The 2024 presidential election of the United States comes at a very critical juncture when two continuing global conflicts-the wars between Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine-continue to shape global stability and the priorities of U.S. foreign policy. Both Harris and Trump personify different approaches to these conflicts, with Harris inclined to support traditional alliances and multilateral diplomacy, while Trump is more transactional in his approach, directly dealing with the interests of the United States. The outcome of this election will have far-reaching implications for the U.S. position in both wars and may even reshape the direction of U.S. foreign policy.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a historically sensitive event in U.S. politics, with both major parties traditionally supporting Israel while also working to mediate the peace process. If Harris is elected, she will likely continue the traditional Democratic support for Israel's security while focusing more on humanitarian assistance and promoting a “two-state solution” based on the UN Charter. Harris may work with international partners, including the European Union and other Arabic nations, to ensure that peace efforts are consistent with the U.S. diplomatic goal of protecting Israel's security while safeguarding Palestinian rights.

A Trump presidency would be different in that it would highlight Israel's security and sovereignty and would pursue a less balanced position in the mediation of peace talks. Trump took a number of pro-Israel initiatives during his first term, including recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and brokering the Abrahamic Accords. During his re-election campaign, Trump will likely continue to push for the normalization of Arab relations with Israel, but this strategy could further marginalize the Palestinian issue. His approach may be highly aligned with Israeli interests, but it could also exacerbate tensions with the Palestinians and spark a broader Middle East backlash.

The Russia-Ukraine War

The Russia-Ukrainian war has emerged as one of the major challenges for the Western alliance, with the United States playing a key role in supporting Ukraine's defense. If Harris is elected, the U.S. will likely continue to provide military and financial support to Ukraine, emphasizing NATO's unified position in deterring Russian aggression. Harris's strategy would include collaborating with European allies, maintaining sanctions against Russia, and ensuring that Ukraine has sufficient resources to protect its own security. She may also intensify diplomatic cooperation with European allies to fortify NATO's eastern defenses, even as she pushes further for NATO's eastward expansion to prevent further Russian expansion.

Trump's policy on the Russia-Ukraine war, on the other hand, may be more unpredictable. During his first term, Trump was criticized for his attitude toward Russia, and after his reelection, he may negotiate in a pragmatic way. Trump may push to end the war through compromises, such as turning the four eastern states of Ukraine into autonomous regions effectively controlled by Russia and reducing support for Ukraine in order to achieve a peace that serves U.S. interests. Such a move would reduce U.S. military commitment and spending but could also lead to a split in NATO and damage U.S. credibility with European allies.

Strategic differences in global conflict management

Multilateral Alliances vs. Bilateral Agreements

Harris pursues a multilateral foreign policy that emphasizes solving complex global problems through cooperation with NATO, the European Union, and the United Nations. In response to two major conflicts, Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine, Harris will seek cooperation with European and Middle Eastern allies to maintain regional stability. Her administration will utilize the power of establishment diplomacy to focus on traditional diplomacy, implement a coordinated response, and strengthen long-term alliances.

Trump, on the other hand, prefers a more transactional diplomatic strategy, emphasizing bilateral agreements that directly meet U.S. interests. He may focus more on agreements that deliver immediate results, such as peace agreements in the Middle East or negotiated settlements in Europe. This pragmatic approach may reduce long-term U.S. commitments, but it may also alienate allies who prioritize collective security and international norms.

Military Support vs. Humanitarian Assistance

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Harris may seek a balanced strategy of both securing Israel and providing humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians. She may join other countries in supporting the peace process and humanitarian programs to find a balance of policies that support a two-state solution. The Trump administration may provide full support to Israel without setting any limits on Israeli actions, while at the same time, it may mean reducing aid to the Palestinians while strengthening agreements that favor Israeli interests.

In terms of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Trump may prioritize reducing U.S. military spending. If a peace deal shows promise, Trump will predictably scale back or even cancel aid to Ukraine altogether.

Conclusion

The 2024 U.S. election will profoundly affect the way the U.S. engages in complex conflicts around the globe, and direct examples of this are the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Russo-Ukrainian war, which will likely have radically different endings depending on which candidate comes to power. As has only been emphasized throughout this column, Harris's emphasis on multilateral diplomacy and coalition building has helped solidify U.S. global leadership and provided reliable support to traditional allies. By contrast, Trump's transactional strategy may reach a quick solution with less financial commitment, but at the cost of possibly sacrificing some international relationships. The positions of the two candidates reflect different conceptions of the U.S. global stabilization role, which will not only have far-reaching implications for the way international conflicts are resolved, but will also shape future U.S. foreign policy trends.