Trump’s Return: Implications for US Foreign Policy and Global Conflicts

In an unprecedented comeback, Donald Trump has been re-elected as the 47th President of the United States, a development that has far-reaching implications for US foreign policy. Trump’s first term saw notable deviations from traditional policy stances, particularly with his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and his formal recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. With a pledge to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Trump’s second term raises significant questions about his approach to these ongoing crises and the broader international landscape. How might Trump’s renewed presidency impact Iran, the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Russia-Ukraine war, and what are the potential paths and implications for these critical international issues?

Trump’s Approach to Iran
One of Trump’s defining foreign policy moves during his first term was his decision to unilaterally withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran in 2018. This agreement, negotiated by the Obama administration, had placed stringent restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump’s withdrawal marked a stark shift to a “maximum pressure” campaign aimed at forcing Iran to curb not only its nuclear ambitions but also its regional influence. While this policy succeeded in exerting economic strain on Iran, it did not ultimately bring Tehran back to the negotiating table under terms favourable to the US, nor did it reduce Iran’s influence in the region. Instead, Iran expanded its nuclear activities in defiance of the US stance, edging closer to weapons-grade enrichment levels.

In his second term, Trump may be inclined to resume his maximum pressure approach, doubling down on sanctions and isolation tactics to curtail Iran’s nuclear program and regional reach. However, the global and regional dynamics have evolved since his first term. Iran’s closer ties with Russia and China, fueled by shared opposition to US policies, suggest that it may have more avenues for economic and military collaboration outside the Western sphere. Tehran’s relationship with Moscow, particularly given their cooperation in Syria and recent energy agreements, complicates the landscape for a unilateral US approach to Iran.

There is also the risk that a revived maximum pressure strategy could drive further nuclear escalation on Iran’s part, creating a more immediate threat in the Middle East. Should Iran cross the nuclear threshold, the US could face a crisis reminiscent of North Korea’s nuclear rise. a situation that the original JCPOA sought to prevent. To navigate this, Trump may choose to pursue a “JCPOA 2.0,” though he would likely seek a more comprehensive deal addressing both nuclear and non-nuclear issues, including Iran’s ballistic missile programme and its involvement in regional conflicts. Yet, finding common ground for negotiation would be difficult, particularly given Iran’s increased demands and skepticism of US reliability following the original JCPOA’s abrupt termination.

Israel-Palestine Relations
Trump’s first term marked a seismic shift in US-Israel policy with his decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US embassy there, a move that was celebrated in Israel but widely criticized by Palestinians and much of the international community. Trump’s “Deal of the Century” peace plan for Israel and Palestine, unveiled in 2020, proposed a solution heavily tilted in Israel’s favour, essentially marginalizing Palestinian aspirations for statehood. While this plan received limited support, it signaled a realignment of US policy that placed less emphasis on a two-state solution and more on cementing Israel’s geopolitical interests.

In his second term, Trump is likely to continue his pro-Israel stance, which may lead to further diplomatic and on-the-ground support for Israeli policies. His administration could greenlight further Israeli settlements in contested territories, further diminishing the prospects for a negotiated two-state solution. While his supporters argue that a firm US’ stance on Israel deters regional threats and fosters stability through strength, critics contend that such one-sided support may fuel greater instability and alienate moderate Palestinian voices, potentially leading to renewed violence and unrest.

One notable aspect of Trump’s influence in the region was the Abraham Accords, brokered under his administration, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, including the UAE and Bahrain. The second term could see Trump striving to expand these agreements to include other regional powers, such as Saudi Arabia. Though this would further integrate Israel into the Middle East’s diplomatic and economic fabric, it may also embolden Israeli hardliners, making Palestinian statehood an even more distant prospect. For the Palestinians, this normalization of relations between Israel and Arab states without significant concessions to Palestinian statehood would likely be seen as a betrayal, increasing disillusionment and frustration.

Ending the Russia-Ukraine War
One of Trump’s most ambitious campaign promises was his pledge to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict, a war that has caused significant global disruption and humanitarian suffering. Trump’s critics argue that his favorable stance toward Russian President Vladimir Putin and his criticism of NATO during his first term could hinder his ability to broker a balanced peace. Others, however, believe that Trump’s unorthodox diplomacy and willingness to negotiate with adversaries might open doors to a swift resolution, though the nature of that resolution remains highly speculative.

Trump’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine war would likely be influenced by his broader skepticism of NATO and multilateral commitments. While he may not immediately withdraw US support for Ukraine, he could condition aid on Ukraine’s willingness to negotiate with Russia. This could involve pressing Ukraine to cede contested territories, potentially as a means of “de-escalating” the conflict. Yet, such a strategy would be fraught with ethical and strategic risks, as it could legitimize Russian aggression and set a precedent that undermines national sovereignty norms.

Trump’s approach could also reshape NATO’s unity and resolve. During his first term, he frequently criticized NATO allies for not contributing enough to collective defense, a stance that strained transatlantic relations. In the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, such criticisms could resurface, possibly weakening the alliance’s resolve if Trump pressures European allies to share a greater burden in supporting Ukraine. Moreover, if Trump’s peace proposal involves concessions that European countries view as destabilizing, it could lead to friction within NATO and between the US and its European allies.

However, Trump’s unfiltered style and willingness to engage with authoritarian leaders could also yield unexpected outcomes. If Trump can leverage his rapport with Putin to negotiate a temporary ceasefire or even a peace agreement, he could potentially bring an end to the conflict. Nonetheless, such an outcome would likely entail compromises on Ukraine’s territorial integrity, which could have lasting implications for US credibility in supporting allies facing aggression from larger powers.

Broader Geopolitical Implications and Challenges

Trump’s second term would undoubtedly shift US foreign policy in a more unilateral and transactional direction. His preference for bilateral deals over multilateral diplomacy may appeal to his base domestically, but it risks alienating allies and diminishing US influence on the global stage. By pushing hardline policies towards Iran, he risks escalating nuclear tensions in the Middle East. In dealing with Israel and Palestine, he risks sidelining Palestinian aspirations and inflaming regional tensions. Meanwhile, his approach to the Russia-Ukraine war could challenge the foundations of international law regarding national sovereignty, potentially emboldening other authoritarian states.

An additional consideration is Trump’s impact on the US’s relationship with China. While this analysis focuses primarily on Iran, Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine, Trump’s posture toward these conflicts will undoubtedly be influenced by his stance on China, especially as Beijing seeks to expand its influence in regions affected by these issues. For instance, a US-Iran standoff could drive Tehran closer to Beijing, giving China a strategic foothold in the Middle East. Similarly, if the US distances itself from NATO commitments, China may exploit such a rift to strengthen its own diplomatic alliances.

Conclusion
Trump’s second presidency could mark a period of recalibration in US foreign policy, with potentially profound impacts on Iran, the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Russia-Ukraine war. His history with these issues suggests he will continue to favor strong-arm tactics and prioritizing US interests over broader international consensus. While this approach may yield short-term gains, it also risks deepening global tensions and diminishing the US’s role as a stabilizing force. As Trump resumes office, the world will be watching to see whether his policies foster peace or merely shift the parameters of longstanding conflicts.

If he chooses diplomacy, backed by a pragmatic acknowledgment of regional complexities, there remains a path for constructive engagement. However, if Trump doubles down on his previous hardline strategies, we may see an era marked by increased volatility, driven by the president’s penchant for unpredictability and unilateral action. The stakes are high, and the world waits to see which path he will take.

The writer is a journalist, columnist, PR expert and journalism and media studies lecturer at Christian Service University. Email: [email protected]