Biden vs. Trump: What Kind of Leader Do We Want on the World Stage?
Biden vs. Trump: What Kind of Leader Do We Want on the World Stage?
Biden builds coalitions and acts with steady seriousness. Trump’s motto seems to be ‘Ask not what is good for the country. Ask what is good for me.’
THE PAST TWO WEEKS have put on vivid display the differences between President Joe Biden and his predecessor—and would-be successor—former President Donald Trump in the area of national security. Biden quietly made some deft moves aimed at building a safer world. Trump leveraged his power in MAGA congressional circles to obstruct our national security for his personal gain. In terms of both style and substance, the contrast is enormous.
Let’s start with Biden and his mode of handling the enormous complexities of the Middle East. First, he has been deeply involved in the behind-the-scenes movement toward a two-month humanitarian pause in the Israel-Hamas war. On Thursday, Biden announced that he was sending CIA Director William Burns overseas—to Paris it turns out—for talks related to the proposed ceasefire plan. On Friday, the president spoke with Egyptian and Qatari leaders about the developing plan. Then on Monday, NBC reported agreement among Israeli, Qatari, Egyptian, and American officials in Paris on a ceasefire framework that also lays out a timetable for securing the release of the more than one hundred remaining hostages.
Second, on Thursday, Biden administration officials let it be known that they had alerted Iran before the January 3 terror attack in which explosions killed more than 80 mourners at a memorial service for Qasem Soleimani, the murderous head of Iran’s Quds Force. (Iran has denied it received any warning.)
In announcing that Iran had been given a “heads-up” before the attack, Biden administration officials said they were following “a longstanding ‘duty to warn’ policy that has been implemented across administrations to warn governments against potential lethal threats.” Even so, Biden risked political attack at home because Trump has made a political piñata of the Iran policies of both Biden and President Barack Obama.
Maybe Biden’s recent warning didn’t have its desired effect; the Iranian government blamed the United States for the terrorist attack before ISIS took credit and continues to blame the United States now. In addition, the attack in Jordan this past weekend by an Iranian proxy that killed three American servicemen can be interpreted as at least partial retaliation. Biden has said that “We shall respond” and that he holds Iran “responsible.”
Meanwhile, Biden has taken seriously the American role in defending international shipping, forming a coalition to respond to the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels based in Yemen. Striking a balance between the need for strong deterrent action and the desire to avoid escalation requires seasoned, sensible leadership.
In an environment of rapid foreign policy crises, there have, of course, been exceptions to Biden’s steady and effective foreign policy. The disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan stands out. On the other side of the ledger, however, Biden’s declassification and sharing of intelligence prior to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine united NATO and other free countries before the invasion (in contrast to Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 and of Ukraine in 2014), enabling a swifter and more forceful response.
In Europe, while Biden’s rhetorical leadership in response to the largest war there since 1945 could have been more forceful, and his decision-making about when and how to arm the Ukrainians more ahead of the curve, his international leadership is a major reason Ukraine has survived and seen some successes so far.
Biden’s Obama-like attempts to reach a modus vivendi with Iran as it cruises toward a nuclear weapon have been ill-fated for myriad reasons, but his support of Israel after October 7 and deterrence of Hezbollah have been firmer than anyone could have expected from any Democratic president arguably since Harry Truman. And Biden’s repeated promises to defend Taiwan and his revitalization of the Quad with Australia, Japan, and India are supporting deterrence in the Indo-Pacific.
Before the 2020 election, Republicans frequently quoted Robert Gates’s 2014 assertion that Biden “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” One national security expert predicted in 2020 that Biden would “pull our troops from the Middle East and South Asia,” “slash defense spending,” and be dragged along by the “Democratic Party’s hostility to the state of Israel.” Biden’s foreign policy record hasn’t been perfect—no president’s is—but that prediction was way off, and his overall approach has been admirably sober and serious.
BY CONTRAST, TRUMP SPENT LAST WEEK, like so many prior weeks, serving his personal political prospects at the cost of American national security. He’s been working overtime to stymie a once-in-a-generation opportunity to legislate a border security deal in exchange for aid to Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel. A bipartisan resolution of these issues, so goes Trump’s apparent logic, would be good for the country and therefore help Biden. For personal gain, Trump flogs the border issue while he clogs the deal that might help solve it—and America’s allies and global security pay the price. Put more plainly, Trump wants the same outcome from the congressional negotiations as Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and the leadership of Hamas.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) told reporters on Friday:
The fact that [Trump] would communicate to Republican senators and congresspeople that he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it is . . . really appalling.”
North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis called this approach “immoral.”
Republicans have repeatedly claimed that border security is national security. Now Biden is calling their bluff. He told Republicans on Friday, “If you’re serious about the border crisis, pass a bipartisan bill and I will sign it.”
The implications for national security are even clearer with respect to Ukraine aid. As the Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum has written, “The allied fight against Russia in Ukraine has damaged Russia’s ability to project negative power in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.” She has also noted that “Part of the Republican resistance to helping Ukraine fight an American adversary is simply the perverse desire to see President Joe Biden fail.”
And let us not forget the record of Trump’s dangerous actions:
He illegally withheld military support for Ukraine in its war against Russia (resulting in his first impeachment).
He announced to the world that he considered Putin more reliable than the intelligence community.
He risked our key alliances with South Korea and Japan over a small amount of money.
He leaked sensitive intelligence from the Israelis to the Russians.
He tweeted classified photos of Iranian missile sites.
He willfully mishandled nuclear secrets.
He diverted money from the Defense Department to a border wall that he never built (also likely illegally).
He surrendered to the Taliban.
He abandoned American allies in Syria.
He held off-the-record conversations with Putin on multiple occasions.
He indicated that he would withdraw from NATO in a second term.
And just last week, he cozied up to Chinese president Xi Jinping by strongly suggesting on Fox that he (Trump) would not defend Taiwan if China invaded.
Oh, and he attempted a coup.
IN THIS YEAR’S ELECTION, the country faces a choice between a president willing to take political risks for the country in national security matters and a former president who wants to win regardless of the risks to the country.
The foreign policy records of Biden and Trump are reminders that, as important as it is to consider a candidate’s policy proposals and experience, what really matters is character. Confronting surprises, emergencies, catastrophes, and crises is a major—perhaps even the predominant—aspect of the president’s job.
The candidates, like the voters, cannot see the future. The most important thing is for us to try to choose a president who will respond to the unforeseen with honor, strength, integrity, and prudence. Back in 2020, California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff summed up Trump’s character succinctly when he argued for Trump’s conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors: “You know you can’t trust this president to do what’s right for this country. You can trust he will do what’s right for Donald Trump.”
Americans should keep that truth in mind whenever he delivers a campaign promise, and particularly when it comes to our national security.
 | A guest post by
|