As President Biden’s term comes to an end, the United States is facing a tumultuous crossroads not only with internal divisions but also on the international stage. The four years in power of the oldest leader in politics have always been busy dealing with a series of conflicts that have continuously erupted and lasted from Asia to Europe. As the new term begins, the new administration of President Trump inherits a complex geopolitical legacy, where the interests of allies and opponents are intertwined, between strategic commitments and fatigue from conflict hotspots. The question is what purpose the Biden regime has brought the United States into those conflicts and will “Trump 2.0” continue to maintain America’s international engagement or choose to narrow its influence to focus on reshaping the order in a direction that is favorable to the United States?
Shifting the policy platform for conflict engagement
In his inaugural address in January 2021, US President Biden declared that “democracy has won”. There are many views that the Biden administration is simply a continuation of the legacy of the Obama era, but in reality, there are still important differences between the two terms. Under Obama, although the White House had a policy of withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, the sound of US soldiers’ guns still did not stop in the Middle East. This was carried out throughout Mr. Trump’s first term. However, under Biden, the differences became even clearer as he focused on minimizing direct US military involvement, while promoting unconventional methods of warfare and increasing the role of allies. This decision is not only meaningful for the United States but also has a strong impact on the global political and military situation, as the US no longer spreads its forces on many fronts as before, but shifts its focus to strategies to deal with new challenges.
As the 46th President of the United States, it is undeniable that over the past 4 years, Mr. Biden has achieved remarkable achievements, especially in transforming the foreign policy platform, from direct military intervention to an active diplomatic orientation and active support for conflicts outside the United States. These changes open a new phase in US security policy, where military power still plays a key role but the deployment method has become more flexible and less damaging than in previous decades.
End of US “mission” in Afghanistan
President Biden’s legacy is also marked by his decision to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan by 2021, marking the end of a long chapter in the history of US military engagement, ending a war that has lasted for two decades and four presidents. At the same time, it reflects a shift in Washington’s strategic priorities, as the US wants to focus more on geopolitical competition with its biggest rival, China, rather than continuing to spread its military power in areas of declining strategic value. However, this decision also raises questions about the sustainability of the US commitment to its allies and security partners in the Middle East.
The US withdrawal can be seen as a move to reduce military intervention, but it also opens up hopes for a world with less conflict, where countries can seek peaceful solutions instead of relying on military force. The end of the Afghan war, although controversial, is still a turning point in US foreign policy, helping to reshape Washington’s approach to future long-term conflicts.
Events keep appearing
Just a few months after withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, the Biden administration faced a new challenge when Russian President Putin launched a “special military operation” in Ukraine in early 2022. That war, which has continued to this day, has completely changed the European security structure and cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars in aid. Meanwhile, in 2023, the Middle East erupted into a spiral of instability with the Israel-Hamas conflict, putting the US in a position of having to balance the interests between its ally Israel and Arab countries. At the same time, in the Asia-Pacific, tensions between the two regions on the Korean Peninsula and the issue of Taiwan independence continued to escalate, forcing the US to make strategic adjustments to maintain influence in each strategic key region.
The increase in conflicts also exposes the limits of the Biden administration’s strategic decisions. By having to spread financial resources across too many fronts, the US risks losing the initiative in the strategic competition with its biggest geopolitical rival, China, at least in terms of economic development. Being continuously embroiled in two wars in Europe and the Middle East prevents the Biden administration from focusing all its strength on the Indo-Pacific region, where China is increasingly expanding its influence. In that context, the question is whether the US is on the right track in protecting its national interests or is it being dragged into an endless strategic spiral?
What’s driving the Biden administration to wade deeper into conflicts?
Despite criticism from both domestic and international sources that the Biden administration is increasingly dragging the United States into wasteful wars, the conflicts actually bring many strategic benefits to Washington.
One of the most visible effects of Biden’s conflict-preserving aid policy is the dramatic rise of the US military industry. Supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russia and supplying weapons to Israel in its conflict with Hamas have made defense giants like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon huge profits. This reflects the fact that war is not just a geopolitical issue but also part of the US economic strategy, in which the defense industry plays a central role.
In addition, the Biden administration has also succeeded in weakening geopolitical rivals through conflicts. Most clearly seen in Russia, in its efforts to maintain the war in Ukraine, the Kremlin has accepted the trade-off of wasting military resources and suffering significant economic sanctions, while China can hardly focus entirely on its ambitions to expand its influence because around Beijing there is a belt of instability from the east (Korean peninsula crisis, Taiwan), south (US presence in the East Sea), and west (conflict in the Middle East).
The conflict hotspots have contributed to becoming a common voice to help the US return to strengthening and expanding relations with security allies after the turbulent period after Trump 1.0 policy. The Biden administration has effectively used the war in Ukraine to increase solidarity within NATO. The participation of Finland and Sweden in NATO has become a clear demonstration of Washington’s strategy to restructure European security. At the same time, the US has also succeeded in tightening Asian allies to institutionalize the effective operation of the US-Japan-Korea trilateral relationship alongside mechanisms such as QUAD and AUKUS, creating a large security network to strengthen the “Indo-Pacific” strategy to deal with China.
Overall, the Biden administration’s legacy of conflict lies not just in the number of conflicts the US has engaged in, but also in how Washington has used these conflicts to strengthen its geopolitical position, regain the trust of allies, and put pressure on competitors. Despite the negative consequences, Biden’s strategy has helped the US maintain its global leadership role in a turbulent world.
The challenges Trump faces ahead
In the first month of his term, President Trump has shown a more productive working pace than his predecessors, continuously implementing measures to strengthen and reaffirm the “America First” policy that he pursues. However, Trump’s first steps have not clearly shown a significant impact on long-standing conflicts such as the Ukraine war, Middle East tensions or challenges in US-China relations. Therefore, despite showing determination and a resolve-oriented stance, the Trump administration still needs more time and longer-term strategies to be able to create substantial changes in the global conflict situation.
The war in Ukraine will be a top priority for the Trump administration in 2025, but Trump is not entirely motivated to end the war quickly because its prolongation brings more benefits than losses to the US. Although Trump has previously mentioned the possibility of ending the war within 24 hours, so far Trump has not been clear about a specific peaceful solution. If stopping aid to Kiev pushes Moscow to victory without Washington gaining any benefits, it becomes unthinkable when compared to Trump’s leadership style. Instead, Trump is planning a “stick and carrot” for both Russia and Ukraine, combining pressure and compromise to force the warring parties to adjust their positions in a direction favorable to the US. Recent information about statements and commitments to meet with President Putin to thoroughly resolve the war, however, whether it can be realized or not is still a long way off.
For the conflict in Gaza, a more aggressive approach to the Middle East than the Biden era will be considered by the Trump administration, but that does not mean that the US will be interested in returning to the region. In fact, Trump tried to promote peace between the parties through the Abraham Accord in 2020 and considered it one of the important diplomatic achievements of his administration. However, Trump’s approach has always been pragmatic and prioritized US strategic interests over comprehensive peace goals. Therefore, Mr. Trump may choose to improve relations with countries that play an important role in the US security and economic structure, not the entire Middle East. In contrast, relations with Iran remain a big question mark. In his previous term, Mr. Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA nuclear deal and imposed tough sanctions on Tehran, causing US-Iran tensions to escalate dangerously. Therefore, it is likely that Trump will continue his confrontational policy towards Iran instead of seeking to renegotiate. Besides, the Palestinian issue will not be a priority for Trump, because he has expressed his stance of continuing to support the war that Israel is conducting in Gaza.
In terms of how to handle relations with China and the future of the Taiwan issue, the Trump administration will likely continue to use the Taiwan card to pressure Beijing. A tough policy toward both China and Taiwan, but in a more pragmatic way that puts American interests first, will be maintained through the tool of economic pressure. Although Trump has expressed support for Taiwanese independence, he is not a fan of turning Taiwan into a second Ukraine, because that would drag the United States into a costly and high-risk conflict with China, which Trump has always sought to avoid. Instead, Trump will use Taiwan as a strategic card to pressure both Beijing and the Taipei government. Mr. Trump will continue to strengthen the defense relationship with Taiwan but in a way that benefits the United States, forcing Taipei to rely more on Washington both economically and for security, similar to the way he has pressured South Korea and Japan to contribute more in return for the security umbrella from Washington.
The North Korean nuclear issue will continue to be an important issue for the Trump 2.0 administration, even more so than the Taiwan issue. The 2019 US-North Korea summit in Hanoi was a bold diplomatic move when Trump became the first sitting US president to directly talk to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, opening an unprecedented period of dialogue between Washington and Pyongyang. Although the talks did not result in a lasting denuclearization agreement, they clearly demonstrated Trump’s unique approach of viewing personal diplomacy as the main tool in resolving international issues. Unlike Obama’s “strategic patience” or Biden’s deterrence approach, Trump is likely to take a more flexible approach, focusing less on sanctions pressure and instead using conditional economic concessions to demonstrate concrete steps toward North Korea’s denuclearization.
In conclusion, the legacy of conflict under the Biden administration is not only a consequence of policy decisions during his term but also reflects a profound shift in the global power structure and the fragmentation of US responsibilities in the international system. History has shown that US foreign policy is always intertwined between national interests on one side and fluctuations outside the territory. Under any administration, conflicts and challenges never disappear but only transform into new forms. In the current context, Trump 2.0 has reflected a new rule that it is not only how the US reacts to the world but also how the world adjusts to changes from the US.
