What Does US Middle East Policy Look Like Under Harris or Trump?
By Jeff Charles
Can America Ever Get Out of the Middle East?
As the 2024 presidential election inches ever so closer, the war between Israel and Hamas continues to be part of the national conversation. Specifically, questions about the nature of U.S. involvement in the conflict have been the subject of discussion this election cycle.
Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have both given hints as to their possible approach to the conflict when one of them wins the election. The killing of an Israeli American citizen named Hersh Goldberg-Polin by Hamas has reignited debate over U.S. policy and given a glimpse into the differences between the two candidates.
Harris in a Monday post on X announced that she had met with the hostage negotiation team after news reports about the murder surfaced. She vowed that “Hamas leaders will pay for these crimes,” but also argued that “It is long past time for a ceasefire and hostage deal.”
Trump was more forceful in his response to the news, blaming the Biden/Harris administration for the tragedy.
This happened because Comrade Kamala Harris and Crooked Joe Biden are poor Leaders. Americans are getting slaughtered overseas, while Kamala is disparaging and making up lies about Gold Star families, and Biden is sleeping on the beach on this 16th consecutive day of vacation,
Trump wrote in a post on X.
When looking at the rhetoric coming from both candidates, it is not easy to ascertain many significant differences between how they would handle the situation in the Middle East. Yet, saying that their approaches are the same would not be accurate.
Vice President Harris is running on a platform that would mostly continue the policies of the Biden administration. This suggests she would take a more balanced approach combining strong support for Israel along with diplomatic efforts aimed at working towards a long-term peace settlement.
The Biden administration has been working with Qatar and Egypt to broker a peace deal in the region, especially one that would result in the freeing of Israeli hostages. At various points, prospects for an agreement seemed promising but fell apart. However, as of August, 117 hostages have been returned to Israel as part of prisoner exchange deals or IDF rescue efforts. It is estimated that over 60 hostages remain in captivity.
During a conversation with CNN’s Dana Bash, Harris said she would continue sending aid to Israel as it fights its war against Hamas.
Let me be very clear. I’m unequivocal and — and unwavering in my commitment to Israel’s defense and its ability to defend itself. And that’s not gonna change.
On the other hand, she acknowledged that “Far too many Palestinians have been killed” and insisted that “We have to get a deal done.”
Harris is in a different situation from Trump in that she has to affirm support for Israel while also trying to avoid angering the anti-Israel and pro-Hamas factions within the Democratic Party. This means having to assure the public that she is not against the Jewish state but is willing to criticize its government for its treatment of Palestinian civilians.
There is also the Iran issue, which looms large over the conflict. Terrorist group Hezbollah, which is headquartered in Lebanon, has clashed repeatedly with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on Israel’s northern border but has stopped short of launching a full-on military assault. The organization is a proxy for Iran, which funds its activities in Lebanon and elsewhere.
When Israel killed a Hezbollah commander last month, Harris again asserted that “Israel has a right to defend itself.” She added,
But all of that being said, we still must work on a diplomatic solution to end these attacks, and we will continue to do that work.
Based on her prior stances on Iran, Harris would likely pursue a strategy involving diplomacy aimed at preventing the regime from developing nuclear weapons and expanding its power in the region.
The vice president supported the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action deal between the United States and Iran which sought to rein in Tehran’s nuclear program. She also condemned Trump’s military strike against top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and backed a bill that would have blocked further military action against the country’s leaders.
Foreign Adventurism Past and Present
Even though Harris and Walz have not laid out a detailed strategy for countering Iran’s influence, her past actions suggest she will take a more diplomatic and less antagonistic approach toward the regime. The rhetoric Harris has employed during her tenure as vice president suggests her administration would largely continue Biden’s policies.
However, it is also worth noting that the current administration is still supporting not only the war in Gaza but also funding Ukraine’s war efforts against Russia. Ukraine has no path to victory and continued American involvement in a proxy war with Russia is both existentially dangerous and has all the hallmarks of another forever war. Under President Biden, the U.S. is still supporting Yemen’s war against Iranian-backed Houthi militants in the region.
On the other hand, Donald Trump has vowed to end the war in Ukraine. Trump’s policy in the Middle East could take a more hawkish and unilateral approach to the situation in Gaza, prioritizing Israel’s security with slightly less of a focus on diplomacy. While he was in office, he was a staunch supporter of Israel, as evidenced by his decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
The former president will probably maintain, or even increase military aid and economic support to Israel while sidelining diplomatic efforts with the Palestinians and Iran. While this might rankle some feathers among conservatives who wish to halt all military and financial aid to foreign countries, the overall backlash might be minimal, at least for those who are not solidly in the anti-Israel camp. The fact that Trump started no new wars during his first term while laying the groundwork for the eventual military withdrawal from Afghanistan could reassure the public that he will not involve troops in the Gaza conflict.
The former president on October 11 vowed that if he is reelected, his administration would “fully support Israel defeating dismantling, and permanently destroying the terrorist group Hamas” while declaring that Hamas terrorists “will burn forever in the eternal pit of hell.” He even went so far as to say he would prohibit Gaza residents from entering the United States. This suggests that Trump has no intention of engaging in diplomatic talks with Hamas or any other Palestinian governing authority.
Policy Towards Iran
When it comes to Iran, Trump’s hawkishness will also apply. Unlike Harris, he has been a vocal critic of the Iran nuclear deal. In 2018, he ended U.S. participation in the agreement. “This was a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made,” Trump said at the time,
It didn’t bring calm, it didn’t bring peace, and it never will.
The former president will likely use a more aggressive form of diplomacy to curb Iran’s influence in the region. He could work with partners such as Saudi Arabia and Israel to combat Tehran’s activities. Trump will probably stop short of sending troops to oppose Iran but will not be above using strategic military strikes to hamper the regime’s activities.
Harris would focus more on hammering out a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas while Trump would prefer to help Israel eradicate the terrorist organization as quickly as possible.
The vice president will continue making overtures to the Palestinians, focusing on humanitarian aid and trying to rein in Israel’s attacks that have brought about a tragic number of civilian casualties. While Trump might be less concerned about safeguarding Palestinian civilians, he could make the case that ending the war quickly would minimize the number of noncombatants who are being harmed or killed in the fighting.
The same holds true of U.S. policy towards Iran. Both candidates would use diplomacy to prevent the Iranian regime from amassing more power and influence.
However, Harris is more likely to try working the matter out with Iran directly and indirectly. Trump will take a more hardline approach that could involve increased sanctions and possible military strikes.
In summary, a Harris administration would likely pursue a multifaceted approach in the Middle East, balancing military support for Israel with diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives. Conversely, a Trump administration would likely adopt a more aggressive, security-focused stance with a significant emphasis on military strength and less on diplomatic engagement or humanitarian considerations. Still, it is worth noting that while there are differences in how each candidate would approach the war in Gaza, they are more similar than divergent. Neither will stop providing extensive military support for Israel, regardless of how much turmoil it causes in the Middle East.
