washington DCstates that, despite Trump’s softer stance on Israel, local Arab states think he may somehow engineer an end to the hostilities in Gaza.This small contrast between the view of the Europeans and most Arabs is but a glimpse into the look into the president’s controversial foreign policy playbook.

US foreign policy is evidently a hot topic issue this year with much at stake for many, both at home and abroad. Donald Trump’s entry into politics since 2015 still reverberates on the ground with many awaiting his arrival, and others dreading it.

President Trump’s Foreign Policy Between 2017 and 2021

In order tostructure the future, the author first look to the past to analyze what we already know about Trump’s foreign policy between 2017 and 2021.

From a broad point of view, he was nota liberal. For context, a liberal would be staunchly pro-international institutions, pro-international cooperation, and pro-democratic regimes. Trump was not keen on shunning non-democratic regimes like North Korea and illiberal democracies like Putin’s Russia.On the contrary, a historic summit in 2018 between the US and North Korea was pursued and eventually attended by President Trump. He was not a fan of international institutions like NATO, as previously implied, and was not in favor of agreements of NAFTA’s nature.This was solidified when he officially replaced NAFTA with USMCA in 2020, as reported by Reuters. It came after much grumbling on Trump’s part as he attempted to pursue a better deal for the US.

Liberal hegemony was of no concern to him.As defined by the renowned international relations scholar John J. Mearsheimer, [The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, p. 1],liberal hegemony is the foreign policyof expanding the liberal world order through increasing the amount of liberal democratic countries with the rationale of enhanced world peace. This rejection of international liberalism is backed up by the fact that the schema for the controversial withdrawal from Afghanistan was initiated under Trump.This could be picked up when the BBC reported that the US and the Taliban had finally agreed on a framework to end the 18-year conflict. This came afterhis decision to remove troops from Syriain 2019,as documented by the New York Times. The “Abraham Accords”, the normalization treaty between Israel and four Arab states brokered by the US, and his assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani were the two most significant developments near the end of Trump’s presidency in 2020.According to the president, the latter was done in order to halt larger confrontations in the form of “war” from taking place, in a report by the BBC.

Regarding NATO, Trump was always upfront about his unconventional and unfriendly views, publicly and privately. The extent of this was seen at the NATO summit in Brussels in 2018 when Trumpsaid to NATO chief Stoltenberg’s face his unfiltered comment on Germany’s reliance on Russia and its’ problematic nature. Sentiments by the Europeans were not all the calmer even pre-summit as Trump had been making his harsh views on the organization apparent for a while. However, the president eventually did later on affirm US support for the organization. This came in light of an “emergency meeting” after Trump had made a lack of defense spending on the part of other member states an issue.

Building on The Past to Predict Trump’s Foreign Policy in 2024-2028

Assumingadvisors have gotten Trump to change his limited approach to Iran, we may see an expansion of the situation in Gaza potentially to the broader region. While this may be possible, it is unlikely for a few reasons: First, it would damage Trump’s “anti-war” reputation. Second, Iran and the state of Israel have enough arsenal to cause mass destruction where the enormous costs would not be worth whatever benefits. If anything, Trump has signaled that he is unwilling to escalate with Iran. Naturally, less drastic entanglement with the balance of power with Iran in the region would signify a broader policy of restraint in the Middle East, or maybe even a new approach if the significance of interests in the region remains prevalent around him and his advisors. Regarding Russia in its war with Ukraine, he has expressed many times, most famously in his CNN interview, that he would not favor one side or the other, but rather the quick resolution of the war itself in order to prevent further “dying”.ForEuropeans depending on NATO for security, this is not the ideal position aUS president could have. As for NATO itself, it is likely that European fears of a “US withdrawal” from the organization may be overblown. This is because we can once again look to the past and understand that Trump’s primary concernwasn’t really about a lack of interest in European security or a concrete bias towards Russia, but rather frustration over the unfairly disproportionate defense spending for NATO.We can tell by the fact that his message is the same as his contention from last time; pay your fair share, as per Reuters.

Conclusion

With the liberal world order’s integrity under threat from the re-emergence of large-scale conflicts like in Ukraine and Gaza, a significant variable to already-complex global equations like Trump and his foreign policy are much waited upon. Where Trump practiced restraint, and even approached regimes like North Korea’s, he also gave Russia breathing room in his own reservations towards NATO. Limited but harsh action towards Iran was characterized in his own rationale as pre-emptive in nature. We can possibly expect more of the same as evidenced by Trump’s consistent positions on NATO, Russia, Iran, and the broader Middle East as his non-liberal nature as a president certainly also plays a big role.

Disclaimer: This paper is the author’s individual scholastic contribution and does not necessarily reflect the organisation’s viewpoint.

Arman Karamian is a political science senior at Haigazian University interested in international relations, geopolitics, security studies,& policymaking. He is also the president of his department’s student body.