On the night of Donald Trump’s unexpected victory in the November 2016 US presidential elections, I navigated the charged atmosphere of New York City, moving between various political flashpoints. 

Supporters of the Republican candidate thronged outside Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue, while scattered rallies for both sides animated the city’s restless streets. Passersby eyed the gathering of Trump loyalists with disbelief and disdain, never considering that this man—previously assumed easy prey for the formidable Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, a seasoned former secretary of state—would, against all odds, snatch victory from her that night. 

In the New York Times auditorium, the vibe during the election night coverage was buoyant, filled with confidence that Clinton would achieve an early triumph once the Florida results came in. Anticipation ran high, with the managing editor of the paper even revealing the next day’s front page, showcasing Clinton’s image under a bold headline proclaiming her victory. 

But in a matter of moments, the narrative unravelled. Florida was lost, and a stunned silence fell over the newsroom as they watched in disbelief as the bold, populist contender steadily clinched state after state. 

The next day, I took the train from New York to Washington, eager to continue covering the unfolding political story and to decipher how a candidate dismissed as a populist outsider had secured the presidency. Yet Washington was steeped in collective bewilderment, grappling with a reality that defied seasoned pundits’ predictions. Foreign affairs think tanks quickly convened to analyse the 2016 election results and anticipate the trajectory of US foreign policy under Trump. His abrasive language towards adversaries and allies hinted at a shift towards isolationism. 

He represented a faction within the Republican Party that opposed global involvement and resisted the burdens of international leadership traditionally associated with America’s stature. However, these seminars often concluded without clear answers. Trump’s campaign lacked a discernible group of seasoned experts or policymakers, and the established political class showed little inclination to engage with him or explore his views. 

More than four years later, the spectre of Trump looms large over Washington’s intellectual and political circles once again. His dramatic exit from the White House in 2020, marked by the storming of the Capitol by his supporters—who alleged widespread electoral fraud in favour of Joe Biden—has only intensified his impact. 

Now, with his potential return, the air of uncertainty accompanying his rise to power is unsettling corridors of influence in the US capital. The world waits for the possible presidency of either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump amid growing doubts about America’s ability to navigate global affairs effectively. 

Over the past three years, the US has faced two significant geopolitical challenges: the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, alongside expanded operations against Iran’s proxies in the Middle East. Many American foreign policy experts remain sceptical about Trump and Harris’ capacity to deliver a convincing foreign policy. Concerns regarding Harris, who entered the presidential race just over 100 days ago, centre on her limited experience in foreign affairs. 

Traditionally, US vice presidents play a minor role in international diplomacy, and Harris has yet to demonstrate strong command over global issues. She is viewed as a potential extension of Biden’s administration, likely maintaining his focus on strengthening alliances with European partners, reinforcing NATO, and supporting international institutions. Conversely, Trump touts his international experience—aspects that were once vulnerabilities in his contests against Clinton and Biden. He emphasises his ability to engage with world leaders across the political spectrum, positioning himself as capable of decisively navigating the complexities of international diplomacy.

A growing dissatisfaction surrounds Biden’s inability to effectively address several international issues or intervene in ways that align with the United States’ global stature, particularly in conflicts that threaten thevital interests of the US and its allies. This frustration became glaringly evident in the administration’s response to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza, which has resulted in the deaths of over 42,000 Palestinian civilians in a brutal operation following Hamas’ attack on Israeli territories adjacent to Gaza on 7 October 2023.

LACK OF STRATEGY

The American approach to the Middle East appears to lack a coherent strategy for de-escalation or for limiting Israel’s excessive use of force against Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. Additionally, the US risks further conflict in the region, especially in the light of recent exchanges of missile strikes between Israel and Iran over the past two months. 

While there is unwavering support for Israeli operations against Iran and its affiliated groups in the region, Washington must develop a comprehensive strategy to contain escalating tensions, as there is a noticeable vacuum with no apparent power capable of stabilising the situation. This predicament is worsened by the reluctance of both Russia and China to take on meaningful roles to alleviate the violence and humanitarian toll of the ongoing conflict, reflecting broader dynamics of great power competition on the international stage.

In contrast, Trump critiques the Biden administration’s performance over the past four years, attributing the ongoing decline of the United States’ global standing and prestige to its policies. While he promises to resolve conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East peacefully, he has yet to present concrete proposals or a credible vision. Within the Republican Party, two prominent foreign policy schools of thought are vying for influence: the traditionalist approachfavouring a hardline stance in international relations and an isolationist perspective emphasising self-reliance and avoiding foreign interventions that deplete American resources.

Neither school effectively addresses the evolving nature of international relations and the interdependence that complicates the feasibility of the United States retreating behind its borders or adopting an aggressive posture towards adversaries. Should he return to the White House, the significant test for Trump will be his relationship with European allies, who harbour doubts about his commitment to the Western alliance. His insistence that allies should bear the costs of the protection the US provides generates unease among NATO and European Union members, particularly as Western Europe faces the ongoing strain of the war in Ukraine.

Trump is likely to revive contractual frameworks in American foreign policy towards the Middle East, embracing the principle of deal-making and seeking to renew the so-called “Abraham Accords.” His close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu raises questions: if he were to reclaim the White House next January, would he take aggressive actions against the Palestinians and provoke conflict with Iran, or would he propose an innovative plan that leads to a breakthrough in the deteriorating situation?

While there are subtle differences in Harris’ and Trump’s positionsin China, both share significant concerns about the growing global influence of the Chinese regime. The former president initiated a trade war at the outset of his administration, blaming the Democrats for their leniency in dealing with China. If he wins, he remains committed to imposing tariffs on Chinese imports that would be considerably higher than those he plans to impose on goods from other countries.

The Biden administration has taken a firm stance on Chinese exports and its activities in the South China Sea. Should she prevail, Harris is expected to continue the policies Biden has set forth regarding China. Both the Democratic and Republican candidates concur on the necessity of containing Beijing’s ambitions in its Asian sphere, particularly concerning the issue of Taiwan, as competition between the two major powers escalates.

The upcoming election will determine the course of US foreign policy for the next four years. It could either solidify Trump’s “populist” movement, granting it a firmer foothold within American politics and establishing a stable direction in dealing with the international arena, or it might break the wave he represents, prompting the Republican Party to rebuild itself from scratch. Trump poses a significant challenge to the country’s traditional institutions, yet he possesses the boldness to defy conventions.

Last week, Trump held a massive campaign rally at Madison Square Garden in his hometown of New York, a state long considered a Democratic stronghold. The rally was intended to send a message that he could mobilise support even in the heart of Democratic territory. The event drew sharp criticism from Hillary Clinton, who likened it to a pro-Nazi rally held in the same venue in 1939, drawing a direct comparison to Hitler’s influence during that era.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 31 October, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly