The Biden Administration’s Foreign Policy: A Reactive Approach in a Complex Global Landscape

The Biden-Harris administration’s foreign policy has faced numerous challenges, from managing the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal to navigating crises in Ukraine, the Middle East, and China. While previous administrations had their share of geopolitical difficulties, the Biden administration's approach has been marked by a pattern of reactive decision-making, which has often allowed crises to escalate before any meaningful intervention. When compared to prior presidencies, this administration’s foreign policy track record stands out for both its unprecedented number of simultaneous global crises and its difficulty in addressing them with a clear long-term strategy.

Afghanistan: A Hastened Exit with Long-Term Consequences

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 remains one of the administration's most criticized actions. While ending the 20-year war had broad public support, the execution of the withdrawal was poorly managed. Thirteen U.S. service members and over 170 Afghan civilians were killed during the evacuation of Kabul, prompting widespread criticism from both Republicans and Democrats (McCaul, 2024). The decision to proceed with a rapid withdrawal, despite intelligence warnings about the fragile state of the Afghan government, highlighted the administration's failure to anticipate the full ramifications of its exit.

In comparison to the Obama administration’s 2011 withdrawal from Iraq, which, though controversial, was carried out with a phased approach, the Biden administration’s handling of Afghanistan was seen as rushed and reactive. Furthermore, despite the U.S. no longer being militarily engaged in Afghanistan, millions of dollars in aid still flow into the country weekly. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reported that much of this humanitarian aid indirectly supports the Taliban regime, raising ethical and strategic concerns about the U.S.'s continued involvement in the region (SIGAR, 2023).

Ukraine: Strong Support with Strategic Constraints

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Biden administration has provided more than $75 billion in military, financial, and humanitarian aid to Kyiv (Congressional Research Service, 2023). The U.S.'s steadfast support has bolstered Ukraine’s defense and maintained global solidarity against Russian aggression. This marks a significant foreign policy achievement for the administration, especially in strengthening NATO’s unity. As a result, Finland and Sweden have moved to join NATO, further fortifying the alliance’s eastern flank.

However, despite this robust support, the administration’s decision to place restrictions on how Ukraine can use certain advanced weapon systems has hindered Kyiv’s ability to take the offensive. For instance, U.S.-provided long-range missile systems have been restricted from targeting Russian territory, limiting Ukraine’s capacity to disrupt Russian logistics (Politico, 2024). These constraints reflect the administration’s cautious approach to avoid escalating the conflict into a direct war between NATO and Russia but have left Ukraine in a grinding stalemate. As of late 2023, combined military and civilian casualties on both sides are estimated to be over 500,000, with tens of thousands of civilian deaths further compounding the humanitarian crisis (New York Times, 2023; BBC, 2023).

In contrast, the Truman administration’s rapid and decisive involvement in Korea in the early 1950s helped prevent a collapse, though it led to a prolonged conflict. The Biden administration, while offering substantial support, has taken a more calculated stance, balancing military aid with concerns over escalation. This reflects the administration’s effort to manage multiple crises at once, but it has left Ukraine struggling to achieve a strategic breakthrough prolonging the militaristic stalemate.

Middle East: A Reactive Approach to Rising Tensions

The Middle East continues to be a volatile region, and the Biden administration's handling of escalating conflicts has been largely reactive. The recent Israel-Hamas war has drawn U.S. military involvement, with the administration deploying THAAD missile defense systems and military personnel to Israel. This action, while supportive of a key ally, has been criticized for lacking a broader strategy to address the root causes of instability in the region (Savett, 2024).

The administration's inability to effectively contain Iran’s influence through proxy forces in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen further complicates its approach. Iran’s role in supporting groups like Hezbollah remains a significant destabilizing force, and the U.S. has struggled to curb these proxies. The failure to revive the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) underlines the difficulty in engaging Tehran diplomatically, leaving the administration with fewer tools to manage the region’s volatility.

Compared to Obama’s pursuit of the Iran nuclear agreement, which was a proactive attempt to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions and stabilize the region, Biden’s approach appears more ad hoc, responding to crises as they arise. Although the administration has maintained strong relations with traditional allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia, it has failed to prevent the broader destabilization caused by Iranian activities.

China: A Growing Global Power, a Faltering U.S. Response

China’s rise as a global superpower is one of the most significant geopolitical developments of the 21st century, and the Biden administration has struggled to effectively counter Beijing’s growing influence. In 2024, China conducted its largest military exercises near Taiwan, signaling its readiness to assert territorial claims in the region (Savett, 2024). While the Biden administration has strengthened the Quad partnership (Japan, Australia, India, and the U.S.) and bolstered ties with other Pacific allies, it has not been able to deter China’s aggressive military posturing.

Meanwhile, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) continues to expand its reach across Africa, securing key resources and infrastructure projects in exchange for long-term debt dependency from host nations. According to the Congressional Research Service, U.S. efforts to counter China’s economic influence have been limited, with Beijing continuing to outmaneuver Washington in key areas, particularly in Africa and Southeast Asia (Congressional Research Service, 2023).

The Trump administration, though often criticized for its trade war with China, pursued a more confrontational stance, implementing tariffs and tightening restrictions on Chinese technology. Biden’s approach, by contrast, has sought to balance economic interdependence with strategic competition, a stance that has yet to produce significant deterrence against China’s expansionist ambitions.

Turkey and BRICS: A Major Shift in Global Alliances

Turkey’s interest in joining BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) is perhaps one of the most consequential geopolitical developments in recent years. Turkey, a NATO member, has traditionally been aligned with Western powers, but its pivot toward BRICS signals growing dissatisfaction with U.S. leadership and a weakening faith in the U.S. dollar’s global dominance (Politico, 2024). This shift is significant not only because of Turkey’s strategic location near Ukraine and Russia but also because it represents a broader trend of nations seeking alternatives to U.S.-led global institutions.

Historically, Turkey has been a key player in U.S. and NATO security interests, serving as a bulwark against Russian influence. Its potential realignment with BRICS signals a decline in U.S. influence in the region and raises questions about the stability of traditional Western alliances.

A Reactive Foreign Policy with Few Long-Term Wins

Individually, each of these crises—Afghanistan, Ukraine, the Middle East, and China—poses significant challenges. Taken together, they illustrate a pattern of reactive rather than proactive foreign policy decision-making. While the Biden administration has made commendable efforts to support Ukraine and maintain alliances, its handling of other key regions has been marked by a failure to anticipate and mitigate crises before they escalate.

When compared to previous administrations, Biden’s approach stands out for its focus on managing multiple global conflicts simultaneously, but it has struggled to achieve definitive successes. The Obama administration’s proactive diplomacy in negotiating the JCPOA and the Trump administration’s confrontational stance toward China, while controversial, at least represented coherent strategies. The Biden administration, by contrast, appears to be constantly responding to crises, without a clear long-term vision.

Conclusion

As Kamala Harris begins her campaign to succeed Biden, she will have to contend with the foreign policy track record of the administration in which she served. While some achievements—such as bolstering NATO and supporting Ukraine—are significant, the overall record is marred by failures to anticipate and prevent crises, from Afghanistan to China. Voters will have to decide whether the administration’s reactive approach can continue to guide U.S. foreign policy effectively in an increasingly unstable world.

References

Congressional Research Service. (2023). U.S. military aid to Ukraine: History and implications. Retrieved from https://crsreports.congress.gov

McCaul, M. (2024). Willful Blindness: An Assessment of the Biden-Harris Administration’s Withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Chaos that Followed. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from https://foreignaffairs.house.gov

Savett, S. (2024). “Biden’s foreign policy pivot to Asia delayed by Middle East crisis.” Politico. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com

Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). (2023). Quarterly Report to the United States Congress. Retrieved from https://www.sigar.mil

U.S. Department of Defense. (2024). Pentagon stockpiles strained by Ukraine war. Retrieved from https://www.defense.gov