Different presidents of the United States are associated with various foreign policies. During the Obama Administration, the federal government implemented a strategy to rebalance the Asia-Pacific and joined the 2015 Paris Agreement. The subsequent administrations adopt some policies and alter others to fulfil the promises made during election campaigns and enhance national security and their relationship with their international allies. In 2016, Trump changed an existing foreign policy implemented by the Obama Administration. Trump utilized strategic contraction in the Middle East and withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement. The Biden Administration has made several changes to foreign policies implemented by the Trump Administration. Biden also adopted some of Trump’s foreign policy strategies regarding the Middle East and changed others, for instance, rejoining the Paris Agreement. The foreign policy during Biden’s era rebuilt the relationship between international allies that the Trump Administration could have fractured.[1]
This paper will examine Trump’s and Biden’s administrations’ foreign approaches and how their policies and tactics influenced and continue to affect strategic relationships with U.S. partners and allies. It will include a comparison of the international security implications of the two administrations’ global initiatives, emphasizing the differences between partners’ and allies’ positions and reactions. This paper analyzes how different administrations’ modifications in U.S. international strategy affect U.S. alliances and partnerships.
Trump’s Administrative International Approaches
Trump’s Administration was associated with implementing a foreign policy jeopardizing U.S. international relations. In 2018, the United States withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). The Trump Administration worked with allies of the U.S. to put sanctions on Iran to reduce the use of missiles and other weapons to threaten regional peace, international trade relations, and other human rights. However, this change in foreign policy made by Trump does not change the interest of the United States in the Iran concern. The involvement of Trump in the Iran issue was meant to deter Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, promote freedom of navigation, and safeguard U.S. allies in the Middle East. Although the interest in Iran remains the same, Trump’s Administration does not manage foreign policy using a multilateral cooperation framework.[2]. The withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear deal shows that Trump avoided multilateral agreements.
Trump’s foreign policy changes regarding the Iranian nuclear issue are affected by the division in Trump’s government and conformity to American society’s political requirements. Trump’s government is divided into internationalists, nationalists, and Libertarian non-interventionists. The change was implemented when the nationalists gained the favour of the president. American society also has political requirements that require the governing Administration to fulfil. For instance, Trump was expected to fulfil the promises made during his campaigns which included approaching the Iranian nuclear issue differently. The Trump administration’s foreign policy has been subject to scrutiny since it could be costly in enhancing regional harmony. The withdrawal of the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal increases the probability of the U.S. engaging in a military operation in the region. Trump’s Administration further jeopardized the relationship between the U.S. and Iran when the federal government tied the withdrawal with Islamic terrorism. However, Trump maintained a positive relationship with Middle East allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Trump’s foreign policy also included withdrawal from the Paris Agreement that the Obama administration joined in 2015. The Paris Agreement is a global pact between almost 200 countries to fight climate change. Trump’s withdrawal from the accord was subject to scrutiny from Democrats, some Republicans and members of the Paris Agreement. The United States is among the nations with the highest emission of pollutants, and its participation in the Paris Agreement was essential in checking climate change. Trump’s withdrawal from the pact also facilitated the deregulation of certain federal environmental protection policies that intensified ecological pollution in the United States, accelerating global climate change.
Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement intensified global climate change and weakened the diplomatic relationship between the United States and some members of the United Nations. The United States is a major emitter; with its collaboration, the agreement’s objectives may be met. This withdrawal also diminishes the influence of the United States in global politics since other major emitters like the E.U., China, South Korea, and Japan are accelerating efforts to reduce emissions. The political influence of these participants may surpass that of the United States.
Biden’s Administrative International Approaches
When Biden won the 2020 presidential election, he promised to alter several policies implemented during the Trump Administration, including foreign policy. Biden is working to implement a change in foreign policy to return to the Iran nuclear deal. This change is ideal for Biden Administration since more Americans and Iranians support the agreement. At least 56% of Americans believe that economic sanctions against Iran should be lifted and strict regulations against nuclear weapons should be enforced.[3]. This foreign policy is driven by Biden’s political affiliation since three-quarters of Democrats agree with the strategy while at least 38% of Republicans concur. Biden utilizes the delaying tactic to delay a return to the Iran nuclear deal.[4]. This strategy is depicted through the Administration’s hope for the future and refusal to sign some documents. This delay has been justified by Biden’s Administration’s least interference with Iran’s development, weapons, and growth. If Biden’s Administration signs the Iran nuclear deal, it will jeopardize its relationship with Israel. Therefore, Biden gains the upper hand in negotiations by use of the delaying strategy.
Under Biden’s Administration, at least 900 troops remain in Syria to check the activities of ISIS. According to the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS and the Pentagon, the presence of U.S. military troops in Syria is essential for the interest of the U.S. and its allies in the region. Biden’s foreign policy aims to shape Syria’s political climate and monitor Russia and Iran’s influence in the Middle Eastern country.[5]. In Biden’s manifesto, he promised to protect the Syrian Democratic Forces in the fight against terrorist groups. However, this strategy has been criticized by Robert Ford, former Syrian ambassador, who believes that the presence of U.S. troops in the region fuels the current crisis.[6]. The U.N. resolution reopening the cross-border aid channel that the U.S. wanted to pass rejected by Russia and China; however, the Biden Administration has utilized more than US$ 500 million to respond to the current Syrian crisis.[7]. This strategy by Biden seeks to enhance the influence of the U.S. in the region and its support for human rights.
One of the most controversial aspects of Biden’s foreign policy is his support for Israel. Like Donald Trump’s strategy, Biden wishes to strengthen the relationship between the United States and its allies in the Middle East. Since Israel is among U.S. allies in the Middle East, Biden preserved Trump’s policy by aiding Israel. Biden has been under criticism from a section of Democrats, Israelis, Palestinians, and other Americans for failure to take action to address the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict. However, Biden’s Administration seems to be profiting from the competition since it sells weapons to Israel. This initiative has increased the number of Palestinian sympathizers in the U.S. by 25%. At least 40% of Democrats and more than 42% of young adults sympathize with Palestinians.[8]. Therefore, these individuals believe that president Biden’s Administration is failing to address the humanitarian issue arising from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. However, Biden’s adoption of Trump’s policy enhances the influence of the United States in the Middle East through Arab-Israel reconciliation.
The Biden administration is also rejoining the Paris Agreement joined by the Obama administration in 2015. The return of the United States to the Paris Agreement is important for addressing global climate change. The Trump administration’s withdrawal from the pact fueled changes in federal laws concerning environmental protection. During the Trump administration, the deregulation policies made by the U.S. accelerated climate change and fractured diplomatic relations with powerful allies like the E.U. They gave rivals like China an upper hand in influencing global politics. However, the Biden administration wishes to reinstate the foreign policy used by the Obama administration.
The return to the Paris Agreement means that the United States will play a major role in promoting environmental protection. It will include implementing federal policies to reduce pollution in the country, contributing to a higher percentage of ecological conservation globally. The United States will also donate money used in environmental protection initiatives among members involved in the Paris Agreement.[9]. Therefore, the influence of the United States in global politics will be enhanced as well as its diplomatic relations with the E.U. and other powerful economies like China and Japan.
The Effect of the Two Administrative International Approaches
The United States foreign policy is essential in maintaining healthy diplomatic relationships with international allies and exerting a greater political influence on the global stage. The two outstanding aspects of the U.S. foreign policy are the Middle East strategy and the climate change policy. Different presidential administrations approach foreign policy differently, affecting the relationship between the United States and its allies. For instance, Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Agreement shifted the relationship between the United States and Iran from partners to enemies. Sanctions by the U.S. government accompanied the exit from the Iran nuclear agreement on Iran; hence the U.S. and Iran cannot engage in trade and other diplomatic relations.[10]. However, Trump’s policy to withdraw from Iran’s nuclear deal may affect its influence in the Middle East since the relationship between the U.S. and Iran is meant to reduce Iran’s use of nuclear weapons on U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia. Therefore, in the Middle East, Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement jeopardizes the safety of U.S. allies in the region hence diminishing the political influence of the U.S. in the region while allowing other political powers like Russia to have a greater impact in the area.
Additionally, Trump enhanced the diplomatic relationship between the U.S. and trade partners like Saudi Arabia and Israel, a political ally. The contraction strategy adopted by Trump encompassed selling weapons to Saudi Arabia to help fight Iran’s militias. Similarly, he sold weapons to Israel to help them fight their regional enemies. Therefore, the Trump administration strengthened the diplomatic relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Therefore, Saudi Arabia will be open to trade agreements, especially regarding oil supply. Trump’s strengthened relationship with Israel is essential in advocating for economic prosperity, democracy, and security in the Middle East.[11]. Therefore, Israel’s reaction to Trump’s foreign policy is positive, and it will be essential in fulfilling the political interests of the United States in the region.
Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement fractured the relationship between the United States and some strong allies like the E.U. and China. During Obama’s Administration, the US and the EU were trade partners and collaborated to alter climate change. However, with the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, the E.U. may also withdraw from some trade agreements that may negatively affect the country’s economic growth. This withdrawal from the Paris Agreement also involves the financial relationship between the U.S. and China. The exit from the Paris Agreement may elicit a Chinese reaction that will aggravate the ongoing trade war between the two countries. Therefore, the absence of the U.S. in the Paris agreement could encourage China to be the major party in the contract; hence China could easily overtake the U.S. as the best economy if the U.S. does not reenter the pact.
Biden’s Middle East policy is slightly different from Trump’s Middle East policy; hence the reactions of the U.S. allies in the region are different. When Trump became president, the US was Iran’s enemy, while Saudi Arabia and Israel were U.S. allies. Iran was an enemy due to Trump’s withdrawal of the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, which was associated with trade sanctions. However, Biden’s Administration could rejoin the Iran nuclear deal and change Iran’s reaction. Iran will be a trade partner with the U.S. hence protecting the country’s geopolitical interest in the region. If Biden returns to the Iran nuclear deal, Iran’s reaction will encompass the cessation of using nuclear weapons in the area and involvement in trade deals with the United States. The Biden administration plans to stop the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia. It may endanger the existing trade relationship between the two countries. Saudi Arabia is more likely to implement trade sanctions against oil sales to the U.S. Saudi Arabia could also react by selling the oil to economic rivals of the United States. President Biden’s inheritance of President Trump’s policy towards Israel does not change the position of Israel as a political and economic partner.
Biden’s rejoining the Paris Agreement alters the positions of U.S. partners and allies and invokes different reactions. The United States had a fractured relationship with the E.U. and other major parties in the Paris Agreement. Trump’s governance affected most trade agreements between the U.S. and E.U. A major emitter like China played a major role in the pact without the United States. However, with the re-entry of the United States into the agreement, the reaction of the E.U. has resulted in positive relationships between the U.S. and the EU[12]. With new trade agreements between the U.S. and E.U., the economic growth of the United States is certain. The United States will offer its contribution to climate change and maintain its global political dominance.
Conclusion
Different presidents have different policies, and their administrations make several initial changes. When Trump took over from Obama, his Administration’s foreign policy was controversial since he withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris Agreement. These initiatives altered the positions of international allies of the United States and invoked several reactions. The withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal triggered Iran’s militias’ attacks on U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia. The exit from the Paris Agreement negatively affects the relationship between the U.S. and the E.U. It may result in diminished trade deals, which will affect the economic growth of the United States while increasing climate change. On the other hand, Biden returned to the Iran nuclear agreement and the Paris Agreement. Therefore, the Biden administration altered the position of U.S. allies by invoking positive reactions. Return to the Iran nuclear agreement will reduce Iran’s hostilities with Saudi Arabia, a trade partner. Return to the Paris Agreement will mend trade relations between the U.S. and E.U. and influence global politics by playing a major role in addressing climate change.
Bibliography
AlAlkim, Hassan Hamdan. 2021. “U.S. President Joe Biden’s Foreign Policy towards the Gulf.” Open Journal of Political Science 11 (03): 378–401. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2021.113026.
Biden, Joseph R. Jr. 2020. “Why American Must Lead Again: Recusing U.S. Foreign Policy after Trump.” Foreign Affairs 99: 64. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/fora99&div=42&id=&page=.
Boys, James D. “In Charge, But Not in Control: Biden’s Foreign Policy.” Political Insight 13, no. 1 (2022): 4-6. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/20419058221091628a?journalCode=plia
Ettinger, Aaron. 2021. “Rumors of Restoration: Joe Biden’s Foreign Policy and What It Means for Canada.” Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, April 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/11926422.2021.1899005.
Haass, Richard. “The Age of America First: Washington’s Flawed New Foreign Policy Consensus.” Foreign Aff. 100 (2021): 85. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/fora100&div=151&id=&page=
Habash, Lourdes. 2021. “Hegemony in International Relations: A Conceptual Review of U.S. Policy.” Siyasat Arabiya Volume IX (48): 21–44. https://siyasatarabiya.dohainstitute.org/en/issue048/pages/art02.aspx.
Maizland, Lindsay, More From Our Experts, Stewart M. Patrick, John B. Bellinger III, and Reuben E. Brigety II. “Biden’s First Foreign Policy Move: Reentering International Agreements.” Council on Foreign Relations, January 21 (2021). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep31148.pdf
Mathews, Jessica T. “Present at the Re-Creation? U.S. foreign policy must be remade, not restored.” Foreign Aff. 100 (2021): 10. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/fora100&div=34&id=&page=
McBride, James, More From Our Experts, Jennifer Hillman, Thomas J. Bollyky, and Edward Alden. After Trump: What Will Biden Do on Trade? Council on Foreign Relations., 2021. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep31145.pdf
Rasooli Saniabadi, Elham. 2021. “National Role Perceptions and Biden’s Foreign Policy towards Iran.” Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs 12 (33): 127–50. http://irfajournal.csr.ir/article_145364.html.
Rose, Gideon. 2021. “Foreign Policy for Pragmatists: How Biden Can Learn from History in Real Time.” Foreign Affairs 100: 48. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/fora100&div=38&id=&page=.
Sloan, Stanley R. 2020. “U.S. Foreign Policy in 2021: Biden or Trump and the Rest of the World.” Atlantisch Perspectief 44 (5): 38–43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48600597.
[1] Boys, James D. “In Charge, But Not in Control: Biden’s Foreign Policy.” Political Insight 13, no. 1 (2022): 4-6.
[2] Haass, Richard. “The Age of America First: Washington’s Flawed New Foreign Policy Consensus.” Foreign Aff. 100 (2021): 85.
[3] Mathews, Jessica T. “Present at the Re-Creation? U.S. foreign policy must be remade, not restored.” Foreign Aff. 100 (2021): 10.
[4] Maizland, Lindsay, More From Our Experts, Stewart M. Patrick, John B. Bellinger III, and Reuben E. Brigety II. “Biden’s First Foreign Policy Move: Reentering International Agreements.” Council on Foreign Relations, January 21 (2021).
[5] McBride, James, More From Our Experts, Jennifer Hillman, Thomas J. Bollyky, and Edward Alden. After Trump: What Will Biden Do on Trade? Council on Foreign Relations., 2021.
[6] AlAlkim, Hassan Hamdan. 2021. “U.S. President Joe Biden’s Foreign Policy towards the Gulf.” Open Journal of Political Science 11 (03): 378–401.
[7] Ettinger, Aaron. 2021. “Rumors of Restoration: Joe Biden’s Foreign Policy and What It Means for Canada.” Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, April 1–18.
[8] Rasooli Saniabadi, Elham. 2021. “National Role Perceptions and Biden’s Foreign Policy towards Iran.” Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs 12 (33): 127–50.
[9] Sloan, Stanley R. 2020. “U.S. Foreign Policy in 2021: Biden or Trump and the Rest of the World.” Atlantisch Perspectief 44 (5): 38–43.
[10] Habash, Lourdes. 2021. “Hegemony in International Relations: A Conceptual Review of U.S. Policy.” Siyasat Arabiya Volume IX (48): 21–44.
[11] Biden, Joseph R. Jr. 2020. “Why American Must Lead Again: Recusing U.S. Foreign Policy after Trump.” Foreign Affairs 99: 64.
[12] Rose, Gideon. 2021. “Foreign Policy for Pragmatists: How Biden Can Learn from History in Real Time.” Foreign Affairs 100: 48.
write