In the realm of United States foreign policy, President Trump maintains a unilateral approach, in which he limits the usage of alliances, whereas his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, manifests a diplomatic strategy, in which he utilizes international institutions. Although domestic issues such as COVID-19 may be superseding debates regarding U.S. foreign policy right now, American issues and conflicts tend to be intermestic. It is important to scrutinize politicians, without a myopic scope, and recognize that the future of national security and American global-influence is dependent on November 3rd’s outcome. Trump’s unilateral approach to foreign policy with China and Russia as well as with states in the Middle East appears to have diminished the U.S.’s credibility and its prospect of future alliances; though, also, his strategy has displayed resolve and portrayed the U.S. as a buccaneering world power. Biden’s diplomatic approach, in contrast, would focus on rekindling tarnished alliances and utilizing diplomatic resources to mitigate international tensions. It is vital that voters understand the likely corollaries of Trump’s unilateral foreign policy and of Biden’s diplomatic approach in order to make an educated choice at the polls.

The presidential candidates take profoundly different stances on matters such as repelling Russia’s electoral interventions and the worsening trade war with China; however, they hold similar views on goals such as limiting troop deployments to the Middle East and Afghanistan. 

Joe Biden has an extensive foreign policy background. During his two terms as vice president under President Barack Obama, he played a leading role in developing the administration’s policies on Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Iraq which has had mixed consequences. As a U.S. senator from Delaware from 1973 to 2009, he served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for three decades — where he voted against authorization for the Gulf War in 1991 and in favor of the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. Although there was bipartisan support for the invasion of Afghanistan at the time, policy experts have since criticized the move, calling it a blank check permitting the government to wage unfettered war.

While the incumbent candidate, Donald Trump, does not have extensive experience in politics, it is important to recognize his administration’s dealings abroad over the past three and a half years. As a skeptic of international institutions, he has withdrawn from United Nations bodies governing health and human rights, major multinational agreements on climate change, arms control, and the Iran nuclear deal. Additionally, much of his foreign policy has focused on renegotiating U.S. trade arrangements, enacting new immigration restrictions, and launching a tariff battle with China. Most, if not all, of these initiatives have been controversial and brought many of our allies to question America’s dependability.

To start, China has become one of American’s most pressing foreign policy concerns. The ongoing trade war with China and territorial disputes in the South China Sea have had a perilous effect on American economic security and threatened the supply of critical U.S. strategic resources. As such, the next president is likely to prioritize this conflict. 

Since his inauguration, Trump has sought to confront China over a series of economic abuses: currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, export subsidies, and economic espionage. Concerned that firms like Tiktok and telecommunications giant Huawei are being manipulated by Beijing, Trump has ramped up constraints on Chinese technology firms operating in the U.S. Moreover, Trump has attracted Chinese retaliation by applying tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods. To his dismay, China has not ceased its economic and human rights violations and U.S.-China relations have slid to their lowest levels in recent history. Further suggested by his rejection of Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea, if re-elected, Trump may continue to increase unilateral pressure on Beijing with the intention of holding China accountable. Although Joe Biden’s stance on the China conflict aligns with Trump’s, Biden has stated that he would mount a more effective pushback by utilizing existing trade laws and building a united front of allies. While Biden’s approach may inhibit China’s rogue economic initiatives and provide the opportunity for a settlement to be achieved, it will ease some of the pressure laid on the country by the Trump administration. Additionally, Biden has criticized Trump for his negligent response to China’s infringement of Hong Kong’s autonomy under Beijing’s latest national security law. Therefore, we can expect Biden to place sanctions on China if elected. 

Both candidates intend to defend America’s economy and other populations from falling victim to China’s authoritarian influence. The key difference is that Biden believes that the U.S. should work with its allies on a policy with China, possibly increasing the prospect of a compromise. In contrast, the Trump administration would likely continue to confront China unilaterally, thus, intensifying an economic race until one side acquiesces.

Following Western attempts to cultivate a beneficial post-Cold War relationship with Russia, Moscow has re-emerged as a top rival for the U.S., making the U.S. dubious and skeptical of Russia’s initiatives. Russia’s foreign policy has become increasingly aggressive in recent years, from its military intrusion in Ukraine and Syria to its meddling in Western elections. Meanwhile, Trump has developed amicable relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and has strived for a closer partnership with Russia, despite U.S. intelligence agencies concluding that Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Though, in contradiction, Trump has also extended Obama-era economic sanctions on Moscow, increased military aid to Ukraine, and withdrawn from a significant U.S.-Russia arms control treaty. 

Conversely, Biden takes a strong stance against Russia in declaring that Putin is “assaulting the foundations of Western democracy” due to Russia’s attempt to undermine the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), divide the European Union, and threaten the U.S. electoral system. Biden has pointedly denounced Trump’s failure to respond to intelligence reports; these reports claimed that Moscow was granting bounties to Taliban-linked militias to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Given Biden’s firm stance, he has stated that as president he would increase U.S. military assistance to Ukraine, pursue new arms control arrangements, call for an independent investigation into election interference, and invest more into NATO to deter Moscow’s illicit aggression. 

Trump and Biden’s stances on Russia, specifically towards Vladimir Putin, could not be more polarized. Trump views Putin as a strongman with whom he can bargain, whereas Biden sees a reckless regime led by a dictator who is, by nature, opposed to American principles. The upcoming election could determine whether or not Russia becomes a more hostile U.S. enemy, which could hold debilitating implications for the world.

Of comparable importance, Iran poses economic, political, and security threats to the livelihood of its regional nations and American interests in the Middle East. It is a conflict that will be approached differently by a President Trump or President Biden. Under Trump’s “Maximum Pressure” campaign against Iran in 2018, he withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed sweeping economic sanctions on the country. This action demonstrated Trump’s intent to economically strangle Iran. Moreover, the Trump administration has continued to undermine Iranian hegemony in the Middle East, through assassinating Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, brokering the Abraham Accords, and increasing sanctions against Iran. These moves have heightened tensions with the Islamic republic, and these tensions resulted in Iran launching more than a dozen missiles at a U.S. military camp in Iraq housing and plotting to kill an American ambassador in South Africa. There is bipartisan support in the U.S. for pressure on Iran to discontinue its nuclear weapons program and abandon its proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen. And while Trump has put pressure on Iran, he has been criticized for escalating conflicts in the region without making a sufficient diplomatic effort first. 

In contrast, Vice President Joe Biden worked with Obama to secure the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal and considers Trump’s approach to Iran a “self-inflicted disaster,” arguing that Trump has failed to keep Tehran from advancing its nuclear program. Not only does Biden pledge to rejoin the agreement if Iran returns to compliance, but he also intends to deal with Iran through diplomacy and use the U.S. military in the region primarily for counterterrorism and working with local allies. If this plan prevails, it will likely decrease U.S.-Iran tensions and, consequently, create a similar ripple effect throughout the Middle East. Critics of Biden’s foreign policy assert that his plan to catalyze a necessary reformation is steeped in Cold War thinking and is overly committed to the traditional alliance design. 

Given that many of Trump’s efforts to subvert Iran’s autocratic dominion have occurred within the last year, it is difficult to quantify their effectiveness. Nevertheless, it can be inferred that if re-elected, Trump would continue to put unilateral pressure on Tehran through economic and military measures, while, Biden would attempt to constrain the country’s sponsorship of terrorism and nuclear endeavors through diplomatic measures.

The Middle East continues to consume the world’s attention and poses special challenges to the United States. Aside from Iran, conflicts in the Middle East, such as the civil wars taking place in Syria and Yemen and the Israel-Palestinian Conflict, are creating humanitarian catastrophes. Not only do these conflicts expend countless lives and resources, but they foster terrorism and instability in the region as well.

Trump has addressed U.S. interests in the Syrian civil war via a coalition with Turkish forces to fight the Islamic State. Since these efforts’ success, however, he has controversially withdrawn most U.S. troops from Syria which has been accompanied by a resurgence of ISIS and Turkish attacks on the Kurdish coalition forces. Biden favors greater support for the Kurds and condemns Trump’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from northern Syria, which he believes deteriorated U.S. credibility and the likelihood of future alliances; this view is held by many other politicians and political commentators across the political spectrum as well.

The Yemeni Civil War has created the largest humanitarian crisis in the world; currently, in Yemen, a child dies every 10 minutes from preventable causes. The crisis has been exacerbated by Saudi-backed coalition forces and Iran’s proxies. Despite bipartisan calls in Congress to end U.S. support for Riyadh’s war in Yemen and congressional outcry over the killing of reporter Jamal Khashoggi, Trump has embraced Saudi Arabia as a “great ally in [the] fight against Iran.” Trump’s support of Riyadh’s war in Yemen may help in the fight against Iranian influence, but it will be at the expense of overlooking Saudi Arabia’s human rights infringements and exacerbation of the Yemeni crisis. In contrast, Biden will pursue a “reassessment” of U.S. support for Saudi Arabia, by halting weapons sales to the kingdom and ending American involvement in the Yemeni war. Therefore, a President Biden may either dramatically alter the U.S.’s alliance with Riyadh or demand that the country address these pressing violations.

President Trump and Joe Biden are in partial agreement on the Israel-Palestinian Conflict. Trump has expressed his unequivocal support for the State of Israel by moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, brokering a peace deal between Israel and the UAE, and proposing a new Middle East peace plan (without Palestinian input). Similarly, throughout his political career, Biden has called himself a Zionist (a Zionist is someone who supports establishing a Jewish state in Israel). He maintains that his commitment to Israel’s protection is “ironclad” and, regardless of the conflict’s resolution, he will not withhold aid to Israel. Though, in contrast to Trump’s unilateral approach, Biden has said he will back a two-state resolution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict which does not cut off support for the Palestinians. 

In overlooking the Palestinian perspective, Trump’s plan for the conflict may expedite a resolution, but this agreement will certainly be to the detriment of the Palestinian people. Conversely, Biden’s approach will harken back to American policy during the Obama-era; his administration will likely not reach a resolution quickly, but it will consider the Palestinian cause in their peace attempts. In essence, Trump is seeking a short-term resolution while Biden would seek a longstanding resolution.

On foreign policy issues such as the deployment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Trump and Biden have similar strategies. However, concerning American conflicts with China, Russia, and the Middle East, the candidates exhibit a stark contrast in their approaches. There are arguments to be made for the efficacy of President Trump’s unilateralist tactics and for the potential effectiveness of Joe Biden’s diplomatic, alliance-based approach. It is crucial for voters to understand both candidate’s international plans for the next four years as they will affect our nation’s security, economy, and global reputation.

Regardless of a possible change in Washington to recalibrate the U.S.’s foreign policy, President Trump’s legacy is likely to outlive his term; it may take many years (and presidents) for the U.S. to regain its international credibility in the world.