Analyzing the first presidential debate between Biden and Trump, alongside their respective policies during their tenures, provides a clear indication of the direction of both parties’ foreign policies will take if either candidate assumes the presidency in January 2025.
Biden and Harris are expected to continue bolstering cooperation with European and East Asian allies, as well as NATO, much as they have done in the past. They will remain steadfast against Putin in the Ukraine war and will undoubtedly persist in their unwavering support for Israel in its campaign to eliminate Hamas. Additionally, Harris is likely to focus on containing both Iran and China.
If Trump were to win, the dynamics for both U.S. allies and adversaries would shift, with Europe and NATO being the first to experience these changes. In this scenario, Europe and NATO would be forced to choose between continuing the war or seeking peace with Russia—either by maintaining the conflict with Putin without U.S. support or by negotiating peace under Trump’s terms. Although it is improbable that Trump would attempt to withdraw the U.S. from NATO again, he would not be as generous as Biden and Harris in providing financial and military aid to Ukraine.
Europe is acutely aware that without U.S. backing, it lacks the capacity to confront the threats it faces. Europe’s opposition to Trump could compel the European Union to relinquish the future of the Ukraine war to Washington, even if it means conceding victory to Putin, and to accept Russia as a permanent threat and nightmare on its borders. This would result in a Europe where countries, despite being in conflict, must coexist peacefully. In reality, a Trump victory would likely lead to a weakened and fragmented Europe in the short term, though such weakness may be temporary, and achieving true unity among European nations, which are not yet fully aligned, would remain a long-term challenge.
Given the rise of far-right populism in Europe, leading the continent economically and politically will not be an easy task moving forward. Notably, the recent fascist demonstrations in Italy signal the resurgence of geopolitical tensions in Europe. The first question Europe will face after a Trump victory is whether, as Macron suggested, only a “core Europe” can now ensure peace, and whether democracy is retreating in the face of far-right populism, paving the way for the resurgence of illiberal, xenophobic nationalism across the continent.
Trump is likely to escalate tensions with China even more than during Biden’s presidency and would not hesitate to punish countries that attempt to maintain close ties with both Washington and Beijing. Trump’s policies on China would pose serious challenges to the global economy and security. For instance, if he imposes unconventional tariffs, multinational companies might be forced to seek alternatives to operating in China. Even Trump-affiliated think tanks have prepared significant lists of measures that could be implemented immediately if he wins a second term, many of which target a wide range of trade with China.
In the event of a Trump victory, China would likely have no choice but to expand multilateral agreements within BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Additionally, to mitigate potential pressures from the U.S. and Europe, China would likely intensify its influence in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America to secure energy resources, agriculture, and raw materials, even if such actions carry high commercial risks.
Among Southeast Asian nations, the Philippines, under the leadership of Ferdinand Marcos Jr., has consistently sided with the United States despite China’s reactions. Other key East Asian countries, including Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, have also sought to strengthen their security cooperation with the U.S. A Trump victory would likely heighten tensions between Washington and Beijing to such an extent that even East Asian governments, skilled in balancing relations, might find themselves unable to maintain neutrality.
Trump is likely to revisit his policy of normalizing relations between Arab countries and Israel and could be compelled to reinforce U.S. military presence in the Middle East to curb Iran’s influence in the region. The Israelis and the political right in Netanyahu’s government, currently mired in the Gaza war, are hopeful for a Trump victory. They believe he would grant Israel free rein to completely destroy Hamas and would not insist on the establishment of a Palestinian state. They also hope that Trump would stand firm against Iran’s expansionist ambitions.
For Trump, Arab countries involved in the Gaza crisis could represent both old allies and new challenges. These nations are uncertain whether they can maintain friendly relations with Trump and the Republicans while pursuing normalization with Tel Aviv amid the Gaza war. Trump’s expressed interest in negotiations with Iran before a potential victory could pose a significant challenge for U.S. relations with Arab countries.
In reality, a Trump victory—likely accompanied by the continuation of the wars in Ukraine and Gaza—would bring significant changes to global dynamics. Any poorly considered decision by the White House regarding current or emerging crises could further complicate the situation and make the world even less secure.
This growing sense of insecurity would drive nations to increase their armaments, potentially dividing the world into two military blocs reminiscent of the Cold War. However, unlike the past, where the Cold War served as a substitute for direct military conflict, today’s unresolved crises could push the world toward global warfare, with major military powers now engaging in arms races that could ultimately involve nuclear conflict.
Considering Europe’s history of numerous wars leading up to World War I and II, it is conceivable that, with Putin’s order to operationalize tactical nuclear weapons against European allies in the Ukraine war, Europe could become the starting point of nuclear conflict if no political solution is found in the coming years to end this war. In such a scenario, the first shot could very well be the last, with Europe and Russia existing only in history, and a large part of the United States being destroyed. At that point, it would no longer matter whether Harris or Trump is president, as either would have to decide between peace and nuclear war during the years 2024 to 2028.
