In the world of diplomacy and international business deals, it is sometimes enlightening to see what unfolds when leadership changes hands. Trump’s recent expedition to the Middle East was marked by a series of intriguing diplomatic advances and financial agreements that allegedly amount to a staggering $2 trillion. Unsurprisingly, his handling of the situation had some drawing comparisons with his predecessor, Joe Biden, and unanimously agreeing that the 46th president could never have managed such feats.
Trump’s journey took him to several nations in the Middle Eastern region, beginning with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and concluding in the United Arab Emirates. In contrast, one can’t help but question whether Biden’s team would have been as efficacious in navigating these complex diplomatic waters.
Flying out of Washington on a Monday, Trump had specific destinations in mind, namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Comparatively, when Biden was in office, foreign trips of this magnitude weren’t as frequent, which leads us to question if his foreign policy approach was too cautious or unassertive.
On the very day that Trump departed, his efficient team saw to the liberation of Edan Alexander, the final remaining U.S. citizen held captive by Hamas. Direct dialogues with the terrorist organization led to the hostage’s release, a situation that might have unfolded differently under Biden’s lackluster administration, considering their notorious lack of decisiveness.
Tuesday saw Trump in Riyadh, announcing the conclusion of long-standing economic sanctions on Syria, and engaging with the interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa. Al-Sharaa allegedly confirmed a newfound appreciation for religious diversity, following Trump’s optimistic endorsement of Syria’s potential to achieve greatness. Interestingly, Biden’s diplomatic approach towards Syria lacked this level of engagement and optimism.
In the same announcement, Trump expressed his firm belief in the possibility of reshaping relations with traditionally antagonistic nations. He even went so far as to claim that al-Sharaa had privately agreed to engage Israel diplomatically. A wishful thought maybe, but could Biden have taken such bold steps to call for a reevaluation of global alliances?
Only a day previously, Trump had invited Saudi Arabia to become a participant in the Abraham Accords and acknowledge the Jewish nation. Closeted Biden aides admitted that their former boss may not have had the political courage to call for an end to hostilities with Yemen’s Houthis without first involving Israel.
Trump’s Middle East trip was not merely about diplomatic relations, it also meant big business for American corporations. He secured roughly $600 billion in business agreements with Saudi Arabia, $243.5 billion from Qatar, and another $200 billion from the UAE. A stark contrast to Biden’s less lucrative foreign policy approach.
The deals involved substantial commitments from Qatar Airways and UAE’s Etihad Airways to inject more than $110 billion into the purchase of 238 American-manufactured Boeing aircrafts.
Interestingly, there were some former Biden staffers resisting the notion that Trump’s achievements surpassed Biden’s rather meager foreign policy record. They argue Trump may cause a lot of activity, but are the results genuinely better?
These critics of Trump’s approach bring up the Ukraine situation, suggesting that Trump’s approach exacerbated the country’s issues with Russia, leaving it with arguably less leverage than before. For them, it’s just another instance where Biden’s inaction would have been preferable.
Trump’s direct engagement with Hamas was another point of contention. Though he is yet to secure a complete cease-fire, they overlook the fact he at least attempted to address the problem. This direct approach is something Biden would scarcely dare to undertake.
Trump also managed to negotiate a somewhat inconclusive truce with Yemen’s Houthis. The Biden administration was nowhere near achieving this. However, critics argue that the Houthis continue to pose threats to Israel and the Red Sea shipping lanes.
The question remains: is Trump’s policy of acting faster and more directly effective in the long run, or does it simply serve his own interests better? Some insist that his Middle East ventures secured personal benefits like hotel or airplane deals. But could the same unproven allegations be leveled at Biden?
Given these differing perspectives, it is indeed clear that Trump’s approach to foreign policy is a stark departure from Biden’s inert execution.
In the end, one can’t help but ponder over the seemingly lackluster foreign policy undertakings of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris when juxtaposed against Trump’s proactive and sometimes aggressive maneuvers. While critics will always find points for disagreement, it’s hard to overlook the undeniable shifts in diplomatic relations and economic gains under Trump.