An expansive and fast-changing American socio-political landscape, marked by significant shifts, has drawn my attention for the past few years. The lack of clarity in American politics and the polarization between presidential candidates have further motivated me to address the 2024 presidential race, which Americans will traditionally vote on the "Tuesday next to the first Monday in November," specifically the 5th of the month.

Despite these compelling developments, I have repeatedly procrastinated putting pen to paper for several reasons. As a former diplomat, I generally prefer not to engage in pre-election analysis because it is, first and foremost, a domestic issue. Nevertheless, given the United States' repeated public and private pronouncements on elections worldwide, including in my own country, I felt compelled to ultimately transgress this preference and comment, especially considering the widespread consequences of American election results on global politics.

A Complicated Landscape

Pending legal and health questions surrounding the primary presidential candidates, along with the unresolved status of their running mates, have only exacerbated my procrastination. Trump's nomination feels like an anticlimactic surprise. Intolerant and abrasive towards anything that does not serve his interests—including his last election loss to President Joe Biden—Donald Trump now faces numerous unresolved legal issues and is also a survivor of a failed assassination attempt.  Although never warmly embraced by Republicans, their support appears driven by fear of the groundswell of public backing he has garnered.

Recently, Trump was confirmed and nearly coronated as the Republican candidate. For his running mate, he has chosen the ambitious J.D. Vance, a Senator from Ohio who was once one of his harshest critics but has since become a born-again Trumpist. Vance is known for his stringent opposition to foreign assistance, including aid to Ukraine. As a charismatic and multifaceted speaker, he has the potential to carry the MAGA baton long after Trump.

Ironically, the Democratic Party has faced more challenges than its counterpart in rallying around an incumbent president after a devastatingly weak debate performance against Trump in early July, compounded by lackluster interviews prior to announcing positive COVID tests. Some prominent Democratic figures and fundraisers quickly called on Biden to withdraw. In response, the President, along with a close cohort of advisors and family, asserted his intention to run, positioning himself not only as a capable candidate but also as the contender with the best chance to defeat Donald Trump, whom they depicted as the devil incarnate. However, they toned down their rhetoric following the assassination attempt.

Amid these circumstances, various options were considered for who might be a strong alternative and potential running mate in the upcoming presidential race. Ultimately, Vice President Kamala Harris was selected as the alternative to President Biden, with Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota considered as her running mate. A significant number of Democrats had initially refrained from commenting publicly, hoping for the best while worrying about the presidential race and its ramifications for the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress.

Over the weeks, polls fluctuated between Biden and Trump. However, after the debate and the recent attempt at Trump's life, sentiments seemed to be leaning in his favor. Ultimately, Biden succumbed to pressure from fellow Democrats and announced that he would refrain from running for a second term, and now polls put Harris and Trump head to head. Nevertheless, it remains too early to make confident, evidence-based predictions about who will be the next President.

Considerations for Future Outcomes

Irrespective of the election results and the candidates' identities, there are several important and interesting conclusions that foreign partners and adversaries should reflect upon. Among them are the following points:

• The United States is searching for its political identity. On one hand, the Trump/Vance ticket embodies an anti-establishment, anti-elite mantra. On the other hand, the Harris/Waltz would represent a return to traditional, established foreign policy, particularly regarding U.S. allies.
• The United States is in a transitional phase, with an increasing number of young and Hispanic voters. If Trump is elected, he will likely serve only one four-year term, while other candidates and running mates, such as Kamala Harris and J.D. Vance, are from a different generation. Both are under 60, indicating that a shift in mindset is not far off.
• Politically, America is becoming less interventionist, even though it remains more willing to engage overseas than most countries. Whether under Trump or a Democratic president, there will be a reluctance to allocate American resources beyond its borders, particularly regarding deploying troops.
• Trump may be more open to engaging with Russian President Vladimir Putin than Harris or any Democratic president. However, either contender will face pressure to avoid getting entangled in an endless war in Ukraine.
• NATO is likely to welcome almost any Democratic alternative, as Trump and Vance are viewed as problematic due to their belief that America bears too much of the burden while its allies benefit.
• Neither Democrats nor Republicans can economically delink from China. However, Democrats appear tougher, having already implemented various economic sanctions while formally remaining committed to the One China Policy. Trump is expected to raise issues of economic competitiveness. The real challenge will be America's response to tensions involving China in the Philippines, Taiwan, and the South China Sea. Notably, China has gradually and sophisticatedly expanded its influence.
• Regarding the Middle East, Democratic and Republican positions are currently very similar. Both parties are unwaveringly committed to Israel, despite Biden's administration's unease with Netanyahu. While both would prefer to resolve the Israel-Palestine issue, neither will compromise their principles for the sake of right and wrong. Thus, a two-state solution will remain elusive, even more so under Trump.
• The Democratic candidate's general approach will involve quiet diplomacy and a soft touch to prevent further deterioration in the Middle East and the outbreak of wider conflicts, particularly those involving Iran. Trump, conversely, will employ loud diplomacy alongside a soft approach to achieve similar goals.
• Both Democrats and Trump will adopt a transactional stance in dealing with North Africa, the Levant, the Arabian Gulf, and regions like Sudan, Yemen, and the Red Sea. The former will focus on countering Russian and Chinese influence, while the latter will place greater emphasis on China.
• Democrats will be more amenable to engage in multilateral arrangements, whether through the United Nations or beyond, such as resuming strategic arms negotiations with Russia or China. Trump, however, will be less inclined to participate in complex, extended negotiations. Given the transitional nature of the next administration, no significant developments in this regard are expected.

In conclusion, it is now advisable for states to engage with America as it undergoes a significant transition phase, marked by the emergence of a younger generation of political leaders with whom they must navigate.