Let’s lay out a few facts: Donald Trump twice inherited heightened global instability from previous administrations. Specifically, he faced increased tensions with North Korea, ongoing conflict and chaos in the Middle East—much of which escalated during the Obama years—and further complications from Biden’s team, many of whom were also involved in earlier policy failures, it’s clear that Trump stepped into office at a time when international threats and regional turmoil were already on the rise.
Middle East Policy: The Role of Iran and U.S. Leadership
One of the most misguided foreign policy approaches in recent history was the belief that Iran could serve as a stabilizing force in the Middle East. The Obama administration’s strategy, which involved providing Iran with substantial financial resources and effectively permitting the continuation of its nuclear program beyond Obama’s tenure, was founded on the premise that a “balance of power” among Iran, the Sunni Arab states, and Israel would yield stability. However, this assumption overlooked the reality that Iran is a revolutionary power rather than a stabilizing influence, and much of the turmoil in the Middle East can be traced directly to Tehran’s actions.
When President Trump took office, he inherited an emboldened and aggressive Iran, fortified by financial assets provided through previous U.S. policy decisions. To address this, Trump imposed sanctions that significantly damaged the Iranian economy and sought to curb its regional influence. Conversely, the Biden administration reinstated aspects of the earlier Obama-era Middle East policy. As a result, Iran and its proxies in Syria, Yemen, Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon once again became sources of instability and conflict throughout the region.
A chronological review of recent Middle East geopolitical developments illustrates shifting alliances and U.S. foreign policy challenges. On September 15, 2020, the Abraham Accords were signed, normalizing relations between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, with later participation from Sudan and Morocco; this marked a significant diplomatic breakthrough in the region. However, in subsequent years, Saudi Arabia began exploring deeper economic ties with China, evidenced by reports in 2022 and 2023 of discussions around settling some oil trades in Chinese yuan, rather than exclusively in U.S. dollars—a move interpreted by some analysts as a response to perceived inconsistencies in U.S. policy and a desire for diversified security partnerships (Wall Street Journal, 3/15/2022; Reuters, 3/16/2023). Critics of U.S. policy argue that a return to Obama-era strategies under the Biden administration contributed to Saudi Arabia’s pursuit of alternative alliances, while others contend that global economic trends and China’s growing influence played a substantial role. During his presidency, Donald Trump positioned himself as a mediator in Middle East conflicts, notably supporting Israel and applying pressure on Iran through sanctions. While Trump’s administration reportedly encouraged restraint by Israel during periods of heightened tension with Iran and advocated for negotiations, accounts of direct U.S.-brokered cease-fire interventions remain subject to debate among foreign policy experts (New York Times, 1/3/20f20; Brookings, 2/5/2020). Supporters argue that Trump’s approach fostered new diplomatic opportunities, while critics highlight ongoing instability and question the long-term effectiveness of his policies. Experts need to understand that Israel restraint and wiliness to cooperate with Trump is that Israel understand Trump has its back plus many Arab nations view Iran as a threat to them. Overall, the evolving dynamics underscore a complex interplay of regional interests, great power competition, and shifting U.S. engagement in Middle East affairs. Trump thinking outside the box has rearranged America foreign policies.
Ukraine- This was yet another disaster Biden left Trump as the Ukraine has been fighting for their survival in a war that Biden weakness allowed to happen. When Biden pulled out of Afghanistan the way he did, it sent a message to Putin this is not a serious man and when Biden said that if Putin made a small excursion that is okay and Putin understood that to mean Biden would do nothing. In the Obama first administration Putin took Crimea and a portion of Ukraine, and it was the Obama administration that essentially allowed the Budapest accord which was to secure Ukraine borders in exchange to be rid of their nuclear weapons. Obama did not view defending Ukraine in our national interest even though he supported the orange revolution that allowed a Putin ally leading Ukraine to be ousted. When Putin marched into Crimea, Obama made it clear that Putin excursion would not be opposed. Trump now has to deal with the fall out of Obama and Biden failures in foreign which Trump inherited a major war in Europe and the Middle East along with America weakness exposed. There is more to dissect in the foreign policy area. The world is a more dangerous place and Biden foreign policy is to blame.
U.S. Foreign Policy and the Ukraine War: A Chronological Analysis
Obama Administration and Ukraine: Budapest Accord, Crimea Annexation, and U.S. Response
The roots of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine can be traced back to the geopolitical landscape shaped during the Obama administration. In 1994, the Budapest Memorandum was signed, wherein Ukraine agreed to relinquish its inherited Soviet nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia regarding its territorial integrity. However, when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, the U.S. response under President Obama was limited to imposing sanctions and diplomatic condemnation, rather than direct military support. While the Obama administration supported Ukraine’s pro-Western aspirations, including backing the Euromaidan protests and the ouster of a pro-Russian leader during the 2014 Orange Revolution, it stopped short of providing lethal aid. Critics argue this measured approach failed to deter further Russian aggression, while others contend that escalation could have risked broader conflict with Moscow.
Trump Administration: Inheriting Challenges and Policy Actions
When Donald Trump assumed office in 2017, he inherited a Ukraine still grappling with Russian occupation in Crimea and ongoing conflict in eastern regions. The Trump administration took a more assertive stance by approving the sale of lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine—such as Javelin anti-tank missiles—a departure from previous policy. Trump’s approach included maintaining sanctions on Russia and supporting NATO’s deterrence measures in Eastern Europe. However, his administration was also marked by controversy, notably the temporary withholding of military aid to Ukraine in 2019, which became the subject of his first impeachment. Supporters argue that Trump’s policies strengthened Ukraine’s defense capabilities, while critics suggest that the aid delay sent mixed signals about U.S. commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty. The overall impact of these policies remains debated among analysts. (One should not forget that Biden did threatened to withhold aid if a prosecutor who was investigating a company in which his son was involved in with and earning million dollars a year. Biden bragged about this in a recorded conversations.)
Biden Administration: Policy Shifts and Implications for Ukraine
President Joe Biden took office in 2021 amid escalating tensions between Russia and Ukraine. His administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 was widely criticized for its execution, with some analysts suggesting it projected an image of diminished U.S. resolve internationally. In early 2022, as Russian troop buildups near Ukraine intensified, President Biden stated that a “minor incursion” by Russia might be met with a different U.S. response than a full-scale invasion, a comment that drew scrutiny for potentially signaling ambiguity to Moscow. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, the Biden administration responded with robust military, economic, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, along with unprecedented sanctions on Russia. While some argue that earlier, clearer deterrence might have prevented the invasion, others note that Russia’s actions reflect long-standing ambitions that transcend U.S. policy alone. That latter point fail to mention that Putin didn’t invade Ukraine during the Trump administration. One reason could be Americans Marines had encounter with Russian mercenaries in the Middle East and as the UK Independent reported, “The artillery barrage was so intense that the US commandos dived into foxholes for protection, emerging covered in flying dirt and debris to fire back at a column of tanks advancing under the heavy shelling. It was the opening salvo in a nearly four-hour assault in February by around 500 pro-Syrian government forces – including Russian mercenaries – that threatened to inflame already simmering tensions between Washington and Moscow…In the end, 200 to 300 of the attacking fighters were killed. The others retreated under merciless air strikes from the US, returning later to retrieve their battlefield dead. None of the Americans at the small outpost in eastern Syria – about 40 by the end of the firefight – were harmed.” Putin may have concluded that Trump might be more willing to oppose him military.
Complexity of International Relations: Multiple Factors and Perspectives
The causes of the Ukraine war are multifaceted, involving a combination of Russian strategic objectives, NATO expansion debates, and international security assurances. Some experts assert that each U.S. administration’s choices—whether restraint, engagement, or ambiguous signaling—shaped the context for Russian decision-making. The evolving conflict underscores the challenges of deterrence, alliance management, and the unpredictability of authoritarian actors in the international system. A comprehensive understanding requires examining not only U.S. policy decisions, but also the broader dynamics at play in Eastern Europe and beyond.
The Donelson Files 