Following Joe Biden’s decision to drop out, the focus now shifts to the upcoming US elections, recently tipped in favour of Trump. Although Kamala Harris has not been officially nominated, her support from numerous Democratic Party leaders, including former President Obama and his wife, as well as many financiers, suggests a potentially intense race between Trump and Harris.
This situation raises questions about which candidate would better serve the Middle East, particularly concerning key issues such as the Gaza conflict, Iran, and the withdrawal of US troops from the region. This article aims to analyse and compare the candidates’ policies to address these questions.
If we examine Kamala Harris, we see that her involvement in Middle Eastern affairs has been limited. As vice president, her focus was primarily on domestic issues while Biden managed crises in Israel, Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon, and other areas.
While she has visited Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, and the UAE, these visits are not sufficient for deep foreign policy experience. Compared to Biden, Obama, Clinton, Bush, or other previous presidents, Harris lacks extensive political experience. Therefore, her foreign policy is expected to align with the general Democratic Party policies and those of both Obama and Biden, under whom she served.
Regarding Gaza, Harris has reiterated the Biden administration’s stance on the security of Gaza and Israel, as well as the reconstruction and governance of Gaza post-conflict. She emphasises the need for a clear political vision for a future Palestinian state under a reformed Palestinian Authority, indicating her support for a two-state solution.
However, given her longstanding support for Israel’s security and right to self-defence, it is unlikely that Harris will take significant action on the Palestinian issue. She has made it clear that Hamas will not control Gaza in the future.
In 2017, as a senator, Harris co-sponsored a Senate resolution condemning the UN Security Council’s resolution that labelled Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal. Notably, Harris and other members of the Biden administration have not publicly addressed the feasibility of achieving the desired two-state solution.
On Iran, Harris criticised Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, calling it “reckless.” During her 2019 presidential campaign, she pledged to rejoin the agreement. Harris also opposed the Trump administration’s assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, emphasising the protection of American troops and regional stability.
Despite these statements, the circumstances have evolved significantly, particularly with Iran’s ability to withstand American sanctions and the growing alliance between China, Russia, and Iran. Consequently, Harris’s limited experience in managing such a complex situation poses a significant challenge in the Middle East.
Regarding the withdrawal of US forces from Syria and Iraq, Harris has criticised Trump in the past for pulling out US troops from northeastern Syria in 2019. However, in light of the recent October 7 conflict that put US forces at risk, she may now be inclined to align with the Biden administration’s stance on the matter.
The Biden administration has recognised the diminishing need for US military presence in the region and is contemplating a withdrawal from the Middle East. Such a move could potentially pave the way for Iran’s increased influence in the area, presenting a worrisome scenario for Washington, fraught with unforeseeable outcomes.
On the other hand, while it may be challenging to anticipate Trump’s actions due to his penchant for surprises and skill in crafting ambiguous statements to appease various groups, his unique charisma stems from these qualities. However, his actions during his initial term provide a foundation for analysing his strategies and future direction in the Middle East.
Regarding Gaza, during his first term, Trump aligned with Israel, ultimately undermining the two-state solution. Trump’s actions clearly demonstrate his unwavering support for Israel, starting with the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital in December 2017. This was followed by relocating the US embassy to Jerusalem in May 2018 and appointing David M. Friedman, a staunch Zionist, as ambassador.
Friedman’s advocacy for illegal settlements and opposition to a two-state solution further solidified Trump’s pro-Israel stance. The decision to cut aid to UNRWA in 2018 was another tactic to pressure Palestinians into accepting the regional peace plan and recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The signing of the Abraham Accords in September 2020 marked a significant milestone in normalising relations with Israel, bolstering Israel’s position in the region.
Based on the information presented, it is foreseeable that in the event of Trump’s return to the White House, his administration would offer unwavering and comprehensive backing to Israel, further solidifying Israel’s standing in the region. This administration, characterised by discriminatory practices, would likely align itself with extremist factions in Israel, aiding in the suppression of resistance in Gaza and facilitating the displacement of Palestinians from the region.
Regarding Iran, President Trump implemented a strategy of “maximum pressure” towards the country. This approach began with his unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, followed by the imposition of stringent new economic and trade sanctions.
Consequently, Tehran resumed its nuclear programme, and the Islamic Republic is now on the brink of possessing a nuclear bomb due to Trump’s withdrawal from the meticulously negotiated agreement. If he becomes president again, he is likely to harden his tone toward Iran, which many in Washington view as a financier of Hamas.
As for US forces in the Middle East, it is probable that Trump will reverse his earlier decisions and commitments to remove US troops from the region, opting instead to bolster the US military presence to apply greater pressure on Iran and counter Iranian-backed groups like the Houthis. However, studies suggest that this course of action could lead to a conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, a scenario that Foreign Policy magazine has labelled as “unavoidable.”
Therefore, based on the previous comparison, it is evident that the situation in the Middle East will not improve with either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump as potential candidates. We face a choice between an inexperienced candidate whose decisions could have severe consequences and another candidate known for fanaticism and reckless decision-making that could lead to further conflicts in the region, both of whom have strong ties to the Zionist entity.
Ultimately, we are left to decide between a bad option and an even worse one. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Middle East is caught between a rock and a hard place, with no other viable alternatives available.
Dr Marwa El-Shinawy is an Academic and Writer.
