Foreign policy is not normally a decisive factor in election results, but in a closely contested race, its influence may surpass the norm, particularly in determining the results of the Electoral College. The results of the 2024 US presidential election on November 5, 2024, and the subsequent inauguration of the winner on January 20 will be determined by several factors.

The Electoral College Dynamics

In the United States, candidates compete for the popular vote across all fifty states. However, the final result is determined by the Electoral College, a system established by the "Founding Fathers." The Electoral College consists of 538 members, and a victorious candidate must secure the support of at least 270 members. Thepurpose of the Electoral College is to prevent highly populated states from having an overwhelming influence on election results, and address concerns about the general public's ability to make informed choices between candidates based on merit. 

Fulfilling the electoral college requirement is often complex due to the diverse voting patterns across states which are influenced by factors such as demographics, ethnicity, economic characteristics, etc. A candidate's policy position may gain popular support in one state but harm their chances in another. It is worth noting that in six presidential elections, the winners lost the popular vote but still won the Electoral College and became president. The most recent examples of this were in 2016 (Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton) and 2000 (George W. Bush vs. Al Gore).

The 2024 Determinants

In the event that the 2024 presidential race is between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, the political landscape is poised for heated and closely followed campaigns. With both candidates having distinctively varying policy approaches feeding into the increasing polarization of public opinion, the election could hinge on how each addresses the current foreign policy challenges facing the US, as well as the traditionally paramount economic issues and perceptions.

1. Public discontent:

Recent trends in several elections have shown that voters tend to vote against the status quo and political elites. For example, Democrat Barack Obama defeated Republican John McCain, in part, as an antidote to resentment towards George W. Bush's policies. Similarly, Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, who Democrats considered too "establishment." In the most recent election, Joe Biden's appeal was rooted in nostalgia for tradition and a desire for respite after four nerve-racking years of Trump's presidency.

In the upcoming election, public discontent with both Trump and Biden appears to be rapidly rising. Accordingly, Republican candidates are positioning themselves as alternatives to Trump's persona, albeit without clearly disassociating themselves from his positions to forgo his popular base, while Democrats express a preference for a rejuvenated alternative to Biden. 

Republican candidates are positioning themselves as alternatives to Trump's persona, without clearly disassociating themselves from his positions to maintain his popular base. Democrats, on the other hand, express a preference for a rejuvenated alternative to Biden. Despite the overall sentiment of discontent with the current candidates from both parties and Trump's involvement in numerous legal battles, he still retains significant public support. He surpasses and faces Republican competitors for the party nomination, where recent polls indicate that he has more public support than his competitors, whether Republicans or Democrats. Moreover, there are no significant competitors to Biden in the Democratic Party, who currently has no competing candidates for the Democratic party nomination.

If Trump or Biden are ultimately the candidates, their success or failure may hinge on the other candidate's unpopularity than on the appeal of their own character and policies. Additionally, the incumbent will also have to carry the burden of a sluggish American economy and the negative public perceptions that come with it.

2. The economic factor:

In the upcoming 2024 elections, economic factors are expected to play a crucial role in shaping voters' attitudes and perceptions, ultimately determining the election outcome. 

On one hand, Trump, known for his pre-pandemic economic policies characterized by tax cuts and deregulation, may highlight his track record of promoting market-driven economic policies and increasing employment rates throughout his campaign. On the other hand, Biden, facing the aftermath of the pandemic, may emphasize his administration's efforts towards economic recovery, infrastructure development, and social welfare programs. 

The contrasting economic approaches of the two candidates are anticipated to be central in voters' decision-making processes, reflecting the broader national concerns regarding fiscal policies, unemployment rates, and overall economic well-being.

3. Foreign policy:

The electorate's choices will be influenced by two significant factors: perceptions of the economy and lack of affinity towards a particular candidate. While no foreign policy issue has enough support to independently and substantially sway the popular vote, it is important not to overlook the implications of these issues. Specifically, it is crucial to analyze how they could impact the Electoral College, which ultimately determines the next American President.

The Republican candidates position themselves as leaning right of center, often characterized as "Trump light." With the exception of Nikki Haley, the former US Ambassador to the United Nations, all candidates lack significant international relations experience. While there may be slight variations between these candidates on foreign policy issues such as NATO and possibly Russia, it is prudent to assess the future foreign policy positions of the respective parties based on the parameters set by Trump and Biden.

A. The Transatlantic Alliance and Ukraine: The positions of Trump and all the Republican candidates align with the "America First" approach, which is synonymous with an isolationist stance. This alignment is mainly driven by budgetary and financial concerns, as evidenced by the stronger call for NATO countries to fulfill their military expenditure commitments. Consequently, this may impact the extended support for Ukraine amid the rising costs of inconclusive operations. Notably, during Trump's past presidency, most leaders of NATO member-states had strained relations with him.

In contrast, Biden and the Democrats will continue to embrace an alliance-driven foreign policy, with NATO at its core, which is now viewed as revitalized due to the Ukrainian crisis. However, Biden is expected to tone down his "democracies vs. autocracies" rhetoric, which has not resonated well or provided concrete foreign policy dividends.

As the US contends with "Ukraine fatigue" in 2024, diplomatic overtures are more likely in the second half of the year or, at the latest, in early 2025. This is particularly true if Trump is elected, given the perception of Ukraine as Biden's war. With Putin expected to secure reelection in 2024, Trump's more favorable relations with him could facilitate diplomatic engagement in Ukraine and overall relations with Russia. 

B. Relations with China: The US political establishment, including both Republicans and Democrats, views China as a significant strategic challenge to American national security, particularly in the realms of nuclear weapons, space, and artificial intelligence. The relationship between the two countries is expected to remain sensitive, although Biden has been able to stabilize it in recent weeks. It is, however, anticipated that Trump or other Republican candidates will likely pursue a similar China policy, which involves strong competition but is fundamentally confrontational in nature.

C. The Middle East: Amidst the contradictory patterns of dialogue and confrontation, the Middle East is bound to be a prominent issue in the upcoming American presidential term. Both candidates will approach relations with the Arab world in a highly transactional and pragmatic manner, seeking short-term benefits and curbing Chinese influence in the region. 

In North Africa, the focus will primarily be on deterring Russian expansion, while in Syria, it will be on deterring Iranian expansion. Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Iranian Nuclear Deal, and Biden's attempt to resume it was unsuccessful. However, both administrations only used force in response to American personnel casualties. Future policies are expected to follow similar patterns, with less emphasis on the nuclear deal. 

Support for Israel will remain strong irrespective of who is elected President of the United States. However, the ongoing crisis in Gaza presents a potential complication, especially so if it escalates into a wider regional conflict with Israel drawing in Hezbollah or if Houthi engagement becomes too robust. The Gaza crisis has once again brought the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to the forefront of American interests.

Trump proposed a novel approach to the conflict, focusing on Arab Israeli relations and proposing an economy-centric pro-Israel plan. However, his claim to offer a two-state solution lacked credibility. In contrast, Biden frequently reiterated the importance of a two-state solution and normalization, but he unwaveringly supported Israel even during its operations in Gaza, which involved blatant violations of international and humanitarian law. 

Both candidates will continue to provide unconditional support to Israel at the expense of the Palestinian cause. Neither candidate is willing to expend political capital and will to support the creation of a Palestinian State, although Biden more frequently asserts that the two-state solution is the preferred outcome. Both candidates aim to pursue greater Arab Israeli relations as a political goal. 

Potential Foreign Policy Impact

Trump has a solid foundation of unwavering supporters and vocal detractors. These two groups are not greatly influenced by foreign policy considerations or Trump's coarseness.

In contrast, Biden is experiencing a decline in support from the more progressive faction of the Democratic Party across the country. This shift could have significant consequences, potentially resulting in the loss of a state's electoral votes if the numbers are substantial enough to influence the outcome. One of the primary reasons for this diminishing support is Biden's position on Gaza and his refusal to call for a ceasefire despite Israel's indiscriminate bombing, which has caused numerous deaths and injuries, affecting tens of thousands of people.

While the Arab American constituency is smaller and less influential compared to its Jewish American and Evangelical counterparts, it is important to analyze the potential negative consequences of their positions in swing states. Michigan serves as a prime example, as it has traditionally been a Democratic stronghold with a significant Arab American community, yet it was won by Trump in 2016. With 15 electoral votes currently at stake, Michigan could play a crucial role in determining the outcome of a close race in the Electoral College, especially if Biden and Trump are the main contenders.

It would be quite ironic to see Arab Americans becoming a game-changer in the elections after generations of having little influence on election results in America, challenging historical norms. The candidates' unequivocal support for Israel may unexpectedly become a liability in the election results, adding a layer of complexity to the unfolding narrative. The trajectory of this impact remains uncertain; we will have to wait and see.