How U.S. Election Outcomes Could Shape Wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan

U.S.

The outcome of the US presidential election has the potential to significantly influence the course of major global conflicts, particularly in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan. As the world’s leading superpower and often referred to as the “world police,” the foreign policy decisions made by whoever sits in the White House can alter the trajectory of wars.

Israel’s conflict in Gaza and Lebanon, the Russia-Ukraine war, and Sudan’s civil war have collectively resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions.

The situation in these regions could either escalate or move toward resolution depending on Washington’s stance after the November 5 election, which features Republican candidate Donald Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump’s approach to Gaza and Lebanon
Both Trump and Harris have shown unwavering support for Israel, meaning there is little hope that the election of either candidate would bring an end to the ongoing war.

Trump, however, has been particularly vocal in condemning Hamas, the Palestinian group responsible for the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, which triggered the conflict. His past actions during his presidency, including recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and negotiating the Abraham Accords, solidified his pro-Israel stance.

However, Trump’s past relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn’t without friction. In 2020, Trump’s proposed “Peace Plan,” which included a two-state solution, collapsed after Netanyahu tried to annex parts of the West Bank—something Trump opposed.

Harris’s stance on Gaza and Lebanon
Vice President Harris has expressed more empathy for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, calling for a ceasefire and efforts to reduce the suffering of civilians. Still, she hasn’t committed to cutting military aid to Israel or laying out a clear path to ending the war. Analysts and critics argue that without definitive action, her stance may not lead to significant change.

Trump’s stance on the Russia-Ukraine war
A Trump presidency could be detrimental to Ukraine, given his close ties to Russia and his admiration for Vladimir Putin. Trump has suggested that he could end the war in “24 hours” by negotiating a peace deal, which many believe would require Ukraine to cede territories occupied by Russia. This would be unacceptable to Kyiv, which seeks full territorial integrity and a path to NATO membership.

Harris’s stance on Ukraine
Harris has consistently supported Kyiv, advocating for increased military aid and pressing for Ukraine’s NATO membership. While the Biden administration vetoed Ukraine’s ascension to NATO, Harris may push to reverse that if elected. Her administration would likely continue providing military and financial support to Ukraine, though delays in Congress could affect the speed of these efforts.

Sudan’s civil war under Trump
Under a Trump presidency, Sudan is unlikely to be a priority. Trump’s previous focus on normalizing relations between Sudan and Israel rather than addressing the underlying political tensions in the country is seen as a contributing factor to the current civil war. Analysts argue that his administration did little to support civilian governance during Sudan’s transition.

Harris’s potential approach to Sudan
The Biden-Harris administration has imposed sanctions on Sudan, targeting officials involved in the conflict and freezing development aid. However, critics argue that their response has been lukewarm at best. If Harris wins, she may continue sanctioning Sudanese leaders, but significant changes in the US approach to the war remain uncertain.

In summary, while both Trump and Harris have outlined positions on these conflicts, the outcomes of the wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan will depend largely on their foreign policy decisions if either becomes president.