By Dhanuka Dickwella

American politics is more dramatic than that of Shakespeare’s magical work. While trying to beat the emotionally driven  South Asian trends, the landscape is much deadlier and more competitive than the wilderness inside Serengeti reserves. It has transcended to a DOG EAT DOG kind of survival game. With a calendar full of court dates, gag orders, witch hunts and subpoenas, it is hard to say whether former president Trump could even compete as a candidate, let alone be the next president.  Yet there is not even a close second to challenge his popularity, lead and poll numbers in the Republican nominee race, with a leading contender dropping out even before things heat up. He stands a fat chance to be the Republican candidate with an overwhelming majority and, who knows, even to defeat the incumbent  President Biden in 2024.

We have already seen what a Biden administration looks like in its best and worst in these challenging times. For argument’s sake, let’s assume that there is a reelection of former President Trump. How would he react in the international arenas facing the worst security crisis in the Middle East, a raging war in Ukraine where Americans are committed and heavily invested and a rising China that keeps fishing in murky waters? When America could not have expected a worse time in history than this, how would a Trump presidency fix them?

Let’s start with Russia – Ukraine. Former President Trump was never a Ukrainian fan and said Kyiv must be realistic about the ground realities. In other words, ceding territories and executing a plan to appease the Russians. Let’s look at his own words.

“That’s without even negotiating a deal. I could have negotiated. At worst, I could have made a deal to take over something, you know, certain areas are Russian-speaking, correct, but you could have worked a deal. And now Ukraine is just being blown to smithereens.

Ukraine will be the first to be thrown under the bus just like they did to the pro-western Afghan governments. But Trump, being Trump, will not give Moscow a walk-in-the-park kind of victory. His vision would be a deal where America could get more than a “feel good” victory.

“I would say certain things to Putin. I would say certain things to Zelenskyy,” Trump said at the time, adding that he’d “make a fair deal for everybody.

He will demand flesh and blood in places that most matter to Americans. There could be a plethora of demands. But Iran might be a practical choice. Moscow could be demanded to scale down its rapprochement with Iran and halt the transfer of any state-of-the-art military gear.  This will serve a number of purposes. The ongoing strategic alliance between Teheran and Moscow spans on a few fronts. Some examples include the North-South transport corridor, the inter-sea canal trade route connecting the Persian Gulf through the Caspian to the Baltic and the Black Sea, gas swapping schemes, military-technical assistance, and weapons sales. Moscow shields Teheran in every diplomatic engagement. These rapprochements are already changing the geopolitical and geoeconomic landscapes in the region and beyond. A strong Teheran that experiences steady economic growth, connected in critical energy schemes to many other countries, being the most critical node on communication links between regional powers is terrible news for the Trump administration as well as his biggest ally, Israel. Teheran becoming a centrepiece in infrastructure projects allows it to have oversized political clout. Iran is the key pillar in China’s BRI project, along with many regional connectivity schemes. 

Teheran is the one stumble block that stands between an Israel accepted by Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world through the Abrahamic accords that could bring tectonic changes to the region. The China-led BRI’s competitor- the India-led IMEC, ran aground with the troubles in the Levant, which had tacit support from Teheran and its proxies. The source of these troubles runs through Beirut, Damascus, and Baghdad to Tehran. Weakening Teheran thus serves a number of purposes that could very well be translated to American gains in the Middle East and beyond, including weakening Trump’s choice of arch-enemy China. 
Will Russia sell Teheran for an entirely subjugated Ukraine? By all means, they would. Look no further than Europe to understand this mindset.  Ukraine was worth paying a price to burn economic, diplomatic, cultural, and security bridges Russia built with the West for decades that resulted in losing billions, reversing the entire political capital and completely being denied having leverage on the direction of the old continent. Comparatively, Iran would be a far lower price to pay. For every sanction release, Trump would demand a compromise from Moscow. Some of it could be lowering the oil prices through halting production cuts, scaling down its relationship with Beijing, cooperating in Nuclear weapon doctrine, and assisting any investigation on American aid for Ukraine. Making Moscow a neutral player in global matters would give Trump a free hand on many other fronts. Moscow could still save face by issuing strong statements, showing solidarity short of practical actions.

In the Middle East, a Trump administration would be way more hawkish. No one in their right mind believed that Iranian General Qasem Soleimani would be assassinated in a host capital by the American forces. But it happened under the watch of Trump. It had a visible impact on the IRGC and its Quads forces. Once feared, IRGC became a paper Tiger across the region and by being unable to respond to The Red line, Iranians dared the Americans to cross; Teheran exposed its weakness. Iran’s rhetoric against its actual capability was revealed. By calling Iran’s bluff, Trump showed the entire world Iran’s limitations. 
Encouraged by the success of General Solemani’s targeted killing, we could expect Trump to back such an adventure with Hassan Nasrallah, too. The structure of Hezbollah is not clear to outsiders. Yet decapitating its leadership could paralyse the organisation to such degrees. It would be a high-stakes gamble that might harm Israel and American forces and civilians both in the region and elsewhere. Or Hezbollah would lose its leverage and eventually collapse. Both are possible avenues.
A weakened Hezbollah could reflect on the Iranian power since it acts as a shield, watch tower, and fortress in the middle of Iranian enemies. The only sensible way to oust the influence of the Shia crescent is to make Hezbollah weaker by forcing them to live in an unsustainable atmosphere which depends largely on Iranian funds and smuggling operations. Its power has grown way over for a non-state actor. This would not be a good sign to the long-term stability of the geopolitical order. Hezbollah is a rogue power, and it holds the entire region’s future at gunpoint. If this trend doesn’t change, we might see rogue regimes taking over other regions in a similar fashion. The absence of war does not mean a long-lasting peace. We still have to agree that state actors behave worse than terrorist groups, even with their international obligations. Yet, there is a sense of order and channels to deal with.

Trump could expect to be gung-ho in containing China. India will be the biggest benefactor with the robust military, technical and financial deals with Washington, enabling Delhi to be more assertive in challenging China in the neighbourhood and beyond. Quads and AUKUS will all get more attention, focus and upgrades from their current status. More states might be dragged into these alliances, and China will be given its own “string of pearls” with hostile capitals to deal with around them. Latin American allies of Beijing will be intimidated, and the Chinese attempt to circumvent the Panama Canal by enacting the Bi-Oceanic project will be challenged head-on. As a result of Sino-American competition fueled by Trump, many civil wars and destabilisations could occur in the continent that would torpedo Beijing’s gains and plans.  The Taiwan issue will be stirred up with active military support and weapons supply. An aggressive approach short of a direct confrontation will be a policy in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait.

Right-wing political parties and leaders based on populism would spring to glory across Europe and the globe. Trump’s victory could impact the French elections unprecedentedly, strengthening Marie Le Pen’s political movement. The trend could continue in Central Europe more aggressively. The weakening of Trasatlanticism while Euroscepticism becoming the mainstream discussion is unavoidable. The NATO alliance could be expected to have diminished responsibility and prominence while a new security architecture based on Europe and Russia might take effect. Giving Russia respect, equal status, and a declared space would make them happier. It would be the key to driving a  wedge between the so-called ‘no-limits’ friendship between Moscow and Beijing. A deal with Moscow would give the United States a real opportunity in its quest to pivot to Asia, containing China’s rise.

On another note,  Trump’s open endorsement of the concept of the importance of family, religion and traditions will challenge the liberal world to a degree unseen before. This is an arena where Islam, Orthodox Christianity and catholicism align together, bringing Russians, Arabs and a host of Europeans. Trump’s world could bring unholy alliances between rivals based on religions, values and traditions. However, Freedom of speech, LGBTQ rights, secularism, and liberal values becoming collateral damage would be unavoidable. We do not know whether Trump will compete or get elected,  but if he does, he will change the world’s direction to a degree that might be felt for decades.