US election: How will results affect wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan?
Several wars raging around the globe could escalate or peter out based on the stance of the next US president.
As the leader of the world’s foremost superpower and often called the “global police,” the U.S. President and their decisions profoundly impact conflicts worldwide.
The wars in Gaza and Lebanon, the Russia-Ukraine war, and the civil war in Sudan have collectively caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and displaced millions. Washington’s position could either exacerbate these conflicts or contribute to their resolution.
As analysts grapple with forecasting a clear winner in the upcoming November 5 U.S. election between Republican candidate and former President Donald Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, it’s essential to consider two potential scenarios.
How might a Trump or Harris administration influence major global conflicts? Here’s what we know:
Israel’s war on Gaza and Lebanon
Both Harris and Trump have expressed unwavering support for Israel, leaving most Palestinians and much of the Arab world doubtful that a change in U.S. leadership would bring an end to the conflict. So far, neither candidate has presented concrete solutions for ending the war.
Trump scenario
Trump has strongly condemned the Palestinian group Hamas for its October 7, 2023, attacks on villages and military outposts in southern Israel, which resulted in 1,139 deaths and 251 kidnappings, triggering Israel’s war on Gaza. He has shown little sympathy for Gaza's population, where more than 43,000 Palestinians have been killed over the past year in the ongoing conflict.
In a July meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump urged the Israeli leader to “secure his victory” over Hamas, adding that while the killings in Gaza needed to stop, Netanyahu “knows what he’s doing.”
This aligns with Trump’s actions during his first term. His administration officially recognized the contested city of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, sparking backlash among Palestinians. He also facilitated “normalization” agreements between Israel and several Arab countries under the Abraham Accords and withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, which Israel opposed.
Despite generally strong support, tensions did arise between Trump and Netanyahu. In 2020, Trump introduced a “Peace Plan” proposing a two-state solution with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. However, Palestinians rejected it, arguing it conceded excessive territory to Israel. The plan unraveled after Netanyahu used the moment to announce plans to annex parts of the West Bank, which Trump hadn’t endorsed. “I was so angry … that was going too far,” Trump later told Axios.
In the final days of his current campaign, Trump has been promoting his peace plan, reaching out to the sizable Lebanese and Arab American communities, particularly in the key battleground state of Michigan.
“Our friends and family in Lebanon deserve to live in peace, prosperity, and harmony with their neighbors, which is only possible through peace and stability in the Middle East,” he posted on X, notably omitting any mention of Gaza or Israel.
Harris scenario
Vice President Harris has been more outspoken than President Joe Biden on the need to end the “inhumane” suffering in Gaza, calling for an immediate ceasefire and a hostage deal.
In July, Harris told Prime Minister Netanyahu that she would “not be silent” in the face of Gaza’s suffering. “Israel has a right to defend itself, but how it does so matters. The devastation in Gaza over the past nine months is tragic,” she told reporters after the meeting.
Harris is also reportedly focused on achieving peace along the Israel-Lebanon border. She commended Israel’s killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in September. On Thursday, Brett McGurk, Biden’s Middle East coordinator, and conflict negotiator Amos Hochstein arrived in Israel to push for a ceasefire with Hezbollah. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has made 11 unsuccessful trips to Israel to negotiate an end to the war since October 7, 2023.
However, members of the U.S. Arab and Muslim communities point out that, despite her words, Harris has yet to commit to immediately ending Israel’s war on Gaza. Some argue she has not outlined concrete actions to achieve her goals, such as reducing military aid to Israel. “Without an actual commitment to stop killing the children of Gaza, I don’t care about her empathy for them,” said Eman Abdelhadi, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, to Al Jazeera.
Like Biden, Harris has also refrained from proposing a two-state solution, analysts note. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has previously criticized the Biden administration for its lack of progress on a two-state plan.
In 2020, Arab American voters played a crucial role in securing Biden's victory in key swing states like Michigan. Now, disillusioned with the Democratic Party, some are shifting their support to Trump or opting not to vote at all.
Further fueling this discontent, former President Bill Clinton sparked outrage in Michigan this week when he appeared to justify Israel’s bombardment of Gaza while campaigning for Harris.
Russia-Ukraine war
The war in Ukraine continues to drag on, with both sides making sporadic gains while suffering significant losses. Analysts suggest that Kyiv requires increased military funding to gain an advantage over the larger Russian force.
Russian President Vladimir Putin aims to block Ukraine's NATO membership and expand its territorial control. In an October “victory plan,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy identified NATO membership as a crucial step toward winning the war, despite the U.S.-led military alliance indicating it will only extend an invitation to Ukraine once the conflict with Russia concludes.
Trump scenario
Some analysts warn that a Trump presidency would spell disaster for Ukraine. During his time in office, Trump fostered close ties with Moscow and occasionally expressed admiration for Vladimir Putin. He has also faced ongoing allegations regarding Kremlin interference in the 2016 elections that propelled him to the presidency.
Trump claims he could broker an “exciting” peace deal that would end the war “in 24 hours,” though he has provided few specifics about this plan. His running mate, JD Vance, mentioned in a media interview that Trump would negotiate a demilitarized zone based on current borders. This would require Ukraine to relinquish control of the Russian-occupied regions of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhia, as well as the previously occupied Crimea—demands that are unacceptable to Ukraine.
Vance also indicated that Russia would likely receive a guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO, a significant concern for Kyiv, which seeks assurances that a Russian invasion will not happen again by becoming part of the security alliance. Analysts suggest that Trump might lift Biden-era sanctions on Russia to make the deal more appealing. Putin expressed support for Trump’s comments in October.
“This scenario will not be acceptable for Ukraine,” Lev Zinchenko of the European Policy Centre, a Brussels-based think tank, told Al Jazeera. “The most that could result from this 'peace' agreement is a frozen conflict in Ukraine, which would effectively encourage further Russian aggression both in Ukraine and against some European NATO member states. A Trump administration will betray Ukraine for its own political gain.”
However, some observers believe Kyiv may have little influence in this situation. Trump and several Republican lawmakers are staunchly opposed to providing vital U.S. military aid to Ukraine, arguing that the Biden administration is funding a conflict that does not serve American interests.
If Kyiv loses U.S. funding—its largest source of military aid—it could face defeat. Analysts attribute Kyiv's current disadvantage to Congress's delay in approving a $60 billion aid package, which was only finalized in April.
Despite these challenges, some analysts suggest that a Trump presidency could present an opportunity to break the stalemate. A peace deal, even if not ideal, could allow Kyiv to avoid the appearance of defeat and establish the U.S. as a guarantor of the process.
Harris scenario
While Harris has not presented a plan for an immediate end to the war, she has strongly supported Kyiv and urged Western nations to increase military assistance for Ukraine.
Since Russia's invasion in 2022, the U.S. has provided over $64 billion in aid and weapons to Ukraine. During her September presidential debate with Trump, Harris warned that if Russia were to prevail, “Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe … starting with Poland.”
Regarding NATO, Biden’s administration has vetoed Ukraine's accession to the alliance and limited Kyiv’s use of U.S.-supplied weapons on Russian territory, concerned about escalating the conflict into a broader war involving NATO.
When Zelenskyy presented his victory plan to Western leaders in October, the White House appeared noncommittal. Analysts suggest this may have been due to the political risk of changing policies so close to elections, which could be detrimental for the Democrats. However, this stance might shift if Harris were to win.
“It's anticipated that Biden will move to lift the U.S. veto, and Harris would be responsible for continuing that support,” analyst Zinchenko noted.
Under Harris, Kyiv is expected to receive increased financial support from Washington, although Republican indifference in Congress could hinder her efforts. According to an October editorial by the International Crisis Group, a global affairs think tank, Harris might adopt a more proactive approach than Biden in seeking a short-term resolution to the conflict, whether through negotiations or enhanced support for Ukraine.
Sudan war
Fourteen million people have been displaced in Sudan’s civil war, marking the largest displacement crisis in the world. The conflict erupted in April 2023 when General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, head of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), and General Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, leader of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), engaged in a power struggle.
Trump scenario
Analysts do not anticipate that a Trump presidency would prioritize Sudan or make immediate efforts to end the war. Some even attribute the current conflict to his first administration, accusing him of focusing more on Sudan's normalization of relations with Israel rather than on establishing civilian leadership in the country.
During the 2019 overthrow of former leader Omar al-Bashir, Trump overlooked the violent actions of the two military factions, both of which aggressively suppressed protests. He further pushed these factions into forming a transitional government that ultimately concentrated too much power in the military’s hands, according to an editorial published by the Qatari think tank Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies.
“In my opinion, the notion of it being a ‘civilian-led’ transitional government was always somewhat misleading, given that there were more military personnel on the Sovereignty Council than civilians,” said Susan D. Page, a former U.S. ambassador to South Sudan who now teaches at the University of Michigan. “The military insisted on leading the transitional government during the first half of the transition, with civilians expected to take charge in the second phase.”
Harris scenario
Experts argue that Biden’s administration is not significantly better than Trump’s when it comes to addressing the situation in Sudan, showing minimal interest in finding a resolution to the war.
Alex de Waal, director of the World Peace Foundation, criticized both Biden and Trump for their similarly lackluster responses to the crisis. “The Trump-Biden doctrine … is essentially the same doctrine,” de Waal told Al Jazeera.
Others highlight that the Biden-Harris administration has taken steps to pressure the Sudanese government by freezing millions in development aid to bring the generals to the negotiating table.
The U.S. has also imposed sanctions on senior officials, including an SAF general accused of purchasing weapons from Iran and Russia in violation of U.S. sanctions against those countries. Additionally, Sudanese businesses linked to funding the RSF have faced sanctions. However, the U.S. has not directly sanctioned Dagalo or al-Burhan.
Post a Comment