These countries have the most at stake as the U.S. heads to the polls

The world is watching the U.S. presidential election as voters go to the polls Tuesday, but the vote is more consequential for some countries.

For some nations, the vote could make the difference between war and peace, stability and volatility, or prosperity or economic weakness. That situation is even more pronounced for Ukraine, whose territorial integrity could even be at stake.

Here we take a look at some of the countries with the most to win or lose from the election whoever enters the White House, be it Republican former President Donald Trump or Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris.

China is undoubtedly the United States’ biggest economic rival, and the enmity shows little sign of waning, whoever becomes the next U.S. president.

Trump has already threatened to revive a trade war that began during his first term in office, in which he imposed $250 billion worth of tariffs on Chinese imports. Trump defended the measure as a way of reducing a yawning trade deficit with China, and to boost American jobs and competitiveness.

With its ongoing war with Russia, and Kyiv largely reliant on foreign military aid to enable it to keep fighting, Ukraine will be watching the election closely, as will Moscow.

It’s widely agreed that a Trump administration and hard-line Republicans would be far more hostile toward granting Ukraine more military aid, significantly inhibiting its ability to continue to fight back against Russia.

Trump has also boasted he could end the war in 24 hours if elected, signaling that he would pull the plug on Ukraine funding in order to force it into a negotiated settlement with Russia. That would likely mean the relinquishing of almost 20% of its territory in the south and east that’s currently occupied by Russian forces.

Choosing to continue to fight without U.S. support could mean Ukraine loses even more land, however. The U.S. election for Ukraine is, therefore, an existential one.

“The U.S. election may well force the hand of the Ukrainians, as a Trump win will immediately lead to a change in American policy orientation and much more direct pressure for Kyiv to negotiate. Which means the Ukrainians may soon have to decide if they want to break from their most important military supporter or not,” Ian Bremmer, founder and president of Eurasia Group, said in emailed comments Monday.

It’s likely that even a Kyiv-friendly administration under Harris, who has pledged to continue supporting the war-torn nation, could struggle to pass more financial support for Ukraine, depending on which party dominates Congress.

Harris said a future administration of hers would support Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” but neither she nor Washington has clearly defined what that statement means, what a Ukrainian victory looks like, or whether there is a limit to U.S. aid.

The Middle East, however, is an area in which Trump’s and Harris’ foreign policy positions might be more aligned — both candidates pledged continued U.S. support for Israel as it pursues Iranian proxies, the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah in Gaza and Lebanon, respectively, while also pushing for the conflict to end soon.

Iran has threatened to retaliate against Israel’s large-scale missile strikes on the country’s military facilities last month, meaning that a cycle of tit-for-tat exchanges between the adversaries could continue into the fall.

Trump recently cast himself as a “protector” of Israel, promoting his past support for the country at the Israeli-American Council summit in September and suggesting that Israel faces “total annihilation” if he isn’t elected, without backing up the claim. He also caused a stir by telling the audience that “anybody who’s Jewish and loves being Jewish and loves Israel is a fool if they vote for a Democrat.”

Trump gained popularity in Israel during his first term in office after breaking with decades of U.S. tradition by formally recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. He also officially recognized the disputed Golan Heights area of the country as being under the sovereignty of Israel, garnering further praise.

A poll conducted last week by the Israel Democracy Institute found that almost 65% felt that Trump would be better for Israeli interests, far above the 13% who felt Harris would be better. Just over 15% said there was no difference between the two candidates, while 7% say they didn’t know.

Harris has been accused of taking an ambivalent stance on Israel after her criticism of the country’s military strategy, saying the loss of life in Gaza in the last year was “devastating” and “heartbreaking.”

Harris has tried to dispel the Republicans’ characterization of her as anti-Israel, stating in August that she she would “always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself,” as well as deploring Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks last year.

As for Iran, regional and Western officials told Reuters they believe a Trump presidency would be bad news for Tehran, with the potential for Trump to give the greenlight to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to strike Iran’s nuclear sites — a move vetoed by Biden — conduct targeted assassinations, and reimpose his “maximum pressure policy” through more sanctions on its oil industry.

Harris, meanwhile, is seen as far more likely to continue Biden’s foreign policy stance if she wins office, to de-escalate tensions. She said herself in late October that her message to Iran after Israel’s latest strikes would be, “do not respond” and that “there must be a de-escalation in the region.”

Ambassador Mitchell B. Reiss, distinguished fellow at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, commented Monday that a Harris administration would not deviate too much from its current course.

“We do not know her world view, her policy preferences, even her choices for senior Cabinet positions.  My best guess is that President Harris would largely continue Joe Biden’s foreign policy, prioritising good relationships with allies and friends, and placing a heavy emphasis on diplomacy,” Reiss said.

“What would a second Trump term look like? Here, we have a better idea.  We already know that Trump views the world more in personal and transactional terms than in strategic terms. 

He is skeptical about U.S. commitments to allies and sending U.S. troops overseas — he is not committed in the same way that previous presidents have been to the traditional role the U.S. has played in constructing and leading the liberal international order that has brought us so much peace and prosperity since WW2,” Reiss noted.