How Trump’s Foreign Policy Could Change the World

The shock of this week’s political earthquake is already shaking the world. Donald Trump does not belong to the same political tradition as most Republicans and Democrats in Washington. Every other elected president could be relied upon to keep American foreign policy fundamentally unchanged. Trump is a wild card. The world may be in for some upheaval.

Trump will come to power as the United States faces three major geopolitical challenges: the war in Gaza, the war in Ukraine and the rise of China. Could our approach to them change significantly under Trump? No, yes, and no one knows.

Gaza was the foreign policy issue on which there seemed to be the least difference between Trump and his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris. She repeated the familiar mantra that American support for Israel is “iron” and went out of her way to express sympathy for the Palestinian victims. Trump didn’t even try. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Trump “the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House.” Last month, Trump reportedly gave him pithy advice on how to carry out the bombing of Gaza: “Do what you have to do.”

A potentially serious secondary factor in the Gaza war is Iran. During the campaign, Harris absurdly called her America’s greatest adversary. In reality, it is an impoverished regional power with a depleted army. The easy path for Trump would be to accept Both parties believe Iran poses a serious threat to global stability. But Trump’s desire for a deal may prompt him to rebel against the Washington consensus. If Trump wants to strike a deal somewhere that will change the world, Iran offers intriguing possibilities.

The course of the war in Ukraine, on the other hand, could change quickly. Trump promised to end this war “in one day.” He didn’t say how to do it, but a peace formula for Ukraine is much easier to imagine than for Gaza. President Biden refused to utter the only phrase that could have prevented this war: “Ukraine will not join NATO.” Trump would have no problem saying this. He might even pick up the phone and call Vladimir Putin for what Churchill called a “dummy talk.” This could be followed by rapid negotiations on a treaty in which Ukraine would guarantee its neutrality and agree never to station foreign troops on its territory. Russia will eventually gain control of the regions it currently holds. The relationship between the two countries will be something like the US-Mexico relationship since we took over California, New Mexico and Arizona in the 1840s: the smaller country can govern itself as long as it does not threaten the security of its neighbor. superpowers.

Europe will likely be the continent that a Trump victory will change most significantly. Unlike almost everyone else in Washington, he is not a NATO fan. What was originally called the Atlantic Alliance was founded in 1949 to keep the Soviets from invading Western Europe. It was a success. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it desperately sought its role. It now includes 32 unwieldy countries, operates as far as the South China Sea, and is the primary vehicle through which the United States exercises global power. From Trump’s point of view, this is too much.

A direct deal strengthens NATO. The Americans guarantee European security and take on any military costs that the Europeans do not want to pay. In return, European countries support American foreign and security policy. Trump believes that guarantee should have expired with the end of the Cold War. He may try to “revise” it. This could lead to European countries taking more responsibility for their own defense and long-term security.

The most important relationship between the United States is with China. But this relationship is in terrible shape. The hyper-nationalist Trump, who considers “tariff” to be “the most beautiful word in the dictionary,” could make matters even worse. Trump, the deal maker, could have gone the other way. No one, perhaps not even Trump himself, can know which of his personalities will emerge as he shapes China policy.

The most profound impact of this election on America’s role in the world may not be felt immediately: the emergence of Vice President-elect J.D. Vance. He’s more assertive on the outside. Washington Consensus on Foreign Policy than anyone who has ever held national office, and he now represents the future of the Republican Party.

Vance rejects what he calls “a foreign policy of bullying, moralizing and lecturing.” Washington calls these policies liberal internationalism, democracy promotion, the freedom agenda, or expanding the peace zone. Its goal is to ensure American global primacy. If Vance dedicates himself to reversing this, he will strive to change the world.

Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.