As America approaches one of its most pivotal elections, the stakes extend beyond its borders, affecting allies, trade partners, and adversaries. The world watches, wondering whether the United States will embrace an unpredictable but well-known candidate like Donald Trump, or a largely unknown prospect like Kamala Harris, whose policies remain ambiguous and untested on the global stage. For many, Trump’s track record – while contentious-offers a degree of clarity that Harris has yet to provide. Supporters argue that Trump’s return could secure America’s priorities, bring decisive leadership, and allow for a stronger, clearer international posture.

Critics label Trump’s foreign policy unpredictable, but supporters point out that his direct approach has clarified US positions on key issues. His unapologetic stance on national sovereignty, his skepticism toward multilateral agreements, and his no-nonsense approach to military alliances resonate with Americans who prioritize a robust, self-reliant America. During his first term, Trump firmly asserted America’s dominance and avoided entangling foreign commitments, an approach that he framed as “America First.”

Trump’s critics often point to his skepticism of NATO. However, his pressure on European allies to meet their defense spending commitments was a move long overdue, according to many defense analysts. European nations began shouldering more of the financial burden, which strengthened NATO overall, even as Trump criticized the organization publicly. His push for “fair share” contributions made allies more self-sufficient and less dependent on American resources, an approach some argue is pragmatic rather than isolationist.

In contrast, Harris’s stance on defense and international commitments remains ambiguous. Though she has echoed support for NATO, it’s unclear whether she would demand stronger financial commitments or favor multilateral cooperation without accountability.

In the Middle East, the landscape is complex, but Trump’s policies have consistently leaned toward protecting US interests while fostering alliances with key regional players. His landmark Abraham Accords normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations, a monumental achievement that reshaped alliances and opened channels for dialogue, trade, and economic cooperation. Trump’s critics worry that his approach may favor Israel too heavily, but his supporters see his loyalty to America’s closest ally in the region as a positive asset.

Meanwhile, Harris has indicated support for a two-state solution, but her stance on issues such as the annexation of the West Bank and aid distribution to Israel and Palestine is unclear. Her position on Iran, a major Middle Eastern adversary, is also murky. Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign, while controversial, had tangible results: Iran’s economy struggled, and its regional influence weakened. Harris’s potential shift back to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) could reopen paths for Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, which many conservatives argue is a serious security risk.

Perhaps one of the most defining aspects of Trump’s first term was his willingness to confront China on trade issues, intellectual property theft, and economic influence. He implemented tariffs to counter China’s practices, making it clear that America would not tolerate being undermined in the global market. For supporters, this approach was a necessary correction to decades of complacency in US-China relations. Trump’s policies reduced trade deficits and pressured US companies to bring jobs back to America.

Harris’s approach to China, on the other hand, remains mostly untested. As a former California senator, she has experience dealing with Silicon Valley, which relies heavily on Chinese manufacturing, but this does not provide insight into her broader trade or security policies. Critics argue that her commitment to “cooperation” and diplomacy could allow China to gain a stronger foothold economically and technologically, to America’s detriment.

Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement was criticized internationally, but many Americans applauded it as a rejection of economic policies they felt would hurt American jobs. Trump’s environmental policy focuses on balancing development and regulation, giving energy companies leeway to produce at home. His critics argue that this approach jeopardizes long-term environmental goals, but his supporters see it as a clear prioritization of American industry and energy independence.

In contrast, Harris would likely renew America’s commitments to international climate change agreements, potentially rejoining the Paris Agreement and introducing regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions. However, her stance raises concerns among Trump supporters who fear that renewed climate commitments could burden American businesses and disadvantage the US economy on the global stage.

It is no secret that America faces significant domestic polarization. Both candidates have a role to play in addressing this issue, but many argue that Trump’s confrontational style may actually bring clarity to issues that the American public has long avoided discussing. He has not shied away from addressing issues of immigration, free speech, and religious liberty, often with provocative language that resonates with his base.

In contrast, Harris has often taken a more ambiguous stance on domestic policies, including issues surrounding free speech on campuses, gun control, and religious freedom. Her supporters claim that her approach is unifying, but critics argue that it lacks the conviction necessary to bring clarity to these deeply divisive topics. Trump’s supporters believe that his willingness to address these issues head-on could lead to more tangible solutions, even if the path forward is difficult.

The world’s preference is clear: a stable, reliable US that actively participates in global security, defends democratic values, and leads the free world. Trump’s policies may be controversial, but they offer a sense of predictability in their clarity and firmness. He is a known entity with well-defined policies on defense, trade, and diplomacy, and he has a track record that demonstrates his commitment to protecting American interests.

In the face of an unknown candidate whose policies remain vague, Trump’s predictability could be the stabilizing factor America needs. His “America First” policies may have ruffled feathers, but they have also encouraged allies to become more self-reliant, pressured adversaries to rethink their strategies, and bolstered America’s standing as a sovereign leader. Many conservatives argue that a strong America under Trump could serve as a cornerstone of global stability.

Ultimately, the election will determine whether Americans prefer the certainty of the known-or the mystery of the unknown. For those who support Trump, his bold, if sometimes unconventional, approach offers America a clear path forward, protecting its interests both at home and abroad. While the world waits with bated breath, Trump’s supporters believe his leadership can guide the nation through turbulent times, providing clarity, strength, and a renewed commitment to America’s place in the world.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel