However, the most important question remains: Can a new American president end these conflicts, or does the influence of the United States do not exceed its borders drawn by national and strategic interests?
The United States is a major power with a fundamental influence in resolving or fueling conflicts, especially with its control over complex files such as the Iranian nuclear file, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and the issue of… Taiwan with China.
While Washington’s policies toward these conflicts vary between diplomatic support and military aid, past experiences indicate that changing the administration alone may not be sufficient to resolve these crises, but rather requires a deeper shift in the foreign policy approach.
On the other hand, the ongoing conflicts in the world reflect the complexity of the international scene, in which the interests of major powers, including the United States, overlap, and challenges related to the balance of power emerge. For example, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has gone beyond the boundaries of a bilateral conflict and has become a test of NATO’s steadfastness and America’s position. This conflict represents an example of conflicts that may not end with a change of presidents, but rather with broader international consensuses and a re-arrangement of geopolitical priorities.
Also, at the same time, in the Middle East, things seem more complicated, as many American administrations have failed to achieve lasting peace in the region despite multiple mediation attempts. Despite recent moves to improve relations between some Arab countries and Israel, the Palestinian crisis remains a deep wound that needs a just and comprehensive solution. Will the election of a new president lead to real solutions or merely changes in diplomatic rhetoric?
Continuation of conflicts
For his part, European affairs expert, Muhammad Rajai Barakat, in exclusive statements to the “Eqtisad Sky News Arabia” website, ruled out that the scene of conflicts that the world is going through will change after the resolution of the US presidential elections, suggesting that these conflicts will continue, especially between Washington and Beijing and the competition between them. To lead the world, including economically, regardless of who the winning candidate is Trump or Harris.
Regarding the Middle East region, it is expected that America’s policy of absolute support for Israel will continue, through continued supply of weapons and money, if the Democratic candidate Harris wins, as is the case, and also in the event of the victory of Donald Trump, who recently said that Israel is a small country and must expand.
The European affairs expert confirmed that Trump’s statements mean that if he wins the elections, he will help Israel occupy other parts of neighboring countries, which will increase tensions and continue acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip and displacement.
Risks
According to a BBC report, the next US president will have to work in a world facing the greatest threat of confrontation between major powers since the Cold War.
The report quoted the head of the International Crisis Group, Lee Comfort Eyro, as saying:
- “The United States remains the most important international actor on matters of peace and security.”
- “But their ability to help resolve conflicts is diminishing.”
- “Deadly conflicts are becoming more difficult, as major power competition accelerates and middle powers rise.”
- Wars like Ukraine attract multiple powers, and conflagrations like Sudan pit regional players with competing interests against each other, some of whom are more invested in war than peace.
- America is losing its high moral standing… “Global actors have noticed that it applies one standard to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, and another standard to Israel’s actions in Gaza. The war in Sudan has witnessed horrific atrocities, but it is treated as a second-class issue.”
She says Harris’ victory “represents continuity for the current administration.” If Trump wins, “he may give Israel greater freedom in Gaza and elsewhere, and he has hinted that he might try to cut a deal with Moscow on Ukraine at Kiev’s expense.”
Regarding the Middle East, the Democratic candidate repeatedly echoed Biden’s strong support for “Israel’s right to defend itself.” But she also stressed that “the killing of innocent Palestinians must stop.”
Trump also declared that it was time to “go back to peace and stop killing people.” But it is known that he told Netanyahu, “Do what you have to do,” according to the report.
Regarding Ukraine, Trump does not hide his admiration for strong leaders such as Vladimir Putin in Russia. He has made clear that he wants to end the war in Ukraine, and with it the massive military and financial support it provides US.
International companies and institutions lead conflicts
For his part, the advisor to the Arab Center for Studies and Research, Abu Bakr Al-Deeb, explained in exclusive statements to the “Eqtisad Sky News Arabia” website that:
- Given the personality of the candidates competing in the US presidential elections, Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, the latter is more likely to decide.
- Democrats do not resolve conflicts to a great extent. This point favors Trump.
- Through the administration of Democratic President Biden and his Vice President Harris, we found that the conflict in the Middle East region, for example, is extending and has not been resolved, and that every time they announce that they are close to stopping the war and that there are negotiations and agreements, but they are not implemented, which means that they cannot put pressure on Tel Aviv. Until the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, seemed stronger than the President of the United States of America.
- During the Biden era, the war in Ukraine expanded, which has not yet been resolved.
- The expansion of conflicts is not only during the era of Biden, but also during the era of former Democratic President Barack Obama, whose conflicts extended from the beginning of his reign until its end in the Middle East region.
He believed that conflicts in the world are bigger than the Democratic and Republican parties, and that they are managed by American institutions and international companies in the United States, explaining that conflicts in the world are divided into two parts:
- Protracted conflicts in and of themselves that the United States cannot intervene in, or perhaps manage their directions and axes, because they extend to parties far away from it and do not control them, and they are self-combusting and continue and are financed by other countries.
- Conflicts that the United States influences by either igniting them, increasing their pace, or perhaps being able to stop them.
He stated that there are companies that are in favor of having conflicts in the world, since some of them sell weapons or information, others sell medicines or logistical equipment for war and conflicts, and training and security companies, stressing that all of them are companies that control the management, emergence and continuation of conflicts, as he described it.
In the same context, Al-Deeb stated that the American president, whatever his orientation, may follow this framework and may put some touches on these conflicts (..).
Big tasks
In addition, the researcher in international relations, Muhammad Rabie Al-Daihi, confirmed in exclusive statements to the “Eqtisad Sky News Arabia” website that:
- The American elections are receiving great attention from the world. The countries of the world are waiting for who will come to the White House, and whether he will reshape American policies or will he continue in the same previous approach?
- The United States is a state of institutions that has a vision and a plan that any future president will follow, and therefore ending conflict in the world after the elections are resolved is perhaps unthinkable.
- Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the strengthening of unipolarity, conflicts and wars have prevailed in the world, and it has become subject to geostrategic change and a change in the structure of the international system.
- Of course, changes in the structure of the international system are always preceded by conflicts and crises, and the matter may develop into wars.
He believed that the next American president will come to carry major tasks in the first phase in particular, explaining that if he seeks to bring stability and not lead to an international or global war that the world is witnessing, then he must search for new frameworks in negotiating with international parties and new poles active on the international community’s scene. So that this matter does not lead to an armed clash, as happened in the First and Second World Wars, which reshaped the structure of the international system once again.
