Trump’s second term could escalate support for Israel’s far-right agenda while cutting American backing for Ukraine, with uncertain outcomes driven by his personal and political gain
~ Blade Runner ~
The result of the United States elections might seem inevitable in hindsight, thanks to the ultra-centrist Democrats doing everything they can to hand the White House to the far-right Republicans. The outlook for domestic issues is grim indeed. What could be just as unpredictable and dire is U.S. foreign policy under a second Trump presidency, which could bring significant shifts to the proxy war zones of Palestine and Ukraine — most likely for the worse.
While Trump’s “America First” rhetoric points toward isolationism, his actions reveal a more erratic, self-serving approach. He might make limited military moves or engage in strategic posturing, either escalating or de-escalating crises without committing to any long-term policy — with the focus shifting depending on Trump’s personal gain. His unpredictability leaves the door open for either short- or long-term escalations with China or Russia, depending on what best suits his domestic agenda.
Trump is aligned with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and will likely escalate support for Israel’s far-right war machine. With bipartisan U.S. complicity, Israel’s genocidal violence in Gaza has already gone unchallenged. Trump’s first term saw the U.S. moving its embassy to Jerusalem, and a second term could offer further support for settlement expansion in the West Bank and northern Gaza, as well as ongoing military aggression in Lebanon, Syria and potentially Iran.
Another possibility is complete U.S. disengagement from the issue. Trump’s “America First” stance could de-prioritise Palestine, leaving Israel to act with little international pressure. The U.S. would pull out of any peace negotiations, and Israeli policies could escalate unchecked. This could actually deepen the occupation and worsen the humanitarian crisis.
Alternatively, Trump might use Palestine as a bargaining chip, seeking superficial concessions from Israel in exchange for diplomatic victories to boost his image. Trump could pressure Israel to end the war and make minor symbolic moves, such as avoiding resettlement of the northern part of the Gaza strip, in which Israel is now carrying out ethnic cleansing. He may even have his eyes on a bid to renew the normalisation process between Israel and Gulf states. This approach would be more about Trump’s personal brand than about pushing for any real resolution for Palestinians.
Trump’s open alignment with Israel’s far-right could, nevertheless, become a counterpoint for other NATO allies to differentiate themselves from the U.S., and possibly raise the prospect of a French or British arms embargo. On some level, that has been suspended while waiting for the U.S. election, but it may finally move forward. Almost anything would be preferable to normalising the current inhumanity.
For Ukraine, Trump’s isolationist tendencies could lead to a major cut in U.S. military and financial aid. He could withdraw support under the guise of protecting U.S. taxpayers, leaving Ukraine vulnerable to the Russian offensive. The Biden administration yesterday decided to allow Ukraine to strike Russian targets with U.S. missiles. This move could be a final effort to solidify U.S. military support before Trump takes office. Nevertheless, his admiration for Putin and dislike of NATO make full disengagement a strong possibility, especially as U.S. public opinion grows weary of the war.
Trump could also try to negotiate a peace deal that favours Russia, legitimising some or most of their territorial claims in exchange for geopolitical and economic deals with Putin’s regime. This would serve Trump’s desire for short-term victories and enhance his image as a dealmaker, but it would come at the expense of Ukraine’s sovereignty. He would likely prioritise personal and political gain over any lasting stability for Ukraine.
Another option is for Trump to reduce U.S. support while still maintaining enough to keep NATO allies satisfied. This could involve pressuring European countries to ‘pay their fair share’ and take more responsibility for Ukraine’s defence. This approach would weaken Ukraine’s position but appeal to Trump’s base and avoid full disengagement.
If U.S. support fades, Ukraine could turn to ‘grassroots’ resistance, relying on decentralised efforts and international solidarity. Anti-war groups around the world could feel encouraged to challenge state-controlled narratives and provide alternative support to the Ukrainian cause. While this would be challenging, it is a plausible response to U.S. disengagement, depending on the strength of resistance movements and external support.
For global grassroots movements, therefore, Trump’s second term could serve as a reviving spark. The rise of the far-right to the highest seat of global power certainly ought to act as a catalyst for revolt, as people awaken to the superpower shedding its democratic mask. As more nations face the escalating consequences of war and ecological collapse, and as existing power systems continue to crumble and restructure, the opportunity for the spread of regional revolts and rebellions may grow.
Image: dullhunk CC-BY-2.0
