Israelis, if they could, would vote by a large margin for Trump — the polls show that very clearly. But whoever wins, the long-term impact will probably be limited.

Israeli society, not to mention the government, is more opposed to Palestinian statehood and a two-state solution than it has been in decades. No U.S. president is likely to change that. President Harris would probably put more pressure on Israel to reach a cease-fire and open up talks with the Palestinians. But she would be unlikely to, say, cut off military support to Israel.

President Trump would perhaps be less bothered about Israel allowing Jewish settlers back into Gaza, as part of the Israeli government would like to do. He also talks a much more aggressive line on Iran than Harris, which pleases many Israelis. But you don’t quite know which side of the bed he’s going to wake up on. You get the sense he’s more risk averse than he sounds, and he recently appeared to rule out trying to topple the Iranian regime.

Because of that unpredictability, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may feel he can take more advantage of a Harris administration. So the internal Israeli thinking might be more nuanced than it seems.

Russia and Ukraine

Anton Troianovski is The Times’s Moscow bureau chief.

This is an election that matters massively to Russia and Ukraine. Trump has said it is President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine’s fault that Russia invaded. Ukrainians worry that a President Trump would force a quick and dirty peace deal favorable to Russia. They hope a President Harris would continue to support them on the battlefield.

However, in Russia, President Vladimir V. Putin sees much less of a difference between Trump and Harris on Ukraine than we might think. He believes that both Trump and Harris are going to be less committed to Ukraine than Biden.

Putin wants a deal, something that he can call a victory. He believes that Ukraine is a puppet of the United States. So he believes he can only get that deal in a negotiation with the U.S. president. He has publicly backed Harris. That might seem disingenuous, or counterintuitive, but Putin may think he can do business with her.

There is one way in which a Trump victory would unambiguously strengthen Putin: It would mean an America that’s far less engaged in the world and in Europe, which Putin sees as his rightful sphere of interest.

China

Keith Bradsher is The Times’s Beijing bureau chief.

Whoever wins, the next U.S. president will be a hawk on China. But the people I speak to in Beijing are divided about which candidate would be better for China. The trade-off centers on two issues: tariffs and Taiwan.

Chinese economic officials are very aware that Trump has called for blanket tariffs on China’s exports, which could pose a serious threat to China’s economy. This is a country that is enormously dependent on foreign demand, especially from America, to keep its factories running and its workers employed. Manufacturing creates a lot of wealth, and it offsets China’s very serious housing market crash.

Meanwhile, the Chinese foreign policy world sees advantages to Trump’s winning the election.

China feels increasingly hemmed in by U.S. efforts, particularly by the Biden administration, to strengthen alliances with many of China’s neighbors: Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, India and above all Taiwan. Harris would probably continue those efforts. Trump is much less committed to building and maintaining international alliances.

And Trump has also shown much less interest in defending Taiwan. That is very welcome in Beijing.

Europe and NATO

Steven Erlanger is the chief diplomatic correspondent for The Times, covering Europe.

For Europe, this U.S. election feels like the end of an era, whatever the outcome.

Depending on whom you talk to in Europe, a Trump victory is either a nightmare or a gift. Europe’s growing band of nativists — in Hungary, Italy, Germany and elsewhere — regard Trump as the leader of their movement. If he regains the White House, he would normalize and energize their hard line on immigration and national identity.

Meanwhile, most western European leaders are deeply anxious. Trump’s talk of slapping 20 percent tariffs onto everything sold to America, including European exports, could spell disaster for Europe’s economy. And, of course, Trump has repeatedly talked about leaving NATO.

Even if the United States doesn’t formally leave NATO, Trump could fatally undermine the alliance’s credibility if he says, “I’m not going to go fight for some small European country.”

If Harris wins, there is a feeling that she, too, will be preoccupied at home and more concerned with China, and will expect the Europeans to do more for themselves. There is a palpable sense in Europe that Biden was perhaps the last U.S. president to be personally attached to an alliance forged in the Cold War.

Global trade

Ana Swanson covers trade and international economics.

Donald Trump says “tariff” is “the most beautiful word in the dictionary. More beautiful than love, more beautiful than respect.”

So this election is, among other things, a referendum on the entire global trade system, with U.S. voters making a choice that could affect the entire world.

Harris, if elected, would maintain targeted tariffs on Chinese goods on national security grounds. Trump is promising something much, much more aggressive, setting tariff levels that haven’t been seen in nearly a century: 10 to 20 percent on most foreign products, and 60 percent or more on goods made in China.

This would hit more than $3 trillion in U.S. imports, and probably cause multiple trade wars, as other countries retaliate with tariffs of their own. Most economists say we could end up with more tariffs, less trade, lower income and growth — a poorer world, essentially.

Can Trump just do that? Yes, he can. He has broad legal authority. And that would mean the United States is undermining the big international trade rules that it helped to create.

South Africa

John Eligon is The Times’s Johannesburg bureau chief.

There are some interesting differences in how people in Africa see Harris and Trump. Despite the fact that Trump has vulgarly dismissed African countries, some see him as a strong leader who gets things done. In many ways he resembles a lot of autocratic African leaders.

Harris, in Africa, is known for spending time in Zambia when she was growing up, as the granddaughter of an Indian diplomat stationed there. And her being of African descent resonates very deeply. She is seen as being very much of the continent.

Biden — and presumably Harris — wants African countries to decarbonize, because many still rely on fossil fuels for energy. Trump would probably not have that focus, and so his presidency might be desirable for countries that want to continue burning coal and oil and gas, instead of being dragged kicking and screaming into the clean energy transition.

South Africa is feeling a push and pull between the West, where it has the strongest economic ties, and the alliance of BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, among others). It seems plausible that if Trump wins, he will be much more isolationist, and might have no problem watching countries like South Africa and Ethiopia draw even closer to BRICS.

Mexico

Natalie Kitroeff is The Times’s Mexico City bureau chief.

Mexico is facing significant challenges if Trump is elected. There will almost certainly be heightened tensions at the U.S.-Mexico border. Mexico is the biggest U.S. trading partner, and it could face heavy tariffs. And it will be the next-door neighbor of a president who has threatened to use the U.S. military on Mexican soil.

But Mexico anticipates a tough immigration regime whoever wins. Under President Harris, that would probably mean continuity with the Biden administration policies that have become much more restrictive over time. Migration is a shared issue. Migrants from all over the world pass through Mexico to get to the U.S. border, and the United States can’t control the flow of migrants without Mexico’s assistance.

Trump has promised to deport 11 million people, mostly to Latin America — though experts are dubious that such a feat is even feasible. But even a small number of deportations could have huge consequences throughout the region.

Mexico has some leverage. But its leaders could really be backed into a corner by an emboldened Trump. And they know it.

Climate

Somini Sengupta is The Times’s international climate reporter.

The stakes could not be higher. The United States has emitted more carbon than any country in history, and is the second-biggest emitter right now after China. What it does next will impact the entire world’s ability to avert catastrophic climate change.

If Harris is elected, she is likely to press ahead with Biden’s policies of shifting to renewable energy and reducing carbon emissions. Less clear is whether she will restrict oil and gas production, as the United States is now producing more oil and gas than any country ever has.

Trump, if he wins, may not scrap the Biden-era policies altogether. But he could overturn dozens of measures that regulate emissions from cars and power plants, eviscerating the country’s ability to reduce emissions fast enough.

Trump’s actions could also leave China without serious competition in renewable energy technology like batteries and electric vehicles. China is already leading that race.

Whoever wins the U.S. election, the energy transition is already in motion. But speed and scale matter. Trump could slow the transition to a crawl, with potentially disastrous consequences for the climate, and the world.

North Korea, on Wednesday night, launched a long-range ballistic missile toward the Sea of Japan, a day after South Korean officials reported the North was preparing to test-launch an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which reportedly had the longest flight time of any previous test.

Reuters reported that the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement that the missile was launched at a sharply raised angle at 7:10 a.m. local time, from an area near North Korea’s capital of Pyongyang.

The Japanese government later said the missile fell into the sea at 8:37 a.m., or 87 minutes later. 

Japan’s minister of defense, Gen Nakatani said the flight time was likely the longest of any North Korean missile launch and could be a new type of missile.

NORTH KOREA LAUNCHES BALLISTIC MISSILE OFF EAST COAST, SEOUL SAYS

“It is believed the North Korean ballistic missile is a long-range ballistic missile fired at a high angle,” the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement.

The Japanese government said the missile would land about 190 miles west of Okushiri Island, off the northern Hokkaido region, and outside its exclusive economic zone.

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba later stated there was no reported damage from the missile launch.

Nakatani said Japan strongly condemns North Korea’s action, which not just threatened Japan but also the international community.

SOUTH KOREA SAYS NORTH KOREAN LAUNCH OF POSSIBLE HYPERSONIC MISSILE FAILED MID-FLIGHT

FILE – In this photo provided by the North Korean government, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, center, supervises artillery firing drills in North Korea on March 7, 2024.  (Korean Central News Agency/Korea News Service via AP, File)

South Korea’s Defense Intelligence Command said Wednesday that North Korea had placed a mobile launcher in preparation to launch what could be an ICBM around the time of the U.S. presidential election next Tuesday.

The National Security Council (NSC) issued a statement Wednesday night, strongly condemning North Korea’s ICBM test.

“This launch is a flagrant violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions. While U.S. INDOPACOM has assessed it did not pose an immediate threat to U.S. personnel, or territory, or to our allies, this launch needlessly raises tensions and risks destabilizing the security situation in the region,” NSC spokesperson Sean Savett said. “It only demonstrates that the DPRK continues to prioritize its unlawful weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs over the well-being of its people.”

Savett added, “We urge all countries to condemn these violations and call on the DPRK to cease its destabilizing actions and engage in serious dialogue. The national security team is closely coordinating with our allies and partners. The United States will take all necessary measures to ensure the security of the American homeland and Republic of Korea and Japanese allies.”

Although North Korea tested a ballistic missile on July 1, 2024, the last time the country tested an ICBM was in December of last year. The ICBM in December – fueled by solid-propellant and fired from a road launcher – was also fired at a sharply raised angle and had a flight time that could be translated to about 9,300 miles on a normal trajectory, which Reuters added, could put anywhere in the mainland of the U.S. within range.

Reuters contributed to this report.

MEPs travelling to the Azeri capital Baku for upcoming UN climate talks will be issued with disposable phones amid fears of hacking by foreign agents, the Green MEP Michael Bloss has revealed, while expressing concern about slow progress towards ending the fossil fuel era.

“Security advisors have warned us that our devices are likely to be infiltrated—a precaution based on first-hand experiences with surveillance and reprisals in the region,” Bloss told Euronews after briefing journalists on the COP29 summit.

“Even as MEPs, we can’t communicate freely without fearing state monitoring,” said the German lawmaker, who is part of the European Parliament’s 15-strong official delegation to the talks.

The whole delegation will be offered “burner” phones, Bloss’s office confirmed in an email exchange, using a term that usually refers to cheap, anonymous, pre-paid handsets that can be used briefly then discarded.

Use of burner phones ‘happens all the time’

The arrangement appears, however, to be fairly standard. Euronews spoke to a former European Commissioner who said it was standard practice for delegations to be issued with burner phones and laptops set up just for the duration of foreign visits, which are handed back to EU security services upon return.

“There is always a security risk assessment,” said the former senior EU official, who did not wish to be named. “It happens all the time.”

A spokesperson for the assembly said the European Parliament’s services “constantly monitor security and cybersecurity” but, also for security reasons, could not comment further.

While not specifying which states were thought to pose a security risk during the COP29 summit, Bloss – in line with the Greens as a group – made no secret of his reservations about the choice of Azerbaijan as host of this year’s talks.

“To me, it’s clear: Azerbaijan suppresses critical voices and uses the COP as a platform for image management, rather than for genuine dialogue,” the MEP said.

Regardless of the venue, environmentalists and climate activists have long been wary about the presence of the fossil fuel industry at UN climate talks.

Bloss criticised the choice of yet another host country, after Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, whose economy is heavily reliant on fossil fuel exports. “Socar, the gas and oil company of Azerbaijan, has announced that they want to expand their oil and gas drilling,” the MEP noted.

“That’s the opposite of what should be happening,” Bloss said.

Still, tough negotiations at COP28 in Dubai last year ended with a global agreement, to the relief of many, to “transition away” from fossil fuels and “accelerate efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power”.

Although no end dates were specified and questions were asked about the implications of the term “unabated”, the symbolic significance of the move – along with a concrete commitment to triple global renewable energy production by 2030 – was seized upon by many at the time as a major breakthrough.

ADVERTISEMENT

Among them was Danish Climate and Energy Minister Dan Jørgensen, who is due to be grilled by MEPs next week as European commissioner designate for energy and housing. Jørgensen hailed a “huge decision” by global leaders and a “pivotal” moment in the fight against global heating.

The European Parliament’s delegation is not directly participating in the talks, where the European Commission’s team, headed by climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra, will push the EU position as agreed by member states earlier this month.

“There needs to be a clear, regulated end-date for fossil [fuels],” Bloss said. But more ambitious wording on giving up coal, oil and gas, let alone a concrete deadline, appears less likely to emerge in Baku next month.

All about the money

ADVERTISEMENT

The central debate is set to focus on financing: in particular, the EU wants to see contributions from a wider base of countries beyond the handful of advanced economies that have committed to pool $100bn a year to help poorer nations deal with climate change.

Azeri COP29 president-designate Mukhtar Babayev was asked about “full steam ahead” fossil fuel production in his country – as well as last year’s host the UAE and next year’s, Brazil – during a public debate at an annual International Monetary Fund gathering in Washington D.C. last week.

Azerbaijan would provide “continuity of the process” moved forward in Dubai, Babayev said. Baku would also provide a “very big opportunity” for governments to finally close discussions on the setting up of a global system of ‘carbon credits’ that would allow countries to pay others to take climate action on their behalf.

The COP29 summit runs from 11 to 22 November.

ADVERTISEMENT