Who is wary of Trump’s return?

With four years in the White House from 2017 to 2021, Donald Trump can arguably be seen as one of the most committed U.S. presidents to his campaign promises. During his campaign, he stated that the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran was “the worst deal ever signed in history,” and he fulfilled this promise by withdrawing from the agreement in 2018. He also vowed to exit the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade agreement signed by the Barack Obama administration in 2015, and he executed this promise just two days after taking office. Throughout his presidency, he adhered to his campaign commitments regarding immigration restrictions, imposing high tariffs on Chinese goods and others, and pressuring NATO members to increase their military spending. In his election campaigns in 2016 and 2020, Trump maintained these views, reiterating them in 2024 as he sought to return to the White House.

Trump’s clarity, grounded in an ideological and political vision championed by the new right wing of the U.S. Republican Party, is fostering a global coalition of Americans who are apprehensive about his prospective presidential victory. This coalition begins with China, which the president-elect views as the greatest challenger to U.S. global economic leadership. He fears that Beijing may repeat the historical experience between Germany and Britain from 1871 to 1914, when German economic growth spurred military expansionism in Berlin, contributing to the outbreak of World War I.

To counter this Chinese threat, Trump intends to wage economic warfare, alongside diplomatic moves aimed at appeasing Russia and containing North Korea to keep them from aligning with China. He also aims to strengthen U.S. alliances with India, Japan, Australia, South Korea, and Vietnam to encircle China.

Trump’s confrontational stance toward Iran is tied to its role as a geographical gateway for Beijing through the Belt and Road Initiative proposed by China in 2013. This initiative extends into the Middle East via the Pakistani corridor and reaches Europe through Turkey. This route stands in contrast to the Kazakhstan-Russia route to Europe, which has been undermined by ongoing tensions in Ukraine since 2014, leading to the ousting of a pro-Kremlin Ukrainian president.

By employing a maximum pressure strategy against Iran while appeasing Saudi Arabia and Russia, Trump aims to leave China in a state of energy deprivation. In this scenario, China would encounter vulnerabilities similar to those experienced by Hitler and the militarists in Japan during the 1930s, both of which suffered from a lack of oil self-sufficiency.

Certainly, Chinese President Xi Jinping and the Iranian leader share this apprehension regarding Trump. Both have endured four bitter years under his presidency, during which Washington waged a harsh trade war against China and exerted maximum pressure on Iran, resulting in a significant decline in Iran’s oil exports from two and a half million barrels per day to three hundred and fifty thousand between 2018 and 2020. Moreover, the U.S. imposed the largest economic sanctions ever placed on a country in history.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is likely to be the third leader wary of Trump. The new U.S. president’s rapprochement with Russian President Vladimir Putin regarding Ukraine may also impact Syria, making Moscow less reliant on its alliance with Ankara in that context. This alliance has been in place since 2016, in response to U.S.-Turkish tensions and divergences.

Certainly, the Turks remember that past rapprochements between the White House and the Kremlin in Syria – during 2013-2014 or 2015-2016 – came at Ankara’s expense. A U.S.-Russian tension in Syria’s context arose after the Russians allowed the Turks to take control of the Jarablus-Bab-Izaz strip, following Erdoğan’s visit to Moscow on August 9, 2016, which occurred less than a month after the failed Turkish military coup attempt. Many factions close to Erdoğan blamed the Americans for this coup attempt.

Efforts to resolve the Syrian crisis have advanced only during two periods of Obama-Putin rapprochement. The first occurred following the May 7, 2013 agreement between John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov, leading to the Syrian chemical agreement that produced UN resolution 2118. This resolution called for the Geneva II conference to implement the Geneva I communiqué. However, it ultimately failed due to the ousting of the pro-Kremlin Ukrainian president in February 2014, which the Russians alleged was instigated by the Americans.

A second instance occurred after Obama approved the Russian military intervention in Syria on September 30, 2015, aimed at confronting and curbing the expansion of the armed Syrian opposition, primarily supported by Erdoğan. This intervention led to Resolution 2254 and the Geneva III conference, which was ultimately derailed by Riyad Hijab at Ankara’s direction in April 2016. It is likely that the forthcoming third rapprochement between the Russians and Americans regarding the Syrian issue will also come at the expense of Turkey, similar to previous instances. The Russians, after distancing themselves from the Turks, may put Erdoğan through the same bitterness that he inflicted on them with the drones he provided to the Ukrainians in their conflict against Russia and his cooperation with the Azerbaijanis in the Caucasus, at the expense of the Kremlin’s Armenian allies.

The fourth person to appear apprehensive about Trump is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is concerned about clear signals recently emitted by some aides of the U.S. President-elect. These signals suggest that what is sought in Ukraine is “peace, not territory,” implying a willingness from Washington and Trump to accept and recognize the annexation of Ukrainian territories by Russia, totaling one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory as defined at its independence in 1991.

The fifth apprehensive party is the European Union (EU), which fears that Trump’s protectionist economic measures against goods exported to the U.S. will not be limited to Chinese products but will extend to allied countries as well. Furthermore, European nations are reluctant to increase their military spending within the NATO framework, especially as they face the economic repercussions of the war in Ukraine.

The sixth, and most significant, source of apprehension regarding Trump is the U.S. military-intelligence establishment, which opposes any policy of appeasing Russia. Since the onset of the Ukrainian war, this establishment has aligned itself with President Joe Biden, supporting a strategy to exploit this conflict for the purpose of wearing down Russia and causing Putin to “fail,” as British Prime Minister Boris Johnson stated shortly after the war began.

The military and intelligence community in Washington had previously agreed with Obama and Biden on policies aimed at rapprochement with Iran, and they do not endorse Trump’s approach to reducing the U.S. military presence abroad, especially in the Middle East. Likely due to his greater focus on China, Trump may either agree, or be compelled to agree, with a vision presented to Congress in March 2023 by General Michael Corella, the commander of U.S. Central Command. Corella emphasized that “seventy-two percent of China’s oil is imported, making them vulnerable, and ninety-eight percent of it is transported by ship.” Half of this imported oil comes from the Middle East, including the planned export of one and a half million barrels of Iranian oil per day to China by September 2024, following a resurgence in Iranian oil production under Biden to approximately one million eight hundred fifty thousand barrels daily, according to Iran International as of November 8.

This geopolitical context elevates the importance of the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca for Washington in its dealings with Beijing, making the Middle East a crucial asset for the U.S. military in applying pressure on China. In his remarks, General Corella stated, “The CENTCOM region is central to competition with China and Russia. We have been there, we are there today, and we will continue to be there in the future.”

To provide a broader perspective and complete the picture, we can identify those on the other side – those who are comfortable with Trump’s return. This includes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and President Vladimir Putin.