Donald Trump has trumped all odds, oddities, and omens to reclaim the White House in a dramatic political comeback. He survived two assassination attempts, two impeachments and a slew of criminal cases to pull off this spectacular feat, defying all the political pundits who had long written his political epitaph. Why Trump won and Kamala Harris lost is a different debate on which political commentators will continue to weigh in. Right now, the question worldwide is, what will be Trump 2.0’s foreign policy. A guessing game has already started because during his first term in the Oval Office he was erratic and unpredictable – if not whimsical, in his foreign policy dealings. A lot has happened on the global stage since. We have three wars raging on, in Ukraine, Gaza, and Lebanon; Iran-Israel confrontation threatens to spiral into a wider conflict; Iran-Saudi, and Saudi-Houthi détente has changed security landscape in the Gulf; geopolitical realignments have taken place in Africa; and US-China trade and technology war has escalated. Trump, on the campaign trail, promised to end wars and pursue an ‘America First’ policy. Let’s analyse possible contours of the US foreign policy under Trump.
Nightmare comes to life
Russian forces have made substantial gains in Ukraine since last month. They’ve broken through Ukrainian defenses in the Donbas region and secured more than 160 square miles, capturing strategic towns en route. Russian troops are now on the gates of Pokrovsk, a logistics hub that could pave the way for Moscow to advance in the Donetsk region and beyond. Fears run rampant that a Trump-led US administration would abandon Ukraine. “The situation on the front-line is obvious. It’s a military defeat. The Americans will get out of this war,” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said last week. “Europe alone cannot finance this war.”
These fears stem from Trump’s statements before the elections: He claimed that he would end the war “in 24 hours”; he called the Ukrainian leader “one of the greatest salesmen I’ve ever seen” who gets $100 billion on every visit to Congress; he said, “Zelensky should never have let this war start.” Trump wouldn’t say how he would end the deadliest and costliest war in Europe after WWII. However, he said he would meet with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky. The Russian leader has already said that he is “ready” for dialogue with Trump who he described as “courageous real man.” Some reports citing a secret plan claim that Trump would pressure Zelensky to give up some territory, especially Crimea and the Donbas border regions, in return for cessation of hostilities. The Ukrainian leader, however, has said he won’t accept such a “primitive idea.”
Zelensky may abhor territorial concessions, but given Trump’s impulsiveness, if he decides to end the war, he could negotiate a deal with Putin without Kyiv’s input. Zelensky would have no option but to acquiesce because Trump could threaten to pull the plug on crucial military aid, while Europe alone wouldn’t be able to keep Ukraine fighting. Hardline European leaders dread such a scenario because they believe this could whet Putin’s appetite for “territorial grab.”
Real-time apocalypse
Trump’s return might embolden Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who once called him the “best friend that Israel has ever had in the White House.” He might be tempted to finish off the job in Gaza and Lebanon by decimating Hezbollah and Hamas. The dismissal of his Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on the day of Trump’s election indicates the same because a.) Gallant was on good terms with Trump’s political rival Joe Biden; and, b.) He pushed Netanyahu to withdraw troops from Gaza as all “military objectives have been achieved,” and negotiate a hostage-for-peace deal. The Israeli leader was quick to celebrate Trump’s “historic return to the White House” which he said “offers a new beginning for America and a powerful recommitment to the great alliance between Israel and America.”
Throughout his campaign, Trump didn’t offer any indication on how he would handle Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon. However, on and off he called on Tel Aviv to wrap up its military campaign in Gaza – not out of concern for Palestinian lives, but because the apocalyptic images from Gaza were eroding support for Israel among western public. Nonetheless, if his first term is any indication, Trump would maintain unlimited US military and diplomatic support for the Jewish state because in 2017 he had taken several autocratic steps to appease Israel despite global outcry – including recognition of “undivided” Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and acceptance of Tel Aviv’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which belong to Syria.
This is speculation that Trump may encourage Netanyahu to finish off the Gaza and Lebanon wars, declare victory as it has already significantly degraded Hezbollah and Hamas, and focus on normalisation with Arab states as envisaged in the Abraham Accords. If this happens, the prospect of reviving the two-state solution would likely remain off the table for at least the next four years. It’s unclear if Saudi Arabia, which has tied Israel’s recognition to the establishment of a Palestinian state, would agree to such normalisation. If the Saudis don’t agree, then Israel’s integration in the Arab world would remain an uphill challenge.
In a bind
For Iran, Trump’s second coming should be a nightmare. Throughout his first time, he pursued a policy of “maximum pressure” on Tehran and ordered several provocative actions. In 2018, he unilaterally scrapped the Iran nuclear deal, calling it a “horrible one-sided that should have never, ever been made.” He re-imposed crippling sanctions on the Islamic republic and authorised the assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s top commander Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike that stoked tensions region-wide. On the campaign trail, Trump criticised President Joe Biden for not endorsing Netanyahu’s plan to target Iran’s nuclear facilities in response to the Islamic republic’s missiles barrage into Israel. “When they [Israelis] asked him [Biden] that question, the answer should have been, hit the nuclear first, and worry about the rest later,” Trump said, indicating that if he were in the Oval Office, he would have acted otherwise.
The recent indictment in the US of an operative for an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate Trump sets the ominous tone for what Tehran should expect over the next four years. While Trump may be exploring different strategies, his administration’s overarching policy is likely to remain one of "maximum pressure." This could involve further tightening the sanctions chokehold on Iran’s oil industry, drying up its financial resources. Trump might also pursue a strategy of isolating Tehran diplomatically by integrating Israel into the Arab world, paving the way for a potential regime change in an economically-strained and regionally-ostracized Iran.
Another option could be pressuring the Islamic republic to accept a nuclear deal on American-Israeli terms or risk its nuclear facilities. However, an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites would trigger a wider war in the Middle East, which is already teetering on the brink. Iran’s regional isolation wouldn’t be easy either, especially given the different security landscape shaped by the China-brokered rapprochement between Iran and its regional counterweight Saudi Arabia.
Bumpy ride?
During his first term, Trump’s relations with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping started with a president-to-president bromance, but it turned sour soon, driven by escalating disputes over trade, the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and tensions surrounding Taiwan. As tensions escalated, Trump slapped tariffs on more than $360 billion worth of Chinese products, accused China of intellectual property and technology theft, and blamed Beijing for “stealing” American jobs. Interestingly, Biden, who was highly critical of Trump’s tariff war with China, retained most of those tariffs and added more duties on imports, including steel, solar cells and electric vehicles, instep with the greater American geopolitical strategy of containing China.
Fears abound that China would have a bumpy relations with the US under Trump who has vowed throughout his campaign that he would impose 60 per cent tariffs on Chinese products, and even 200 per cent in case Beijing invades Taiwan. He also has plans to offer tax credits to woo US investors to relocate businesses out of China in an attempt to create jobs for Americans.
However, experts believe this trade war is a double-edge sword as it hit the Chinese economy, but at a great cost to the US. They say that the US trade war failed to realise its goals of changing the huge trade deficit and the structural dependence between the two countries. They also say that should Trump follow through on his tariffs-hike threat, China might work around a way by increasing its exports to Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Africa. However, the drop in Chinese imports in the US would lead to a shortage of supply of some products, drive up prices, increase production costs for certain finished goods, and raise cost of living for ordinary Americans, piling up burdens on businesses and consumers alike. Moreover, China-based American companies would also feel the heat of the trade and technology war between the two global economic powerhouses. Over 70,000 American firms have invested and operated in China, with nearly 90 per cent of their operations profitable, according to the 2024 China Business Climate Survey Report released by the American Chamber of Commerce in China.
Postscript
With so many pressing issues already on his table, Trump may not have Pakistan high on his priority list. Trump’s victory sparked verbal dueling and meme wars between workers of ruling and opposition parties on social media. Netizens affiliated with Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf celebrated the return of Trump who, according to them, triumphed over the American “deep state” despite facing assassination attempts, smear campaigns, and criminal charges. They expect Trump would pressure Pakistan to release Imran Khan whom he once called “very good friend.” However, the Foreign Office dismissed these “speculative” suggestions, reiterating “noninterference” as the basis for bilateral relationship. PTI-sympathisers in the US may reach out to Trump’s team, but he is unlikely to use the US administration influence for Khan’s release.
The start of US-Pakistan relations during Donald Trump’s first term was rocky. Trump conditioned economic ties on Pakistan taking stronger action against terrorist groups. Ties nosedived in January 2018, when Trump wrote an incendiary tweet, accusing Pakistan of “lies and deceit” in its dealings with the US. Subsequently, $1.3 billion security assistance to Pakistan was cut off. However, a reset in ties occurred a year later due to a transactional approach driven by Pakistan’s role in the Afghan peace process. The Biden administration pursued a policy of ‘low engagement’ since Pakistan was not a focus of its National Security Strategy. Trump is likely to continue a similar policy unless some new geostrategic motivation increases US interest in the region.