Both parties are less dangerous when they are in opposition to the government. Because whatever administration is in power will undoubtedly pursue imperialist goals while the other party if sufficiently enraged will put up some opposition, not out of principle but out of political contrarianism. Slight differences exist such as Republicans being better at political obstruction, whereas the Democrat base is more likely to go out and protest.

But on the whole i don't know that it makes much difference who sits in the White House, and in any case i would suggest that in order to impede the ability of the US to do damage around the world there needs to be maximal internal political destabilization in the US. Not allowing any one party to monopolize power for too long is conducive to this, in particular switching administrations frequently while the society as a whole is politically highly polarized.

It takes a new administration time to establish itself, get rid of the other party's appointees and put its own lackeys into positions of power. This usually gives us about a year time when they are not yet ready to launch major imperialist ventures. Ideally the ruling party should also lack a majority in either house for maximal dysfunction. This should happen at the latest with the midterms, and usually does because both parties are highly averse to keeping their campaign promises to the voters.

The point is that no matter which party is in power the foreign policy will not change, but maybe they can be sufficiently distracted dealing with problems at home.

I was just typing out something similar. I think liberals would absolutely be giving Trump a much harder time than they are Biden over his unconditional support for these atrocities. If Congress had the same composition it does today, I think Democrats would throw up whatever barriers they could to, at least performatively, put guardrails on the president's unfettered support of Israel. They were pretty upset when he moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, but never had any intentions to move it back to Tel Aviv.

Dems would, in my mind, be demanding conditions for weapons sales, more of them would be calling for a ceasefire, they'd draw far more attention to specific instances of the IOF's and Israeli government's barbarism, the complicit media in both Israel and the US, and we'd likely see more vocal support for the pro-Palestine protests going on around the world. I'd wonder if other Western nations would make similar noises criticizing Trump. Would Dems still end up endorsing the inhuman actions they're supporting in this version of reality? Probably. They are still the running dogs of the empire after all, and very much bought and paid for, but I'm certain there would be a much more visible effort to at least appear to have some semblance of morality vis a vis "Bibi's best friend Donald" and the "GOP crazies"—especially with an election on the horizon where Trump wouldn't even be on the ballot. It's too good to pass up, and the optics make them look humane which is a tough thing to do.

The longer this goes and the more nakedly deranged the Biden regime becomes, the more I feel the "Trump would be doing a thousand times worse!!" excuse holds little to no water. The best case you could make on that point is that the natsec ghouls might be able to act through him more effectively because he's a nationalist and a moron, but is that truly any worse than the natsec ghouls doing that already with a president who is an active participant in the game? It's truly insane how the circumstances have brought us to a point where one could credibly argue that Trump would be the harm reduction candidate on this.