The 2024 presidential election has arrived, and the American people are stuck between two candidates that represent the culmination of years of political division and dysfunction. As flawed as Vice President Kamala Harris and her fellow Democrats may be, one thing is clear: former President Donald Trump is not the better choice. His administration’s track record was marked by questionable domestic policy decisions involving the environment, healthcare, tax reform, and even an unwillingness to embrace the peaceful transfer of power. However, it is his administration’s hawkish vision for the United States’ foreign policy that is my greatest concern. The Trump administration’s executive actions to cover up civilian death tolls and a reckless urgency to strike foreign adversaries just for revenge reinforces why he cannot be trusted to guide the country forward at such a critical time. It is imperative that the American people do not give Trump a second term.
In this election cycle, the Harris campaign is struggling to win over Arab-Americans. Recent polling shows more Arab-Americans are leaning toward Trump. The criticism they, along with many progressives have, is with the Harris campaign being unwilling to distance themselves from the Biden administration’s “unwavering” support of Israel’s military operations in Gaza. In the 2024 Democratic primaries, over 100,000 voted uncommitted. With nearly 400,000 Arab Americans in Michigan, a key swing state, a potential shift towards Trump could cost Harris the state, and ultimately the entire race.
While it may be tempting to punish the party that is currently in the White House for their heartless complicity to the ongoing crisis in Gaza, it is crucial to consider the alternative candidate and what their administration would mean for the entire Middle East. Even with the Democrats’ refusal to push back against Israel’s military operations, Trump and his fellow Republicans are much more aligned with a hawkish military agenda. It is imperative to elect the candidate with the least aggressive approach. Leaders with cautious foreign policy agendas tend to prioritize diplomacy, alliances, and multilateral cooperation. This reduces the chances of unintended consequences that may arise from hasty military actions.
In 2019, the Trump administration reversed an Obama-era order requiring civilian casualty reports from airstrikes. Hiding reports on civilian death counts from drone strikes sets a dangerous precedent, because it absolves the U.S. military from accountability and significantly obscures public awareness of the true costs of foreign intervention. This lack of transparency will encourage more reckless policies, aggravating hostilities abroad and making it harder for the public to hold lawmakers accountable for their decisions.
Compared to the Republicans, Democratic leaders are able to exercise greater restraint in foreign policy decisions. In April 2024, after Israel bombed Iran’s embassy in Syria, Iran had launched 300 missiles at Israel, many intercepted with U.S. support. The Biden administration subsequently announced the U.S. would not “participate in a reprisal strike on Iran.” This angered many neoconservatives like former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who said that it is “reprehensible” to not support Israel in a “retaliatory strike against Iran.” Bolton’s frustration with Biden’s decision reveals the aggressive stance typical of Trump-era foreign policy, where figures like him prioritized military action over diplomacy.
Bolton isn’t the only former Trump administration official supporting American military aggression against Iran. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former Vice President Mike Pence wrote a joint opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal wherein they argue for the American government to “strike back at Iran” by targeting “Tehran’s nuclear program, navy, and oil infrastructure.” The Iranian government has extremely close ties to China and Russia; any American strikes on Iran’s capital has the potential to trigger an even greater international conflict. If Trump returns to the White House, the war hawks in his next cabinet will likely add fuel to the flame that is the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, which will tragically but inevitably only result in more needless civilian casualties.
Donald Trump is not fit to be the president of the United States. His administration has and will cause irrevocable damage to this country and wreak havoc aboard. Whether it be through a reckless drive to escalate conflicts abroad or a disregard for the humanitarian toll, a second Trump term poses too great a risk for the future of the U.S. At a time when America needs a leader who prioritizes transparency, diplomacy, and stability, the dangers of Trump returning to the Oval Office far outweigh the discontent from the shortcomings of Harris. A Harris presidency will in large part, closely resemble the administrations of both Barack Obama and Biden. Despite their flaws, Obama was able to provide more transparency than Trump by requiring records on the death toll from drone strikes. And the Biden administration’s decision to not send retaliatory strikes on Iran proves that the Democrats are more willing to embrace diplomacy than Republicans. Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney to show that there is a bipartisan effort to protect American democracy is not equivalent to Donald Trump actively hiring hardline military interventionists like Bolton and Pompeo. This election demands a decision grounded in caution and foresight. We cannot afford to gamble with a leader that has repeatedly and recklessly jeopardized both domestic and international stability.
