51吃瓜

As Donald Trump assumes the presidency for a second term, the US is undergoing significant shifts in domestic policy and geopolitical strategy. These crucial changes聽herald a much-needed recalibration of the US鈥檚 realpolitik, especially concerning India鈥揢S relations, which some considered to be of realism during the Biden administration.

The Biden years To Trump 2.0: resetting the White House聽

A mix of socio-economic failures and the decline in the US鈥檚 geopolitical influence created the conditions for a reset in the White House.

Following Trump鈥檚 dramatic exit from power in 2021, the Joe Biden administration embraced a 鈥渕easured鈥� and retrained strategic response toward global politics. This put pressure on聽the US鈥檚 position of global influence because of the emerging high-power rivalries the US has with China and Russia. Biden鈥檚 foreign policy may have contributed to聽the emergence of a strong alliance against the聽US between (PRICK).

One of Biden鈥檚 greatest international was the Build Back Better World (B3W) plan. The 2021 plan was an international economic development initiative by the G7 countries to counter China鈥檚 Belt and Road initiative and stabilize regional economies after COVID-19. However, the plan failed to gain traction and was as the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment with much less ambitious goals.

On the domestic front, the Biden White House made other miscalculations. One of these missteps was the economic failure of Biden鈥檚 big policies, such as the American Rescue Plan, which led to聽. Biden鈥檚 energy policies were another blunder, experiencing since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war. the聽Keystone XL pipeline put additional pressure on the US energy sector.

Another domestic failure was an increase in the聽crime rate. According to , 鈥淰iolent crimes have dramatically increased during the Biden-Harris administration, according to a recent Department of Justice study that appears to refute consistent claims by the Harris campaign.鈥� Other , such as immigration and rejecting identity politics also influenced voters.

The US鈥檚 realpolitik

The US鈥檚 realpolitik has two key features: influence and competition with emerging powers. During the Cold War, the US deep state used every available strategy to counter the Soviet Union鈥檚 increasing influence. However, one major player in the US realpolitik significantly influenced the US鈥檚 approach to global events, sometimes even challenging branches of the deep state.

Two significant presidents during the Cold War were John F. Kennedy and Gerald Ford. To some extent, both聽had a 鈥渕easured, strategic response鈥� rather than an assertive, strategic response, which in the 1980s with President Ronald Reagan. Kennedy鈥檚 hesitation in using the CIA as a significant tool for US foreign policy goals, instead slashing its , created difficulties in steering聽US foreign policy during the initial phases of the Cold War.

Similarly, the Soviet鈥揢S d茅tente supported by President Ford was by analysts and Ford鈥檚 Secretary of Defence, James Schlesinger. The D茅tente was a strategic failure, with the Soviet Union Afghanistan in 1979. A major setback came when Ford ordered the immediate evacuation of US personnel from South Vietnam in 1975, causing a similar to the disastrous US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. The CIA faced during Ford鈥檚 presidency when an investigative journalist exposed the CIA鈥檚 Operation CHAOS, which engaged in domestic surveillance of US citizens, in of the National Security Act of 1947.

Following the Cold War, President Bill Clinton attempted to adjust the US鈥檚 foreign policy strategy back to a 鈥渕easured response.鈥� Clinton’s main focus was on policy and . His foreign policy has been described by analysts as the , which favored the promotion of free markets and democratic principles in other countries. To some extent, this聽policy was responsible for the failure to restore democracy in Somalia, which resulted in the resignation of Clinton鈥檚 Secretary of Defence after the failed Operation Gothic Serpent. The Clinton administration also failed in 1993 when it was unable to oust Haiti’s military dictator, Raoul Cedres, and in 1994 when it did not intervene in聽Rwanda to prevent genocide.

These failures share many similarities with those of the聽Biden presidency. Biden the nuclear deal with Iran, from Afghanistan and made other miscalculations in Europe and the Middle East. Similar to Biden鈥檚 predecessors, who embraced a similar foreign policy, these errors caused significant setbacks to the US’s geopolitical position.

Now that Trump will be back in the White House, the US鈥檚 foreign policy will be better suited to navigate the ever more complex world order. Trump’s second term promises an assertive response to global and regional crises, making it worth observing how wars in the Middle East and Europe unfold after he assumes office.

Trump鈥檚 second term may ease on the trans-Atlantic security architecture and provide more freedom for European countries to make their own security and defense decisions. This new policy contrasts the Biden years, when the US was too involved in European security decisions, leading to friction with European countries, especially .

Some have that US realpolitik is hampered by Ukraine. However, if the US engages in an 鈥渁ssertive, strategic response鈥� to re-building confidence among European nations and shore up European security architecture, the US may be able to check Russian influence.

During Trump’s , his “assertive, strategic response” effectively addressed evolving geopolitical dynamics, keeping China under the radar and Russia in check without straining relations with the US. Similar adjustments are expected in Trump鈥檚 second administration, but with a key difference in the Middle East. The space for Iran, which expanded under the Biden administration, is likely to shrink rapidly under Trump. This shift will allow the US to adopt a more assertive stance toward Iran while rebuilding strategic relations with Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

It is unlikely that Donald Trump will eliminate the so-called , which consists of officials embedded within the executive branch of the US government who espouse an ideology that may be contrary to the administration鈥檚. Instead of being completely eliminated, the deep state could be reduced in size, as it plays a significant role in the US’s realpolitik, particularly for any incoming Trump administration. During Trump鈥檚 first term, the deep state functioned in a limited yet operational manner. For instance, Trump appointed Gina Haspel, the first woman to serve as deputy director of the CIA and later as CIA director in 2018, despite strong reservations from some senators. These examples suggest that the deep state under a Trump administration could continue to function effectively with minor adjustments.

India鈥揢S relations: and upward trajectory聽

The India鈥揢S is currently on an 鈥渦pward trajectory,鈥� with the Comprehensive Global and Strategic Partnership between the two countries recently . The partnership will receive more traction in the聽Trump Administration. During Trump鈥檚 first term, the US聽understood India鈥檚 interests much better than the聽Biden administration, with few exceptions. The Trump administration鈥檚 superior understanding of India will help build much-needed trust between the two nations, whose relations have been by US criticism of India鈥檚 internal affairs. However, trade between India and the US will not change much during Trump鈥檚 second term, given the implications of his America first policy for trade and high tariffs.

When Trump enters office, he has to re-adjust the US鈥檚 realpolitik to revive the US鈥檚 declining influence on the global stage. The move from a measured to an assertive approach will only come after the realization that restrained and measured approaches lead to significant policy and strategic failures for the US. Biden鈥檚 foreign policy failures are the most recent example of this.

[Joey T. McFadden edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.