On October 1, 2024, coinciding with Iran’s unprecedented missile assault on Israel, Secretary of State Antony Blinken published an article in Foreign Affairs asserting that the Biden administration had significantly strengthened U.S. geopolitical standing since 2020. This claim stood in stark contrast to a prior article by National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, who had prematurely declared the Middle East as more stable than it had been in decades—an assertion proven wrong just days later following a catastrophic attack by Hamas on Israel, resulting in over 1,200 deaths. The administration’s narrative has faced significant critique for attempting to rewrite history and present a façade of success in national security strategy, which many experts, including Fleitz, argue has instead escalated global instability.
Fleitz highlights the stark increase in geopolitical tensions under the Biden administration, noting the elevated risks of nuclear conflict involving Russia, growing hostility between Israel and Iran, and the looming threat of Chinese aggression toward Taiwan. The supposed “Biden Doctrine” has emerged as an illusory concept, with supporters of the administration attempting but failing to convince the public that relations with allies improved post-Trump. Evidence suggests otherwise, with many allies still questioning America’s reliability. With the resurgence of conflicts and increasing global crises, it has become evident that Biden’s approach has not fostered the stability promised by his supporters.
Critical failures related to incompetence, policy reversals, and a naïve worldview characterize what Fleitz terms the Biden/Harris foreign policy. He cites the president’s apparent cognitive decline, particularly visible during international engagements, and the overall ineffectiveness of his national security team. The failed diplomatic engagements with countries like Russia and China have sent troubling signals to global leaders, damaging perceptions of U.S. authority and resolve. As a result, leaders around the world often disregard U.S. appeals for cease-fires or strategic dialogues. Fleitz argues that this ineptitude has contributed directly to the erosion of American deterrence capabilities in an increasingly tumultuous global landscape.
The impulsive rejection of Trump-era foreign policies has also reverberated throughout the international arena. Biden’s reversals included the lifting of important sanctions and dismantling negotiations with North Korea, all of which seemed to neglect the warnings sounded during the prior administration. Key decisions to re-engage with contentious international entities, such as the United Nations and its controversial agencies, have arguably undermined American interests abroad. As the administration sought to present itself as the antithesis to its predecessor, even the most successful policies were carelessly disregarded, leading to a resurgence of threats and turmoil that had been somewhat mitigated under Trump.
Particularly distressing for Fleitz is the Biden administration’s adoption of a far-left globalist agenda, with climate change prioritized as a leading security concern. This ideology has distracted from pressing military and geopolitical challenges posed by countries like China and Russia, ultimately diluting U.S. strategic focus. Such naïveté has not only alienated traditional allies but has also posed serious risks, particularly in the Middle East, where the administration has continued pushing for initiatives such as the two-state solutions despite ongoing violence and hostilities. The administration’s repeated appeasement of Iran, including financial concessions criticized for directly funding hostile actions against Israel and U.S. interests, stands as a blatant betrayal of strategic prudence.
Additionally, Fleitz points to a troubling pattern of arrogance within the administration that has led to serious miscalculations in foreign diplomacy. A notable example is the misreading of Putin’s intentions prior to the Ukraine invasion, emphasizing a general tendency to overlook fundamental realities in international relations. The administration’s simplistic directives have often failed to resonate and have, instead, compounded tensions, as seen in its ineffective responses to Iran and its proxy groups after escalating violence. Despite Biden’s officials attempting to take credit for advances in international alliances, Fleitz argues that these developments are largely a reactive measure to the administration’s own failures.
Ultimately, Fleitz concludes that the Biden administration has fostered a dangerous international environment, bringing the U.S. precariously close to broader conflict involving nuclear powers. With mounting evidence of a failing foreign policy, the American electorate, in the upcoming elections, is unlikely to accept the idealized narrative propagated by Biden officials. As people assess the stark reality of burgeoning crises across the globe, notably in the Middle East and Ukraine, Fleitz remains skeptical that the Biden administration can retain credibility or authority in its foreign policy endeavors.
