November 02, 2024
By Nasser Kandil
• It’s rare to find a political article today that doesn’t mention the anticipation surrounding the U.S. presidential election results, but is this influence truly as substantial as implied?
• The United States undeniably plays a direct role in nearly every global crisis. From the regional wars fueled by unwavering U.S. support for the occupying entity, to America’s military presence in Syria and Iraq, to the tense, nearly confrontational cold war with Iran – aggravated by the role played by the occupying entity under U.S. supervision, aimed at curbing Iran’s rising regional influence. Beyond the region, major crises with Russia and China stem largely from American support for Taiwan and Ukraine.
• The U.S., as a formidable power, has the ability to prolong wars or to de-escalate them. So, can the presidential election indeed shape American policy direction, and to what extent? This time, the competition is between Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump.
• Trump, who once championed an “America First” agenda aimed at reducing U.S. involvement in foreign wars, did not significantly realise this vision during his first term. His administration continued many of the interventions started under his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, particularly in Syria, where the conflict was at its peak. Trump even had to walk back two decisions to withdraw from Syria.
• Regarding support for the occupying entity, Trump appears even more extreme than the Democrats. However, while he might offer staunch political backing and echo Israel’s positions uncritically, this is unlikely to bring any significant shift in the wars waged by the entity, as the current Democratic administration under President Joe Biden has already provided robust financial, military, intelligence, and diplomatic support while exerting pressure on international courts to favour the entity. Mobilising American forces directly in these wars, however, remains a line neither Biden nor Trump would likely cross. Thus, Trump’s potential return to office would offer symbolic support for the entity, but would not alter the balance of these wars.
• Harris’s remarks about prioritising an end to the Gaza war also lack substance. In the end, would she be willing to exert genuine pressure on the entity to cease hostilities? The answer is clearly no, rendering her statements essentially meaningless.
• The U.S. military, intelligence, and financial machinery is governed by a deep state backed by massive economic conglomerates, with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies as its core and operational arm. This apparatus is unified across both parties and candidates’ camps, driven by the entrenched interests of America’s imperialist project. Thus, the impact of changing the name at the top will remain minimal.
