JNS
The vagaries of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are not clear when it comes to one of the most volatile regions in the world.
What do we know about the next president’s Middle East policy? Not much.
While we may not yet know the outcome of the presidential election as you read this, one thing is clear: The future of U.S. policy towards Israel and the Middle East remains shrouded in uncertainty. Partisans will tell you their candidate will be Israel’s best friend and the other candidate its enemy. We can make inferences based on Vice President Kamala Harris’s involvement in the Biden administration and Donald Trump’s tenure in the White House; however, if you examine what each said during the campaign, you will find a void.
Democrats talked about Harris being in the room with the president when he made all his foreign-policy decisions to suggest that she was ready to be commander-in-chief. However, evidence has yet to be presented to substantiate her influence on Mideast policy. Nevertheless, Republicans want to blame her for Biden’s perceived shortcomings in support for Israel, positioning her as a scapegoat amid increasing tensions.
Simultaneously, Harris was blamed by the far-left, antisemites and other critics of Israel for Biden’s support of Israel. Her events were frequently disrupted by anti-Israel protesters, and reporters repeatedly asked about her attitude towards Israel and the war in Gaza, with protesters often disrupting her events. For critics of Israel and the war, she was complicit by virtue of her being part of the administration, and they wanted her to dissociate herself from Biden’s policies and say she would not support Israel and cut off U.S. aid. Harris was in a difficult position throughout the campaign because, as vice president, she needed to remain loyal to the president while still hoping to distinguish herself. When asked what she would do differently, Harris said, “There’s not a thing that comes to mind.”
What has she articulated about her approach to Israel?
On Oct. 7, she rightly affirmed Israel’s right to self-defense. As the war dragged on, she became more outspoken about ending it. Repeatedly, when pressed, she expressed a version of this formulation:
This year has been difficult, given the scale of death and destruction in Gaza and given the civilian casualties and displacement in Lebanon, it is devastating. And as president, I will do everything in my power to end the war in Gaza. To bring all the hostages, end the suffering in Gaza, ensure Israel is secure and ensure the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination. … Israel must urgently do more to facilitate the flow of aid to those in need. Civilians must be protected and must have access to food, water and medicine. International humanitarian law must be respected.”
She didn’t say how she would end the war or bring the hostages home. She talked about needing a ceasefire but not how to achieve that either. Calling for a two-state solution has long been a U.S. policy mantra (Jewish Republicans ignore that it was in Trump’s peace plan), but Harris offered no hint as to how she would pursue it or why she would succeed where every other president has failed. It was pandering to the left just as her mantra about ironclad support for Israel was to the Jews.
Harris said she opposed cutting aid to Israel but indicated a willingness to pressure it. “I am entirely supportive of the pause we have put on the 2,000-pound bombs. There is some leverage we have had and used.”
Interestingly, while the Democratic platform expressed support for the Abraham Accords, Harris didn’t say anything about whether she would strengthen it or seek to expand it to other countries. While Biden has been negotiating a deal for the Saudis to normalize relations with Israel, Harris hasn’t said anything about whether she would try to seal the deal.
Harris spoke out against anti-Israel protesters who burned American flags, replaced others with Palestinian flags and vandalized a statue with pro-Hamas graffiti, calling these “despicable acts by unpatriotic protesters.” She said, “I condemn any individuals associating with the brutal terrorist organization Hamas, which has vowed to annihilate the State of Israel and kill Jews. Pro-Hamas graffiti and rhetoric is abhorrent, and we must not tolerate it in our nation.”
Regarding Iran, she said, “I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, in particular as it relates to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel.” She also said, “Make no mistake, as president, I will never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to defend American forces and interests from Iran and Iran-backed terrorists. And I will never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. Diplomacy is my preferred path to that end. But all options are on the table.”
She does not explain how she would prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Given her closeness to Biden’s position, it will not be surprising if she has similar clashes with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over what is best for Israel.
That’s it for what we know about Harris’s Middle East policy.
Whether you agree or disagree with Trump’s approach to the Middle East in the first term, there is no assurance it will be the same in the second term. Key architects of his Middle East policy, notably by his son-in-law and former senior adviser Jared Kushner, are not expected to be part of a second Trump administration.
Unlike Harris, Trump did not face protests or questions about what he would do about Gaza, and he never told us. Without expressing sympathy for the Palestinians, he did say, “Get your victory and get it over with. It has to stop, the killing has to stop.”
He told Netanyahu, “It has to get over with fast.”
“I will give Israel the support that it needs to win, but I do want them to win fast, wouldn’t it be nice if they could win fast? And we have to let them win fast. We will restore civility and peace to the Middle East.”
“I want to see the Middle East get back to peace and real peace, but a peace that’s going to be a lasting peace, and that’s going to happen,” he said, suggesting that he could bring it about because he “was respected over there” and had “great relationships with so many.” It was unclear who he was talking about.
He told Netanyahu, “If we win, it will be very simple. It’s all going to work out and very quickly.”
Trump also warned that Israel would be annihilated if Harris was elected, and that he would be Israel’s “big protector.”
He never explained what his policy would be to either help Israel win the war or what he would do if it didn’t end as quickly as he wanted, that is, before his inauguration. He said he thought negotiations could free the hostages but didn’t mention any terms. He did say he believed “very few hostages” were alive.
Hoping to build on his most significant foreign policy success, Trump said he would bring at least a dozen other countries into the Abraham Accords. More eye-opening was his inclusion of Iran among them. “I would have gotten, in my opinion, a 50/50 chance, maybe more than that, Iran would have been in the Abraham Accords. ... They wanted to make a deal so bad until we had that phony election.”
Netanyahu appeared on the outs with Trump after the prime minister infuriated the former president for his victory in the “rigged election.” Trump also said that Netanyahu had “dropped out” of a joint operation to kill Qassem Soleimani, Iranian commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, in January 2020. Trump blamed Netanyahu for the Hamas attack occurring on his watch and for his conduct of the war. Ironically, Trump annoyed Netanyahu by thanking Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas for sending him a get well soon message after the attempted assassination. Netanyahu later went to Mar-a-Lago, and the two began to speak on the telephone, suggesting all was well again.
Trump supporters were thrilled that he pulled out of the Iran nuclear agreement in May 2018 but have been silent regarding his new position. “We have to make a deal because the consequences are impossible,” he said.
Like Harris, he said he wouldn’t allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon and indicated that he expected Israel to take care of the problem. In response to a question about Biden pressuring Israel not to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, he said: “That’s the thing you want to hit right? I said I think he’s got that wrong, isn’t that the one you’re supposed to hit? It’s the biggest risk we have, nuclear weapons, the power of nuclear weapons. When they asked him that question the answer should have been, ‘Hit the nuclear first and worry about the rest later.’”
After the second assassination attempt, Trump said, “If I were the president, I would inform the threatening country, in this case Iran, that if you do anything to harm this person, we are going to blow your largest cities and the country itself to smithereens.”
Neither candidate offered a strategy or vision for the region or how they would address the myriad problems unrelated to Israel or Iran, such as countering Russian and Chinese influence, Turkish belligerence and Qatar’s malevolent behavior.
Who the winner chooses as their advisers will also influence their policies, but that is the subject of a column after we know who our next president will be.
