The geopolitical landscape the next U.S. president will face in January 2025 is fraught with challenges, including intensifying competition with China, escalating conflict in the Middle East, and the ongoing war in Ukraine. U.S. foreign policy is broadly guided by a consensus on three core issues: strategic rivalry with China, backing Israel in the Middle East, and ensuring Europe assumes more responsibility for its defense, especially in relation to the Ukraine conflict.
U.S.-China Relations: Strategic Competition
The U.S. and China are locked in a long-term competition for economic, technological, and political dominance. Both parties agree that the U.S. should maintain and even increase economic pressure on China through tariffs, export controls, and sanctions. The goal is to limit China’s economic and technological advances while reinforcing the American industrial base.
The policy debate hinges on whether the U.S. should pursue “managed competition” or escalate to “all-out competition.” Managed competition, as seen under President Biden, involves selective decoupling while maintaining dialogue to prevent conflicts from escalating into military confrontation, particularly concerning Taiwan and the South China Sea. An all-out competition strategy would involve dramatic tariff increases, expanded military support for Taiwan, and significant boosts to U.S. defense spending. Potential defense budget increases could amount to as much as $55 billion for FY2025, driven by the belief that China is a “lethal adversary” with whom negotiation is no longer feasible.
Under a Kamala Harris presidency, the U.S. would likely continue Biden’s approach of managed competition, maintaining tariffs, export controls, and sanctions. Harris would also strengthen efforts to establish China-free supply chains for critical products. In contrast, Donald Trump’s stance on China is less predictable. Trump’s first term dismantled the old consensus of “constructive engagement” with China, replacing it with strategic competition. Although Trump’s rhetoric has focused on imposing massive tariffs, his approach to China in a second term could range from aggressive decoupling to seeking a “grand bargain,” involving economic concessions in exchange for geopolitical cooperation, such as pressuring Russia to settle the Ukraine conflict.
Trump’s impulses remain erratic, and his potential administration may include advisors with vastly different views on how to handle China. Figures like Robert Lighthizer support decoupling from China, while others like Scott Bessent suggest a more moderate approach, proposing a “Mar-a-Lago Accord” that could see China agreeing to revalue its currency. However, Trump’s personal animus toward China, particularly over issues like Hong Kong’s crackdown and the COVID-19 pandemic, suggests that he may take a more hawkish stance.
Middle East: Escalating Tensions with Iran
U.S. interests in the Middle East continue to revolve around countering the influence of Shiite Iran and its proxy network. Broadly, the U.S. strategy has been to support Israel and form alliances with Sunni Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia. In the context of the ongoing Middle East conflict, a key debate is whether the U.S. should focus on containing Iran’s regime or actively working to undermine it.
Harris would likely continue Biden’s cautious approach, backing Israel while attempting to restrain any drastic actions by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that might lead to an all-out war against Iran. Harris’ foreign policy advisors, notably Philip Gordon, have been critical of regime change strategies in the Middle East, suggesting that she might take a more diplomatic stance toward Iran.
On the other hand, Trump’s potential second term could see a dramatic shift in the U.S. approach. Trump could fully embrace Netanyahu’s strategy, possibly giving Israel the green light to engage in an aggressive campaign against Iran, with the U.S. playing a defensive role to protect its allies in the region. A U.S.-Israeli campaign could involve crippling strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and energy infrastructure. However, Trump’s longstanding claim of keeping the U.S. out of wars may temper the extent of direct U.S. involvement in such a conflict. A more likely scenario is the reinstatement of Trump’s “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran, although this strategy failed previously and is unlikely to succeed again.
Ukraine: Pressure for a Resolution
The Ukraine war remains another critical area of U.S. foreign policy. While there is general agreement that Ukraine will eventually need to settle with Russia, opinions diverge on the best approach. Trump’s possible strategies include forcing both Kyiv and Moscow to negotiate a peace deal, pressuring Ukraine to accept Russian terms, or maintaining the current course of support for Ukraine. Trump’s history of feuding with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his personal ties with Vladimir Putin suggest that he may push for a resolution favorable to Russia.
Some of Trump’s advisors, such as Elbridge Colby, advocate for a swift resolution to the Ukraine conflict, allowing the U.S. to focus its resources on China. Others argue that staying the course in Ukraine is crucial for maintaining U.S. deterrence against China. A premature end to the war in Ukraine that benefits Russia could embolden China to make aggressive moves toward Taiwan, making this a contentious issue within any future Trump administration.
Conclusion
Regardless of the outcome of the 2024 election, the new U.S. president will face a geopolitical landscape defined by complex challenges. In China, the U.S. will continue its strategic rivalry, with the potential for increased economic and military confrontation depending on whether the next administration pursues a policy of managed competition or escalates to all-out competition. In the Middle East, tensions with Iran will likely intensify, with Israel and its Sunni Arab allies playing key roles in shaping U.S. policy. Finally, the war in Ukraine will continue to be a source of debate, with significant implications for U.S. credibility and its broader geopolitical strategy, particularly in relation to China.
Trump’s return to the presidency would bring unpredictability to all these areas, with a higher likelihood of disruption. While his policies have historically aligned with the current foreign policy consensus, Trump’s erratic nature and diverse range of advisors could lead to sharp shifts, particularly in relations with China, Iran, and Ukraine. Harris, in contrast, is expected to follow Biden’s framework with minor adjustments, reflecting continuity rather than dramatic change.