Geopolitics vs Politics: Elections Matter

Elections in the United States go beyond domestic policy; they have a significant impact on global conflicts and international relations, making them crucial to understanding and managing the broader geopolitical landscape. The outcome of U.S. presidential elections often sets the tone for the country’s approach to geopolitics, diplomacy, and military engagement. From how aid is distributed to how alliances are maintained or redefined, U.S. leadership decisions ripple across the globe. Throughout history, the balance between politics and geopolitics has been crucial, and often, inaction or indecisiveness in the global arena has led to dire consequences.

World War II serves as a historic reminder of how inaction can escalate conflicts. The reluctance of world powers, including the U.S., to confront the rise of Nazi Germany allowed Adolf Hitler to expand unchecked. By the time global powers took decisive action, the war had already devastated Europe and Asia. In the case of the United States, delayed involvement in the conflict, despite growing signs of aggression from Axis powers, eventually culminated in the bombing of Pearl Harbor. This attack forced the U.S. into World War II, illustrating how hesitation in addressing early threats can lead to direct consequences. This lesson of delayed response continues to echo in modern times, reminding leaders that political decisions made at home—especially those influenced by elections—can have far-reaching effects.

The last two U.S. presidents, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, illustrate stark differences in how electoral outcomes shape global conflicts. Under the former, the administration adopted an “America First” stance, significantly reducing the U.S.’s involvement in foreign conflicts. This approach led to the withdrawal from multilateral agreements, such as the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris Climate Agreement, and the scaling back of U.S. military presence in conflict zones like Syria. Additionally, the reduction of U.S. forces serving in NATO, particularly in Eastern Europe, complicated the Ukraine conflict, weakening the deterrent against Russian aggression. This drawdown favored Russia by creating a strategic advantage and emboldening Moscow’s imperialistic ambitions, eventually culminating in the invasion of Ukraine. His reluctance to engage in new conflicts, while aimed at reducing U.S. entanglements abroad, often left power vacuums that were quickly filled by adversarial forces like Russia and Iran. Inaction on growing threats, particularly in regions like the Middle East, contributed to an emboldened Iran and ongoing instability in Syria.

The consequences of U.S. political decisions are often felt in real-time on the global stage. For instance, the killing of Qassem Soleimani, one of Iran’s top military figures, by a U.S. airstrike in 2020 led to a series of retaliatory strikes on U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East. These attacks, often targeting bases in Iraq, left American forces vulnerable and resulted in injuries, some of which were initially downplayed by the administration. This downplaying of the seriousness of the effects, particularly regarding traumatic brain injuries sustained by U.S. personnel, highlighted the political sensitivity of the fallout from high-profile military actions. Meanwhile, inaction in Ukraine before Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 only emboldened adversaries like Russia and China. The lack of a decisive response from the West during earlier stages of the conflict signaled a perceived weakness, encouraging Russia to advance its imperialistic ambitions in Ukraine. This same hesitancy is mirrored in China’s aggressive posturing towards Taiwan, as Beijing sees opportunity in perceived gaps in U.S. leadership. Similarly, adversaries in regions such as the South China Sea and the Middle East have exploited moments of U.S. inaction, further destabilizing critical global areas.

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

-Winston Churchill

Joe Biden, by contrast, has taken a more traditional approach to foreign policy, emphasizing alliances and international cooperation. His administration has focused heavily on supporting Ukraine amid the ongoing conflict with Russia. The U.S. has provided extensive military and financial aid to Ukraine, which has had geopolitical and economic implications. By supplying Ukraine with modern military equipment, Biden has not only helped deter Russian aggression but has also triggered a resurgence in American manufacturing. Factories in the U.S. are now producing modern equipment to replace the outdated weapons systems supplied to Ukraine, driving economic growth, and revitalizing previously declining sectors.

This connection between geopolitics and the economy is clear. Global conflicts often require countries to increase defense spending, which can result in technological advancements and economic opportunities. The war in Ukraine has accelerated the U.S. defense industry, bringing jobs back to American soil as the country modernizes its military arsenal. Factories that were once idle are now buzzing with activity, producing everything from advanced missile systems to cutting-edge vehicles and defense technologies. This economic ripple effect demonstrates how geopolitical events can fuel domestic growth, even as they address global security concerns.

In contrast, the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, which began under President George W. Bush following the September 11, 2001 attacks, is a prime example of how geopolitical decisions can also have negative long-lasting economic and military impacts. The war, initially aimed at dismantling al-Qaeda and removing the Taliban from power, required significant resources and reshaped U.S. foreign policy for decades. As the conflict dragged on, the cost of maintaining a military presence and rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan weighed heavily on the U.S. economy, with little strategic gain to show for it in the long term, as the eventual withdrawal and rapid Taliban resurgence erased much of what had been achieved.

The importance of U.S. elections on geopolitics cannot be overstated. Domestic political shifts influence how the country engages with the rest of the world. Whether through diplomacy, military intervention, or economic sanctions, the policies set by each administration shape the global landscape. The stakes are high—inaction or missteps can lead to prolonged conflicts or even new wars, as seen throughout history. A president’s foreign policy decisions affect not only the immediate geopolitical arena but also the long-term stability and security of regions across the globe.

One critical element of this relationship between politics and geopolitics is the need for consistency and clear strategy. When U.S. leadership wavers or changes direction too abruptly, it can create confusion and instability among allies and adversaries alike. Under President Trump, the sudden withdrawal from Syria, for example, left Kurdish allies vulnerable and allowed Turkey and Russia to assert greater control in the region. Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, though in line with his predecessor’s plans, led to a swift takeover by the Taliban, raising questions about the long-term impacts of such geopolitical decisions. Additionally, Congress’s recent stalemate over further aid to Ukraine has caused significant problems both domestically and geopolitically. While some lawmakers argue that resources should be prioritized at home, the delay in approving additional support undermines U.S. credibility with its allies and sends a signal to adversaries like Russia that America’s commitment may be wavering. This gridlock not only weakens the U.S. stance in international conflicts but also creates political friction within the country, as domestic and foreign priorities become entangled. These instances highlight the delicate balance leaders must strike between responding to domestic political pressures and managing international conflicts, demonstrating that impulsive or reactionary decisions, without careful strategy, are ill-suited to the complexities of global geopolitics.

The U.S. plays a pivotal role in maintaining global order, and its electoral cycles inevitably shape this role. Elections matter because they determine whether the U.S. will take an active stance in addressing global conflicts or retreat to a more isolationist approach. This impact is precisely why adversaries like Iran and Russia work so hard to interfere with U.S. elections, knowing that the outcome could shift the global balance in their favor. Both stances have their consequences. Inaction, as history has shown, often makes matters worse, allowing adversaries to grow stronger and conflicts to escalate. Decisive action, however, can stabilize regions, support allies, and, as seen in the current conflict in Ukraine, even boost the domestic economy.

Ultimately, U.S. elections are not just about who will lead the nation for the next four years; they are about shaping the world. The choices made by voters and the policies implemented by their elected leaders have ripple effects far beyond American borders. As global conflicts evolve, the intersection of politics and geopolitics becomes ever more critical, determining not just the fate of nations abroad but the economic and security landscape of the U.S. itself.