Trump's “Absurd Improvisation” and Biden's “Malicious Duplicity” as the World Sees Them

As the U.S. presidential election season kicks into full gear, the world is dreading the choice presented by the presumed candidates, Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Donald Trump, for leading America. The election has the potential to be decisive, given the personalities and ages of the two men who embody the deep divide in American public opinion, and represent a clear quandary for their parties. What if one of the candidates experiences a significant health setback or, worse, an assassination attempt? Where do their stances on foreign policy lie within the context of the presidential campaigns? And how might each of the presumed candidates be impacted by global events, from now until the November election?

Global issues and foreign policy are taking a back seat at this stage because the focus of both Biden and Trump campaigns is domestic right now, led by issues like immigration.

Flexibility on international matters is a shared characteristic between the two campaigns, as both Biden and Trump are unwilling to be hampered by foreign issues. They prefer to maintain the initiative on these matters in the future. In essence, neither of the two men sees the necessity or has the interest to engage deeply in foreign policies that could constrain them in the long run and limit their maneuvering space.

Therefore, it may be inferred that transitional and temporary policies and measures will distinguish both the Democratic and Republican policies, and the two men will avoid firm commitments and fixed political programs, especially since the current international situation remains fluid. The is not only about Israel's war on Gaza or Russia's war in Ukraine but also the entire global political agenda even though it will still impact the U.S. presidential elections.

The Republican Party's convention will be held in mid-July, and the Democratic Party's convention will be held in the last week of August. Until then, the leaders of two parties will prefer to avoid involvement in foreign issues even those that impose themselves on the American agenda, such as the issue of Israel, which is practically a domestic issue in the American electoral landscape.

The onus here falls on the shoulders of President Biden and his team more because he is obliged to deal with it, while former President Trump can avoid it because he is not in power and is not compelled to take controversial positions and adopt tough decisions. Yet both are clear in their absolute support for Israel and its determination to eliminate Hamas, if not its entire rank and file then at least its military infrastructure. Both will want to increase military and financial support for Israel because they believe its war is against a terrorist and existential threat.

Indeed, both candidates believe that their electoral prospects hinge on their support for Israel. However, each now recognizes the element of surprise that may lie in votes from Arabs, Muslims, African-Americans, and youth who oppose Israel's barbaric reprisals against Palestinian civilians. Consequently, they are closely monitoring states like Michigan, as the election outcome could be influenced by as little as a 2 percent margin of votes.

Joe Biden stands to lose more as the incumbent. His team has been leaking dissatisfaction with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who belittles America, even as he receives billions of dollars and advanced American weapons ordered by Biden in his presidential capacity, bypassing Congress.

But the revelation in The Washington Post about the Biden administration’s arms deliveries to Israel since the start of the Gaza war, which continued even as the American president criticized Israeli military actions against Palestinian civilians, exemplifies the malicious duplicity behind misleading public opinion and voicing public approvals through Congress.

This does not mean that Congress would have halted US assistance to Israel or that the American media would have turned public opinion against Biden. Ultimately, Congress and the American media will not turn on Israel in sympathy with the Palestinians, and this will become more evident with the start of the presidential election battle.

Those banking on a shift in American and global public opinion towards Israel should closely examine the organic U.S.-Israeli relationship. They should also expect significant investments in election ads portraying Israel as the "victim" against Palestinian "terrorism," with ads presenting the two-state solution as an existential threat to the Israeli ally.

Internal division within the Democratic Party has caused Biden to put on an incoherent humanitarian performance as he strives to appear compassionate and takes stances to protect Palestinian civilians against Israeli obstinacy blocking humanitarian aid. For this reason he adopted the controversial tactic of air dropping aid into Gaza, and now the controversial idea of establishing a seaport in Gaza for the delivery of aid without the involvement of US troops.

One might argue, on one hand, that the man is trying. However, on the other hand, this is the President of the United States who appears helpless against an extremist Israeli war cabinet that undermines the U.S. presidency and its prestige, exposing Joe Biden as powerless and weak. This situation benefits Donald Trump, who is not obligated to adopt reprehensible and malicious positions like those taken by Joe Biden, as he is not currently in the White House.

Joe Biden is attempting to navigate between two wings of the Democratic Party. On one hand, he claims to one wing that he is striving to reach a ceasefire and truce between Israel and Hamas. On the other hand, he remains steadfast in vetoing resolutions that impose a ceasefire on Israel, which is opposed by a significant faction within the Democratic Party. Biden plays the humanitarian card for the Palestinians and the military aid card for Israel. He and his team are trying to strike transitional deals while deferring permanent settlements that seem impossible today due to Israel's rejection of its conditions.

Joe Biden is avoiding concrete decisive steps and serious commitments. This is an election year, and flexibility is not just necessary; it is an electoral asset. The main theme is temporary and transitional measures, adopting a patchwork policy rather than a complete overhaul, and demonstrating the ability to be flexible to accommodate the needs and positions of the Democratic Party determined to stay in the White House.

Donald Trump is not obligated to win over the Republican Party in the same way because he is essentially at war with it. However, Trump understands the language of elections and sees it in his interest to emphasize major issues that please the Republican Party, with Israel being a significant one of these. Thus, he has reiterated support for Israel without delving into the swamp of details that his opponent Biden is drowning in, as Biden is in power.

Donald Trump also needs flexibility and adaptability, just like Joe Biden. Both will try to evade firm commitments because the world is marred by crises from Europe to the Middle East to Asia, while countries are trying to find their footing in the post-U.S. presidential election landscape.

From now until the party conventions, Trump will try to focus on Biden's personality weaknesses and his incapacity due to his age. The presidential debate is crucial for Trump as it opens the door for him to showcase his vitality and energy. However, it is a battle between two men, each with their own flaws, and many Americans see it as a contest between two elderly individuals, one who is provocative due to temper, other due to impotence.

The world fears Trump's impulsive antics, but it has also become acquainted with Biden's dangerous duplicity exposed in his handling of Israel's war on Gaza. Few world leaders are betting on either candidate, with some believing that the election battle may not ultimately occur between these two men.

The coming months will be pivotal, not only in the U.S. presidential elections but also due to global events, some anticipated, and others that might arise from decisions by leaders seeking to capitalize on American confusion during the elections. Here are examples:

Tensions are escalating between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and could come to a head at the end of June when NATO is set to deliver F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine. At that point, Russian officials hint that using tactical nuclear weapons will be on the table. President Vladimir Putin spoke in revolutionary language himself in his recent speech, a departure from the usual method of using former President Medvedev to deliver such messages. Additionally, the relationship between Russia and Turkey (a NATO member) is deteriorating for various reasons, and Russian sources suggest that the Russian-Turkish oil pipelines may be susceptible to surprises if disputes are not resolved.

The NATO summit is scheduled for July 9-11 in Washington and will impose itself on the U.S. presidential candidates. Donald Trump has not concealed his annoyance with the alliance members. Trump, not Biden, is set to meet with Hungary's conservative Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who poses a challenge to NATO. Trump supports European populism, and Orban aims to represent European conservatives.

The European Parliament elections in June could also be crucial, imposing significant questions for the U.S. elections. Joe Biden boasts of his administration's achievements in uniting NATO members and expanding the alliance, challenging Russia, and insisting on supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia through weapons and financial aid, just not with U.S. forces.

The BRICS summit will convene in October. Discussions on expanding membership of this group, today under Chinese leadership and previously under Chinese-Russian leadership, could stop. Instead we may see Brazil and South Africa suspend their membership in BRICS, especially after it became clear that Argentina would not join. All of these developments result from elections in these countries, where leaders lean more towards Trump's positions than Biden's. India has consistently favored Trump over Biden due to trade and strategic relations during his tenure.

China appears calm, avoiding confrontation with the United States, whether led by a Republican or a Democrat. It is a current competitor and a potential future adversary, but for now, it seeks de-escalation.

Iran does not want to provoke a U.S. or European war against it in any way. Therefore, according to sources familiar with Iranian strategic decisions, Iran will not deliver new missiles to the Houthis in Yemen, fearing Western reprisals and because Tehran is not confident in the effectiveness of the Houthi war. The Houthis will continue their attacks on Western shipping in the Red Sea, citing support for Palestinians in Gaza, until they deplete their missile capabilities. We do not know what they have in mind if Iran limits their missile capabilities.

U.S. election campaigns will likely continue to avoid direct dealing with these issues because the priority is the presidency. This does not mean that wars will stop or not expand, whether in Europe or the Middle East. However, the fate of the U.S. presidential candidates remains crucial to decision-makers in world capitals. As one of them said, what struck him was an American telling him that the concern is not only Biden's age but also the fear that Trump may suffer something similar to what happened in Dallas not long ago.