In a few hours — or within days — the ballot box will reveal who will become the world’s most powerful leader: a semi-literate, narcissistic man with little regard for culture, or an educated woman who has climbed the ranks from prosecutor to senator to vice president through intelligence and resilience. This person will hold the nuclear codes, with the capacity to wage devastating war or establish lasting peace.
Back on July 4, 2000, I wrote an article for a London-based Arabic newspaper just before the presidential election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, where I predicted Trump would lose. I was one of the few who foresaw his defeat. Now, as we stand one day before this year’s historic election, I find myself predicting again, based on reason and reflection, that logic will prevent a man like Trump from reclaiming the White House. Tomorrow’s president will be Kamala Harris.
As Hegel once observed, “What is rational is real, and what is real is rational.” Trump’s rise in 2016 was logical within its context and therefore became reality. However, his tenure has defied logic through actions that have alienated allies, emboldened dictators, and stirred unrest. His continued leadership became unsustainable, and his detachment from reality paved the way for his electoral defeat, as polls later confirmed.
A Legacy of American Presidents: The Good, the Bad, and the Exceptional
The U.S. has seen great and honorable leaders like Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy — presidents Americans can take pride in electing. On the other hand, presidents like James Buchanan, Warren Harding, and George W. Bush left less commendable legacies. Buchanan’s divisive and prejudiced policies led to the Civil War; Harding’s administration was marred by corruption, and Bush aligned closely with a few neoconservatives who drew the world into turmoil. Still, each of these presidents possessed at least some qualities that served the nation. Trump, however, embodies only the worst qualities: corruption, ignorance, prejudice, and vanity.
Trump’s presidency was unprecedented in American history. American presidents, regardless of their political leanings, have traditionally prioritized the nation’s interests over personal gain, acting as stewards of the whole population. Trump, however, placed personal interest above national security, aligning with adversarial leaders like Vladimir Putin while attacking democratic allies. He withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council, UNESCO, the Paris Climate Agreement, and defunded the World Health Organization, all while strengthening ties with dictators and maligning America’s democratic institutions.
A Unique Path to Power
Trump’s path to power was aided by a segment of less-educated, more intolerant white Americans, a natural inclination for political turnover every eight years, and a public appetite for an outsider untainted by political tradition. His opponent in 2016, Hillary Clinton, was both a woman and a polarizing figure — and Americans may not have been ready for a female president, especially one with Clinton’s level of notoriety.
The U.S. electoral system also played a role, allowing candidates to win the presidency without a majority of the popular vote. This system put Trump in the White House despite Clinton receiving 2.2 million more votes, a situation similar to when Al Gore won more votes than George W. Bush but ultimately lost the 2000 election.
A Changing American Perspective and Foreign Policy Shift
America has moved away from its post-Cold War self-image as a global model, embracing isolationism and skepticism toward traditional alliances. Under Trump’s populist leadership, the Republican Party now favors “Americanism” over globalization, especially in economic and foreign policy.
The global landscape has shifted as new powers, including China, Russia, Iran, and India, seek to establish a parallel pole to the Western-led alliance. Yet, it remains unclear who would willingly align with such a bloc, given the authoritarian regimes at its helm.
As a Syrian and Middle Eastern observer, I am particularly interested in what these shifting dynamics mean for my home country and region.
Implications for Syria, the Middle East, and U.S. Democracy
Trump’s approach to Syria has been marked by volatility and an inconsistent strategy — from his rapid missile strike in 2017 in response to chemical attacks to a pivot toward disengagement. While his swift response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons showed a willingness to confront the regime, he later began withdrawing U.S. troops, referring to Syria as “quicksand” for American forces. If re-elected, Trump may accelerate the pace of withdrawal, creating a vacuum for Iran and Russia to expand their influence. With his focus on strengthening ties with Gulf states, notably Saudi Arabia, Washington’s investment in Syria may continue to diminish, favoring alliances in the broader Gulf region.
In contrast, Harris, though not a cure-all for Middle Eastern issues, brings a fundamentally different approach. Unlike Trump, Harris emphasizes strategic diplomacy and maintains a limited U.S. presence in Syria. Her potential administration may push for a diplomatic solution that could initiate a transitional phase involving both regime and opposition representatives, eventually paving the way for a new Syrian constitution.
Thus, for Syrians, the U.S. election offers little hope for a dramatic shift in policy, but the contrasting stances of Trump and Harris highlight potential impacts on regional stability. Trump’s re-election could mean greater regional competition as he draws back from direct involvement, while Harris may encourage a gradual move toward stability through diplomatic channels. As Election Day approaches, the stakes for Syria and the broader Middle East remain significant, with the region’s future partly hinging on America’s leadership choice.
Key Differences on Middle East Policy: Israel-Palestine and Iran
On Israel and Palestine, Harris distinguishes herself by tying her support for Israel to minimizing civilian casualties and ensuring humanitarian aid access. While affirming Israel’s right to self-defense, she may advocate a more balanced stance, supporting Israel but also addressing humanitarian crises in the region. Harris supports a two-state solution, offering a more neutral mediation approach compared to Trump’s unreserved support for Israeli policies.
With Iran, Harris favors diplomatic engagement but is prepared to keep “all options on the table” regarding nuclear containment, emphasizing talks and sanctions as levers to curb Iran’s regional ambitions. However, given regional tensions and Hezbollah’s influence in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, her administration could adopt a more assertive stance to check Tehran’s power in the Middle East.
Trump’s “America First” doctrine and drive to reduce the U.S. presence abroad might reshape the balance of power in the region, allowing Russia, Iran, and Turkey to consolidate influence in Syria. Harris’s approach, by contrast, leans toward cautious diplomacy and limited engagement, which may yield incremental results unless reinforced by a solid containment strategy.
A Broader View: What’s at Stake for U.S. Democracy
From a wider perspective, prioritizing the future of democracy globally, the only logical choice is to prevent Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office. His re-election risks a troubling era for the U.S., the Middle East, and the world at large.
A second Trump term could reshape American politics, threatening press freedom, gun safety, reproductive rights, immigration, and gender protections. Trump’s aversion to the mainstream media could lead to intensified attacks on press freedom, with possible punitive actions against certain outlets. Biden’s gun safety initiatives, including the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, may also be dismantled.
On abortion, Trump might revive the Comstock Act of 1873 to enforce national restrictions on abortion medications. His immigration policies could see radical changes, with proposals for mass deportations and military enforcement at the border. Further, a Trump re-election could lead to harsher crackdowns on protests, undermine NATO, and destabilize global alliances, promoting a conservative agenda domestically and internationally, affecting fundamental rights and global stability.
For these reasons, I am confident Americans will choose wisely, leading to Harris’s presidency as of noon on January 20.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
