What happens if Trump comes back? Analysis by Maxim Petrov

There are certain chances for former President Donald Trump's return to the White House. All hopes of his supporters are focused on the elections to be held in two years. At the same time, the growing negative attitude of many Americans towards Joseph Biden is also being counted on. After the incumbent infamously failed to deliver a $4 trillion bailout and overhaul of the US infrastructure ($1 trillion was delivered instead of the promised amount) and against a backdrop of skyrocketing prices on literally everything, Biden became increasingly irritating to people.

Meanwhile, as the Russian publication Respublika points out, "The FBI raid on former US President Donald Trump's residence at Mar-a-Lago in early August seems to have only benefited him - Trump's popularity has grown, and many US politicians and experts believe that his chances of becoming the Republican candidate in the 2024 presidential election have strengthened."

So it makes sense to consider what the Trump administration's key policies have been and could be in the future if he returns to the White House. It does not hurt to revisit the history of his administration.

In terms of foreign policy, when Trump became president of the United States, he immediately showed himself to be a fierce opponent of cooperation with China and Iran. The new White House master stepped up the pressure on China and imposed tariffs on Chinese goods. In addition, Trump has imposed harsh sanctions against Iran. His project of an alliance with Moscow included the idea of giving Ukraine to the Russian Federation (it is possible that the plan was to give it all of the former Soviet space except the Baltics). The plan implied that Moscow would turn against China and Iran in exchange for Ukraine and the removal of sanctions. The project proved unviable and eventually failed, and in the current geopolitical climate, it is all the more unworkable.

It must be said that Congress was sharply negative to such initiatives by Trump, especially to the alleged deal with Moscow. The top of the US political establishment and its associated corporations believed that it was in the interests of the US to punish Moscow for its actions in Ukraine since 2014. This idea was shared both by Republicans and Democrats. Russia was violating the existing rules of international politics, while the US was interested in preserving the existing global security and trade architecture, which to a certain extent was in America's interest. Second, as Russia's foremost Sinologist, Alexander Gabuev, has pointed out, Moscow could not turn its policy against Beijing, as it would have entailed enormous economic and political costs. A quarrel with a powerful neighbour could have resulted in the need to keep a military force of millions on its borders with China, as was the case in Soviet times, and the Russian Federation did not and does not have such capabilities.

Today, this old failed plan by Trump is all the more impossible to implement. The media and public in the US, as well as the entire Western world, as well as the governing bodies of both American parties, are clearly siding with Ukraine in the armed conflict unleashed by the Russian Federation. At the same time, the US military-industrial complex (MIC) is using this situation both to build up the capacity of the AFU and to achieve a radical increase in military spending to rearm the USA itself and its allies in a sharply escalated international situation. Military expert Tim Cooper points to this in particular. In an era of increasing conflicts, when the mighty US military-industrial complex machine is accelerating ever faster, Trump, who acted as a lobbyist for the military-industrial complex, is unlikely to stand in its way. It should be remembered that of the $40 billion in lend-lease aid to Ukraine, the largest part of the amount is intended for the supply of American weapons, that is, it is a subsidy to the US military-industrial complex, he emphasizes.

In addition, it is Republicans, as well as some other voters, who reproach the current Joe Biden administration for providing "insufficient support for Ukraine." Konstantin Sonin, a University of Chicago economist and US policy expert, points out that if Trump or any other Republican candidate comes to power in the next election in 2024, foreign policy will be more focused on providing military assistance to Ukraine than the current administration is.

Trump has also worked hard to manage the situation in the Middle East. His position then had three main thrusts. First, regardless of who is president, the US has to minimise resources allocated to the Middle East. Both Obama, Trump and Biden generally followed this line. The new US national security strategy adopted in 2022 calls Russia an "acute threat" (due to the conflict in Ukraine) and China a "strategic threat with multiple dimensions" (referring to China's transformation into an economic superpower competing with America, the Taiwan crisis, China's creation of huge infrastructure in Asia under the "One Belt, One Road" programme designed to create a common Eurasian market under the PRC, and China's territorial disputes with neighbouring countries). Under such circumstances, the Americans can no longer focus on the Middle East. Furthermore, thanks to the shale revolution, the region's role as a unique energy supplier has diminished as the US has secured its energy autonomy.

Under these circumstances, the Trump administration, just like the Biden administration, will have to rely more on friendly coalitions of Middle Eastern countries rather than direct US action. With many countries in the region weakened and plunged into internal strife as a result of the Arab Spring, three non-Arab countries have taken the lead in this part of the world - Israel, Türkiye, and Iran. It is they that have become the centres of regional coalitions. And the US is in one way or another betting on an alliance with its partners, Türkiye and Israel, whose policies are aimed at confronting Iran.

Second, it was the Trump administration that designed the architecture of the "Abrahamic Accords" that ensured the establishment of diplomatic relations, the creation of a politico-military alliance, and the expansion of economic relations between Israel and the Sunni Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf. The basis of this alliance, apart from the dexterity of US diplomats, was the expansion of Iran's sphere of influence and the aggravation of Arab-Iranian relations. The danger of an Arab-Iranian (somewhat Sunni-Shiite) conflict forced the UAE and Bahrain (as well as their allied North African country Morocco) to get closer to Israel and establish diplomatic relations with it. Saudi Arabia, the largest and richest country in the Gulf, has not yet established diplomatic relations with Israel, but rapprochement between the two states is taking place. This anti-Iranian alliance will grow stronger as the US, embroiled in conflicts with Russia and China, is forced to reduce its presence in the Middle East.

Thirdly, the bet was on close cooperation not only with Israel but also with Türkiye. A major diplomat and scholar James Jeffrey, an advocate of rapprochement with the country, has taken a leading role in Trump's Middle East policy. Hence Trump's intention to hand over to Türkiye parts of northern and eastern Syria controlled by forces of Kurdish fighters hostile to Ankara was only partially realised. The alliance with Türkiye was supposed to be the backbone of the US in Syria, helping to push Iranian influence out of there. In his book "The Room Where It Happened", John Bolton, former national security adviser to Donald Trump, writes that US diplomat James Jeffrey, a supporter of the pro-Turkish orientation in US Middle East policy, successfully lobbied for the transfer of control of the Middle East from America to Türkiye. "The US has decided to outsource the Middle East to Türkiye," Bolton argued.

It must be said that Biden's relationship with Erdogan is now much cooler than Trump's before. If Trump returns to the White House, perhaps we should expect thorough warming of relations between America and Türkiye.

Finally, Trump secured a break on the nuclear deal with Iran in 2018. The deal called for Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment programme to build nuclear weapons in exchange for the removal of US sanctions. "The nuclear deal was concluded by President Obama and European diplomats in 2015. Although Iran generally complied with its terms, Trump unilaterally pulled the US out of the agreement and slapped Iran with the heaviest sanctions in history, hitting all sectors of the Iranian economy. Trump's goal was to destabilise and dislodge the Iranian regime through internal upheaval caused by the country's dire economic and social situation. That goal was not achieved, but the situation in Iran has become more complicated. So, in the event of Trump returning to the White House, there is a high probability of a return to the same policies, and at the very least his attitude towards Iran will be worse than that of Biden. This could be good news for all countries that are opponents of Iran.