The Foreign Policy Scoreboard:

Will Kamala Harris or Donald Trump be Better in the Geopolitical Arena?

The 2024 presidential election is only days away, and most Americans have already formulated their choice, whether it is for Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, a third party (if one or more are permitted to have ballot access, or a write-in if not), or to stay home and not vote. What foreign policy issues will each of the candidates have to face if they are lucky enough to be selected as the face of the American Empire for the next four years? Since we know that the United States government and the military-industrial complex cannot keep its hands out of world affairs, how will each candidate respond to individual regions’ affairs?

The old faithful conflict is the war in the Middle East that was initiated and expanded under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. This included overt and covert operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia; and these offensive operations in unrelated countries were done in the name of defending the United States (Saddam Hussein in Iraq had no link to al-Qaeda, Somalia was a famine-stricken country that did not have al-Qaeda links until after American intervention, and Yemen became a disaster area because of the Bush and Obama bombings). Then, the Obama administration added Libya and Syria to the list of countries to bomb, at first to arm the al-Qaeda-linked rebels against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and then, to prevent the expansion of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, or just IS). ISIS, which was only able to gain a stronghold in Iraq and Syria because of the Bush and Obama destabilizations, then spread to Libya after the Obama administration destroyed the government of Muammar al-Qaddafi.

Although President Donald Trump increased drone strikes proportionally and loosened restrictions on bombing procedures in some of these countries, he did not begin a new campaign or commit troops to a brand-new nation. In fact, Trump set the stage for the United States withdrawal of Afghanistan, which President Joe Biden executed (albeit, disastrously). However, under the Biden administration, there have been several resurgences of violence and drone strikes, as the Houthi-controlled parts of Yemen and Iranian-linked militants throughout Iraq and Syria have been on the receiving end of American bombs in recent months. Trump may or may not have learned his lesson about such intervention in his first term, but we have to assume that his policies will not differ from Biden or Harris on taking out targets throughout Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Therefore, not much will likely change in the Middle East under the presidency of either candidate, but what about the Israeli issue?

Over this past weekend, Israel decided to strike back by hitting Iranian military targets (including missile factories) in retaliation for Iran lobbing easily-intercepted missiles into Israel, which was in turn a response to Israel eliminating Hezbollah leaders (one such incident was in the Iranian capital city of Tehran). Since the nuclear-armed Israel and powerful Iran (with a population one-quarter the size of the United States) bombing each other has the potential to drag the next president into a wider conflict (and potentially World War III), we need to understand the implications of both candidates ascending to the presidency. In fact, Iran has stated that it will “use all available tools” to retaliate and “defend itself” against Israel’s latest and future bombings. We know that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris both support Israel unconditionally, as all of their predecessors (including Trump) have, so it does not appear that there will be any change in this arena either. However, Harris and other officials have come right out and warned Iran that it better not retaliate against Israel, or there will be consequences. Therefore, we know for sure that she would allow the Benjamin Netanyahu regime to drag us into a hot war with Iran. With Trump in office, we could at least have some hope that he could avert it. Both candidates seemingly support Israel’s excuse that it needs to bomb Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Yemen because of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack that it knew about and did not prevent (Israel’s 9-11 and War on Terror)

The Obama administration moved the United States closer to war with China by initiating the Freedom of Navigation Operations in the South China Sea, and such maneuvers were in response to China declaring most of the sea for itself and having territorial disputes with Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. The aggressive posturing by President Obama led to increased tensions between the two superpowers, and it is clear that Americans would not respond kindly if China were to patrol the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico in order to intimidate the United States.

Unfortunately, territorial disputes are not the only conflict between the United States and China, as Taiwan, which is also affected by the South China Sea quarrels, has been another tool used by the powers that be to threaten the balance of power in the region. The United States government has been arming and funding Taiwan for years (largely to prevent the semiconductor manufacturing industry from falling away from American control), and China has responded to the latest $2 billion of American taxpayer-funded arms (and air defense systems) deal by threatening “countermeasures.” Supporting Taiwan and sending vessels near the island are viewed as threats to Chinese security and national sovereignty, and whether that is the correct way to think about it or not, if the next president pushes too much on this issue, it could have dire consequences for American citizens. The Biden administration has not halted support for Taiwan, so we can assume that Harris will act much the same. Trump has an anti-China bias right from the beginning, so there is little hope of change in this area as well.  

Besides the Obama administration initiating Cold War II in the South China Sea, it also helped to spark the current conflict in Ukraine by supporting the revolutionaries of the Maidan Revolution (Revolution of Dignity) in the coup against democratically-elected and pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych (the United States government did not want Ukraine to slip away from the vision of bringing that country closer to the European Union). For years leading up to this incident, the United States had been expanding its empire in eastern Europe by increasing the number of countries in its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), despite assurances that that would not be the case after the fall of the Soviet Union (if Russia started to turn Central American and Caribbean nations into satellite states, we can guarantee that the United States would react in some way). Russia, seeing this expansion of NATO as a threat, jumped on the opportunity to act in the chaos in Ukraine and grabbed the warm-water port in Sevastopol, Crimea (the people of Crimea later voted in a referendum to leave Ukraine and join Russia).

Later, the eastern oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk seceded to form their own independent countries (much like the British colonies of North America seceded during the American Revolution). As a result, the newly-formed and American-backed government of Ukraine launched a campaign to bomb these separatist movements and force them into submission. Russia, which had been afraid of the consequences of intervening earlier, decided to invade Ukraine under the Biden administration and come to the defense of Donetsk and Luhansk (some of the operations targeted areas outside of the separatist regions, such as Kiev and Kharkiv, so the Russian invasion became offensive in nature). Since the 2022 invasion (and excluding funding under the Obama and Trump administrations), the United States has created a corporate welfare package of $175 billion to aid the military-industrial complex (including Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s Raytheon) and the dictatorship of Volodymyr Zelensky (his presidential term expired, and he is no longer a democratically-elected leader, but yeah, we are defending democracy).

The Biden administration has funneled more and more weapons into Ukraine, and Russia has issued ultimatums (many of which are not followed through for fear of American power), the most recent of which included the threat of a response if the United States allows Ukraine to fire long-range weapons into Russian territory. Under a Harris administration, we can expect more of the same. However, Trump has shown courage on this issue, and during his first term, he even threatened to cut off American aid to Ukraine if Zelensky did not investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, for corruption (he was later impeached for doing so). Trump has also been open to negotiations and a peace deal between Russia, Ukraine, and the separatist oblasts to end the hostilities and thaw tensions, and although he has been ridiculed by pro-war liberals and progressives, this is one area where Trump could potentially make progress.

Dictator Zelensky and the South Korean government have warned that North Korean troops are headed to and already in Russia in order to join the fight in Ukraine, and although the Biden administration has not yet acknowledged this, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said that these North Korean troops would be “fair game” (was this sort of an admittance?). Yes, the Biden administration is encouraging Ukrainian soldiers to shoot at North Koreans and Russians, so what could go wrong? Now, South Korea is considering sending weapons to arm Ukraine and counter the North Korean presence there, so the Allied versus Axis lines are being drawn all over the world.

Both the Biden and Harris administrations would have to deal with the growing conflict between both Koreas, at a time when North Korea launches test missiles over Japan and other areas in response to American-South Korean exercises (some of which simulate invasions of and operations against the North). Additionally, North Korea has destroyed a few roads and railways linking it to South Korea after it accused the government in Seoul of flying drones over Pyongyang, so tensions are escalating on the peninsula. Under a Harris administration, we will end up getting the same old march toward a hot war. Trump has shown restraint and diplomacy by at least talking to Kim Jong-un and attempting to move toward reconciliation, and liberals and progressives have dubbed this as “love letters” to the North Korean leader. Apparently wanting to negotiate peace deals (with both Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un) is viewed by the Left as “admiration for dictators” (liberals have been brainwashed by the corporate media’s anti-Trump propaganda). On this front, Trump would be far greater than Harris too.

The African continent is another battleground in Cold War II, as nations begin to push out the United States and France and embrace Russia and China (China is actively negotiating business and infrastructure deals and gaining positive receptance in many countries in Africa). A particular area of contention is the Sahel Region (a semi-arid grassland and scrub transition from the Sahara Desert), as military coups have been seen successful or attempted in Guinea, Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali, and Chad (Chad is currently fighting Boko Haram, which the West has also been going after for years). Niger, Burkina Faso, and Mali were important partners with the United States as they were eyed for strategic resources and utilized to battle radical jihadist groups in Africa (such as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara), however, the newly-formed military juntas have largely kicked out the United States and asked for assistance from Russia and its Wagner Group. The Biden administration also involved itself with Sudan and may be indirectly fighting Russian troops in that country as well, so in Africa, Harris would likely follow in her current boss’ footsteps and continue to wage a cold war with Russia and China in Africa. Trump has said little about Africa, and there is no reason to believe that he would be different on this than what he did not do during his first term.

The next president (and his or her administration) will also inevitably have conflict with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who recently just won a disputed election that gave him a third term. Although Harris stated that she would not use the military to force Maduro out of office, she did say that the economic sanctions started under the Trump administration would continue if she became the face of the American machine, and she would also have other less obvious means to intervene in Venezuela. For example, George W. Bush supported a coup against democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez in 2002, and Trump seemingly utilized American mercenaries in a failed attempt to remove Maduro and install Juan Guaido, as well as indicted the Venezuelan leader on drug charges and maneuvered Navy ships to the Caribbean Sea as a show of force. The Biden administration conducted joint flight exercises with Guyana and moved American troops to the northern coast of South America when Venezuela made a threat to invade the Essequibo region (historically disputed between the Spanish and British empires, and United States President Grover Cleveland acknowledged it as part of Venezuela, but international arbiters gave the land to the British in 1899, thus transferring it to Guyana when it became independent in 1966). With the actions of President Biden and Trump, as well as with the words of Harris, it is safe to say that neither candidate in this election will be any different on Venezuela.

Shortly after the assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moise and the ascension of Prime Minister Ariel Henry (who may have been involved in the assassination), a coup attempt ensued, and this operation had connections to the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (one of the plotters called the DEA during the operation) and the Miami-based Counter Terrorist Unit Federal Academy (CTU also initiated the mercenary coup in Venezuela under Trump). The Biden administration still denies that it attempted to overthrow the Haitian government, but the leader of the coup attempt was an American doctor named Christian Emmanuel Sanon. Then, President Biden changed his tune and provided Henry with armored vehicles and American noncombat troops to assist the Haitian police with gang violence and a non-American coup attempt initiated by Jimmy Cherizier (“Barbeque”). Henry has since stepped down, but gang violence has been on the rise, leading to 10,000 Haitians being displaced in just a week (since September, 700,000 Haitians have been displaced and ready to flee the country), and American-provided armored vehicles were even shot at in the chaos. Ultimately, there is no reason to believe that a Harris or Trump administration will leave Haiti alone to determine its own destiny (or fate).

In a time where the Department of Defense put out a document (Directive 5240.01) emphasizing the Defense Intelligence Agency’s (DIA) ability to send agents, equipment, and intelligence to assist local law enforcement in operations that may involve deadly force against American citizens (a move that could potentially bypass the Posse Comitatus Act); who do we want at the helm of the American warship? The American Empire has troops in most of the world’s countries, places economic sanctions against unfriendly regimes, launches covert operations to overthrow foreign governments or influence their elections and terrorize their people, and invades and bombs weaker nations into compliance. The military-industrial complex and the bureaucracy (including the Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA) essentially run the foreign policy of the United States, so at the end of the day, both Trump and Harris will be pressured (and maybe forced) to go along with whatever these institutions desire. However, as discussed, Trump at least wants to end the Russo-Ukrainian War and negotiate with Russia and North Korea, plus NATO (and the deep state) is afraid of him becoming president. He gets three points in the scoreboard, and since Harris will likely continue the Biden administration’s foreign policy and not move us any closer to peace, she gets zero points.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.