When major issues in American foreign policy intersect with election periods, they often spell trouble for the incumbent president. Like several predecessors, US President Joe Biden is dealing with significant challenges like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, some of which were inherited from previous governments, including the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Others, like the Israeli retaliation in Gaza and Iran’s involvement, involve complexities from both current and past administrations. With these significant crises converging during a tense election season, it’s understandable that Biden’s foreign policy is under close examination. Thus, it raises the question of how this administration’s foreign policy might affect voter decisions in the upcoming November elections.

Back to Afghanistan

Many observers believe that President Biden’s foreign policy difficulties began with what has often been labeled the “botched” American exit from Afghanistan. Although this event alone, despite the severe yet preventable consequences that ensued, is unlikely to significantly affect electoral outcomes beyond the concerns raised by some commentators. However, this might not hold true for other global crises currently confronting the Biden administration, particularly its handling of the situation in Gaza. Predicting voter behavior is notoriously challenging, especially well ahead of election day. Yet, examining how international crises have historically influenced voter intentions can shed light on how Americans perceive their global role and the potential impact this perception could have on their selection of a leader in the upcoming election.

Read More: Biden tells Netanyahu that the US will not take part in a counter-strike against Iran

1968 redux?

This year, the Democratic National Convention is set to take place in Chicago, Illinois, echoing the unsettling similarities to the year 1968 when it was last hosted there. That year, amidst a turbulent political climate driven by foreign policy crises, the convention was marked by significant discord.

In 1968, America was grappling with the aftermath of the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy, intense civil rights turmoil, and the deepening conflict in Vietnam. As the Democratic Party convened in Chicago, it faced a profound crisis. The convention was met with large-scale anti-war demonstrations against U.S. involvement in Vietnam, which culminated in violent clashes with police, resulting in the arrest of 650 protesters.

The chaos at the convention contributed to the Democratic nominee, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, losing the presidential election to Richard Nixon.

Today, while the geopolitical context with the Middle East differs significantly from Vietnam, domestically, the Democratic Party shows similar signs of division, particularly over the Biden administration’s approach to Gaza. During the Michigan state primary in February, over 100,000 Democrats cast “uncommitted” votes in a coordinated effort to push President Biden to take stronger action against the violence in Gaza. This is noteworthy considering Biden’s narrow victory in Michigan by just over 150,000 votes in the 2020 election.

As the convention approaches in August, ongoing peaceful protests at Democratic events are expected to persist, reflecting vital democratic dissent. However, media portrayal of these protests is likely to focus on internal party conflicts, potentially affecting public perceptions of President Biden’s leadership and the overall unity of the party.

Iran

Iran has significantly influenced past U.S. elections, and recent events suggest it might do so again. The 1979 Iranian Revolution and the mishandled Iranian hostage crisis are widely considered to have contributed to one of the most significant defeats in modern American political history for then-incumbent Democratic President Jimmy Carter.

In the midst of the Iranian Revolution, a year before the 1980 election, militant students stormed the American embassy in Tehran, taking over 50 Americans hostage. The crisis, which lasted more than a year, unfolded under the watch of seemingly powerless American officials, and a failed military rescue attempt only added to the debacle.

The revolution, alongside the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979, severely undermined Carter’s authority. His Republican opponent, Ronald Reagan, capitalized on Carter’s perceived weaknesses, campaigning on a promise to “make America great again.”

Carter ultimately lost the election in a landslide, similar to Humphrey in 1968. Notably, the hostages were released on the day of Reagan’s inauguration, a timing many believe was not coincidental. Despite conventional narratives of Carter’s weakness, it’s important to recognize that after the failed rescue, his administration undertook lengthy and tense negotiations with Iran, continuing right up until the end of his term. These negotiations eventually culminated in the hostages’ release. There remain substantial questions about the Reagan campaign’s involvement in the resolution of this crisis.

Perceptions matter

The historical specifics of foreign policy crises hold importance, but their perceptions and the narratives around them often have a greater impact on election outcomes. During his presidency, Jimmy Carter was perceived as ineffectual, contributing to a broader sense of American “malaise,” while Ronald Reagan presented himself as a figure of strength and vitality, ultimately leading to Carter’s electoral defeat. Similarly, that loss profoundly influenced the United States’ global role and the course of history.

Following four years of tumult under Donald Trump, Joe Biden sought to reestablish America as a positive global force, assuring Americans that the “beacon” of U.S. leadership could be reignited. However, there’s a risk that Biden’s own foreign policy could weaken this message and his personal appeal. Current polling indicates that around two-thirds of Americans favor an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Yet, Biden’s seeming inability and unwillingness to separate the U.S. from Israeli actions, coupled with his administration’s ongoing support without conditions on military aid, are fracturing the diverse voting coalition that helped him ascend to power. Maintaining this coalition and ensuring voter turnout are crucial for his re-election prospects.

Moreover, perceptions of Biden’s apparent lack of empathy toward the suffering of Palestinian people, especially children, could severely damage the compassionate image he meticulously crafted—a key element of his 2020 voter appeal. This situation places Biden in a double bind. On one hand, he is seen as overseeing a crisis in American moral leadership, with many believing the “international rules-based order” he vowed to uphold is being applied inconsistently, especially to U.S. allies. On the other hand, Donald Trump, once again his opponent, aims to capitalize on perceived weaknesses by projecting an image of decisive strength, appealing to a vision of America regaining unmatched global dominance, reminiscent of Reagan’s rhetoric.

This perception that Biden’s administration is stumbling through one foreign policy crisis after another only strengthens this narrative. Additionally, there are concerns that his foreign policy team is more focused on tallying “wins” and “losses” rather than addressing the deep-seated, structural issues behind these crises. Whether fair or not, combined with other factors like changing perceptions of the domestic economy, these issues contribute to a notably low approval rating for Biden.

In a closely contested race, where polling shows a margin of error that could swing either way, these perceptions become even more critical. As history shows, the mythologizing of these perceptions can significantly influence election outcomes.

Read More: Poll Indicates Majority of Voters Consider Trump’s Hush Money Case Serious

Ahead of the upcoming trial of the former president set to commence next week in New York, a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll indicates that the majority of American voters consider the criminal accusations against Donald Trump, involving purportedly concealing secret payments to a porn star, to be significant.

According to the poll, conducted over five days and concluded on Monday, approximately 64% of registered voters view the allegations as at least “somewhat serious,” while 34% regard them as less important.

The trial, slated to commence next Monday, marks the first of four criminal charges against Trump, who ran as the Republican candidate against Democratic President Joe Biden in the November election.

Legal analysts suggest that the remaining three cases, which involve allegations of election fraud or mishandling of classified documents, are notably more grave compared to the hush money payment allegations.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll indicates that any potential criminal conviction could carry significant repercussions for Trump, who finds himself in a closely contested race with Biden. Trump stands as the first sitting or former US president to confront criminal charges.

Approximately four out of ten Republican respondents perceive the hush money allegations as serious, along with two-thirds of independents. New York prosecutors allege that Trump concealed a $130,000 payment facilitated by his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to porn star Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, in exchange for her silence regarding a purported sexual encounter with Trump a decade prior.

Also Read: The Top Candidates for Trump’s Vice Presidential Nominee Are These

rump refuted the existence of such a meeting and pleaded not guilty. Nearly one-third of Republicans and almost two-thirds of independents surveyed find it plausible that Trump falsified business records and engaged in fraud.

Trump has entered a plea of not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records; notably, he has not been specifically indicted for racketeering, which constitutes a distinct offense under New York law.

Voters seem to regard the charges against Trump in the ongoing trials as more severe. Approximately 74% of registered voters surveyed deem allegations of voter fraud to be serious. Trump endeavors to postpone all four trials.

However, a New York state appellate judge rejected his plea to postpone the undisclosed trial. Around 60% of registered voters in the survey express agreement with the assertion that Trump’s criminal trials should proceed before the November 5 election.

Respondents displayed ambivalence towards this claim, with only 27% of registered voters agreeing with Trump’s argument that presidents should be immune unless they have been impeached by Congress.

Many Republicans shared this perspective, with approximately four-fifths of respondents agreeing that the prosecutions were “excessive and politically motivated.” However, around a quarter of Republican respondents in the poll indicated that they would not support Trump if he were convicted of a felony crime by a jury.

About three-quarters of registered voters in the Reuters/Ipsos poll expressed the view that having a president in office with such significant legal obligations would be “risky.” The survey, conducted online from April 4-8, encompassed 1,021 U.S. adults, including 833 registered voters, nationwide.

More: Trump Media 18% Stock closed down more after filing plans to issue more DJT stock

President Joe Biden and senior members of his national security team, aiming to mitigate the risk of a broader regional conflict following a barrage of Iranian missiles and drones aimed at Israel, have informed their counterparts that the US will refrain from participating in any offensive actions against Iran, as per US officials familiar with the situation.

During a conversation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu late on Saturday, Biden portrayed Israel’s successful interception of the Iranian assault as a significant triumph, suggesting that further Israeli retaliation was unnecessary.

In his phone call with the Israeli prime minister, Biden indicated that Saturday should be regarded as a victory, emphasizing that Iran’s attacks had largely failed and highlighted Israel’s superior military capabilities, stated a senior administration official.

John Kirby, the White House national security spokesman, stated on Sunday that Israel’s ability to avert widespread damage showcased its “military superiority” and undermined Iran’s claims of being a formidable military force.

“This represents an incredible success, truly highlighting Israel’s military superiority and, equally importantly, their diplomatic prowess, showcasing their allies in the region and around the world who are ready to support them,” Kirby informed CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

Another US official stated that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin requested Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to inform the US in advance of any potential response to the Iranian assault.

Despite emphasizing to their counterparts that the ultimate decision on how to react to Iran rests with Israel, Biden has aimed to prevent a broader escalation of the conflict.

On Sunday, he intended to convene a meeting of fellow Group of Seven leaders to discuss a “united diplomatic response”—emphasizing non-military measures to limit the risk of a wider war.

“I informed him that Israel demonstrated an extraordinary ability to defend against and overcome even unprecedented attacks—sending a clear message to its adversaries that they cannot effectively threaten Israel’s security,” Biden stated in a release following his discussion with Netanyahu.

Whether Netanyahu will heed Biden’s advice remains uncertain. The Iranian retaliations occurred amidst heightened tensions between the two leaders due to the Gaza conflict, exposing the limitations of American influence on Israeli decision-making.

Iran’s choice to launch attacks from its own territory towards Israel significantly escalates the longstanding hostility between the two nations. There may be internal political pressure within Israel for some form of response.

Kirby stated that the attack, the first originating from Iranian soil against Israel, does not necessarily signify the beginning of a broader regional conflict.

“We don’t believe it is, nor do we believe it has to be,” he told Tapper, highlighting that both the US and Israel had prior knowledge of Iran’s intentions.

Gallant cautioned on Sunday that the confrontation with Iran is not yet resolved. Israel’s options for response are expected to be thoroughly discussed during a meeting of Israel’s war cabinet.

Hossein Salami, the Commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, issued a warning that Tehran would retaliate directly if Israel responds, stating that a “new equation” has been established.

More: Joe Biden: President Netanyahu making a ‘mistake’ on Gaza