Each generation has its “crossing the Rubicon” moment—the reelection of Donald Trump is ours. The post-Cold War order that began with the resignation of Mikhail Gorbachev is no more. Populism is on the rise across the globe. America’s adversaries—Russia, China, and Iran—feel emboldened after years of American decline.
Make no mistake, Trump’s reelection marks a seismic shift in American foreign policy. Voters have rejected globalism in favor of transactional protectionism. With mounting threats at home and abroad, the incoming administration must ensure its foreign policy is pragmatic, focused, and achievable. The simple fact is that we can no longer be the world’s policeman; it’s time to choose our battles—and win them.
Europe’s Turn to Pay the Piper
In Mr. Trump’s election night victory speech, he boasted that there were ‘no wars’ during his first term. If he wants to keep these bragging rights, he must end the war in Ukraine.
There are two ways to end the war. One involves ending the war on its current battle lines. The other requires providing Ukraine with the money and armaments to regain the territory it has lost—a much more costly and bloody solution.
Mr. Vance has advocated the first, so-called ‘frozen conflict’ approach, which provides little protection to Ukraine—or the rest of Europe—from potential future Russian aggression. Mr. Trump himself has also been partial to this view. He has blamed Ukrainian President Zelenskyy for starting the war, and warned that Ukraine might have to cede land to get peace. On the surface level, their argument holds weight. Although I certainly disagree that the war is Ukraine’s fault, we must be realistic. The more Ukraine fights, the more territory it will lose. The only party that benefits in that situation is Russia.
Had the Biden administration and European allies armed Ukraine to the hilt from the outset, in the way that the second solution and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo support, the outcome might’ve been different. However, we don’t live in an imaginary universe. Congressional Republicans blocked aid to Ukraine at the end of 2023, and President Biden only just recently authorized Ukraine to use long-range missiles to directly attack Russia—a dangerous escalation. These facts put the incoming administration between a rock and a hard place.
All of this means Ukraine cannot win the war in the conventional sense. They must come to a negotiated settlement with Russia, and they must do so as fast as possible. It is not an ideal solution, but it’s the best solution on the table after nearly three years of fighting and bleak prospects in the future for the war-ravaged nation.
Now, it’s reasonable to argue that this solution would merely be a stepping stone to future Russian aggression. However, I’m not advocating a complete withdrawal of American support, but rather a strategic reorganization of American interests. It’s critical we continue to support our allies but advocate a swift end to the war, by which the focus can become preempting to any future Russian aggression rather than fighting a war virtually guaranteed to end in defeat.
However, the return of Mr. Trump to the White House has larger implications for all of Europe beyond just Ukraine. His transactionalist tendencies mean that European nations will have to start spending more money on defense. Mr. Trump has repeatedly emphasized this point, and he is undoubtedly correct. Only two-thirds of NATO members hit the 2% GDP spending threshold. That is unacceptable. For too long, European countries have overly relied on American support, and it’s made them complacent. Luckily, the war in Ukraine has shaken lots of this complacency as the Baltic States and Poland have significantly increased military spending, but the complacency must be fully eliminated across Europe. The fact of the matter is that for their own good, European nations need to start spending more money on defense. While Mr. Trump might be brash in his rhetoric, his message is clear and correct: nobody gets a free ride. European nations must invest in and maintain their militaries, not only to deter future Russian aggression, but to signal to the United States that they are willing to put significant skin in the game.
Four Birds, One Stone
The Middle East will be the most daunting geopolitical challenge of Mr. Trump’s second term. All current conflicts in the region stem from one antagonist: Iran. Whether by funding militias or directly attacking Israel, Iran is the puppet-master by which groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis attack and destabilize the region. The U.S. should focus on Iran, not just their proxies.
The problems Iran causes are numerous. For the United States, Iran’s nuclear program and destabilizing influence in the region is a fundamental security risk. For Israel, Iran is a persistent and existential threat to their long-term security. For the Saudi Arabia, Iran’s support of the Houthis in Yemen poses a threat to their sphere of influence. More broadly, Iran and Saudi Arabia are bitter rivals as a result of the Shia-Sunni divide.
The clear goal of the second Trump administration’s Middle East policy is and should be the normalization of Israeli-Saudi relations. This achievement would not only be the crown jewel of the Abraham Accords—his foreign policy magnum opus—but it would set the stage for a fundamental rebalancing and stabilization of the Middle East.
Currently, Iran stands as both the primary driver of, and threat to, normalization. Their looming presence requires Saudi Arabia to seek American security guarantees and better relations with regional partners such as Israel. At the same time, Iran funds groups that destabilize the region and attempt to isolate Israel. This dynamic was on perfect display before Hamas’ attack on October 7, 2023. The Israelis and the Saudis were on track to normalize relations, but Hamas’ attack caused the Palestinian question to reassert itself in the Middle Eastern conscience. As a result, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman has conditioned normalization with Israel on irrevocable steps toward a Palestinian state. These preconditions, however, seem to be a PR move to satisfy the Saudi public. MBS has reportedly stated that he doesn’t care about the Palestinians but needs some cover to normalize relations with Israel. Should normalization occur, the regional focus would turn squarely to Iran.
In this instance, the United States should continue, and accelerate, our maximum economic pressure campaign on the Iranian government. Since withdrawing from the JCPOA, Iran has developed the capacity to enrich uranium at 60%. This places them only weeks away from developing nuclear weapons should they choose to pursue that path. That is a dangerous and unsustainable future. Extreme economic pressure provides the opportunity to drive the Iranian government back to the negotiating table or starve them of funds to continue their nuclear program.
However, it is also critical that the United States not anchor military capabilities in the region. That is why normalization is crucial. Assimilation of Israel into the security apparatus of the Middle East would allow the United States to lessen our military footprint and direct resources where the need is greater—for example, in East Asia.
The Middle East presents a significant challenge to Mr. Trump. However, with a focus on deterring Iran and driving normalization between the Israelis and Saudis, he might become the first president since Clinton who can rightfully claim real progress toward Middle East peace.
Dancing with the Dragon
While the Middle East might be the most daunting, China is the greatest economic and security threat to the United States in the 21st century. We need to combine a strategy of containment in certain areas with necessary engagement in others. While China certainly represents the most significant challenge to American global leadership, it’s also a crucial trading partner and economic player. The goal, therefore, should be to engage China where mutual interests exist, while firmly containing its expansionist behavior in Taiwan and the South China Sea.
While China policy is one of the few foreign policy spheres in which the current approach is unlikely to substantially change, Mr. Trump’s reelection certainly signals a new era of economic and military competition. Luckily for the President-elect, the vast majority of Congress and the American people see China as our greatest threat, so he will likely have widespread support for his hawkish policies.
Mr. Biden kept or even increased the tariffs that Mr. Trump introduced in his first term. And Mr. Trump is expected to take an even more aggressive approach over the next four years. The president-elect has proposed 60% tariffs on Chinese imports, with the potential to reach 200% if China invades Taiwan. These wide-ranging, massive tariffs are expected to have significant negative effects at home and abroad, of which middle-class families will bear the brunt. The simple fact is that over-aggressive tariffs will stifle American economic growth. We must apply tariffs to protect critical industries, but zealous use will harm more than help.
When it comes to Taiwan, China has already demarcated its redline. They want Mr. Trump to keep his distance. This may be difficult, however, given his second administration will be full of China hawks like Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor designate Michael Waltz, who will certainly favor taking hard stances against Beijing’s anticipated aggression in the Taiwan Strait.
No matter who occupies key positions, Mr. Trump’s Taiwan policy will likely be consistent with the past eight years: increased security assistance to the island while supporting the status quo between Beijing and Taipei. However, if Beijing senses that the American administration is likely to support Taiwanese independence they may be more likely to use force to occupy the island. This can be proactively deterred with more arms sales to Taiwan and joint military exercises with regional allies, while still maintaining our current ‘One-China’ policy. However, deterrence alone is insufficient. We must engage diplomatically with Beijing and ensure that we keep an open line of communication between our militaries to avoid unnecessary and accidental escalations.
Overall, Chinese policy in the second Trump administration must strike a balance between the containment of an ambitious China and the recognition that complete economic decoupling is impossible. Luckily, many of these containment policies are already in place and partial decoupling of industries critical to national security has already begun (and must continue). Using a hammer when a scalpel will do will only further destabilize already rocky relations between the two nations. Whether the usually abrasive President-elect will pursue realpolitik is yet unknown, but it’s the only viable path for America, Taiwan, and a secure Southeast Asia.
A New Playbook For An Old Game
The reelection of Donald Trump marks a seismic change to the international order. As new challenges arise, American foreign policy must adapt to this new era of uncertainty with a pragmatic, focused, and achievable version of ‘America First.’ It’s the only way to ensure the long-term security of the United States and its allies.
It’s time to revive Reagan’s famous motto: peace through strength. The world is watching, a new chapter of history is being written, and our choices today will shape the world for generations to come.
Featured Image Source: AP/Andrew Harnik
Comments are closed.