Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
Samantha Cooper
As the 2024 election looms, with polls showing Donald Trump and Kamala Harris neck and neck, it’s crucial to consider what a Harris presidency would mean for U.S. foreign policy—particularly in the volatile Middle East.
Let’s first dismiss the myth that Harris lacks foreign policy experience. In reality, she has far more executive-branch foreign policy exposure than Trump did when he took office in 2016 and more than Republican challengers in previous elections. Harris has visited 21 countries on 17 foreign trips, met with over 150 world leaders, and played a key role in three Munich Security Conferences where global threats were discussed with NATO leaders. Furthermore, she has attended nearly every National Security Council meeting and the President’s Daily Brief, giving her a deep understanding of global issues.
Despite this, Harris’ foreign policy positions, particularly regarding the Middle East, are cause for serious concern. Her views signal a dangerous shift in how the U.S. might engage with this already unstable region.
As a U.S. senator, Harris was a vocal advocate for rejoining the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the controversial deal with Iran that eased sanctions in exchange for a temporary slowdown of its nuclear program. This stance was met with strong opposition from Israel and was later abandoned by the Trump administration. Harris also condemned the 2020 U.S. military strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, who was directly responsible for the deaths of American citizens and servicemen. Her opposition to the strike—and her co-sponsorship of legislation to block further military actions against Iran—represents a stark departure from the policies of her predecessors. This signals a dangerous leniency towards a regime that has shown no hesitation in using proxy forces to destabilize the region and threaten Israel.
Harris’ record also includes a troubling stance toward Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East. She voted for a resolution to limit arms sales and military assistance to the kingdom in response to Saudi airstrikes on Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. While human rights concerns are valid, her approach risks undermining a strategic partnership crucial for countering Iranian influence in the region.
Harris’ foreign policy “mantra” of favoring “what can be, unburdened by what has been,” as cited by Foreign Policy,suggests a willingness to upend longstanding U.S. commitments. This approach is likely to embolden adversaries like Iran while weakening allies such as Israel.
Consider the current situation: Iran is tightening its grip on the Middle East, encircling Israel through its proxies—Hamas to the west, Hezbollah to the north, and its influence in the West Bank and Red Sea. Under a Harris administration, expect a lackluster response to Iranian aggression. Military strikes on Iranian proxies like the Houthis would be off the table, as Harris would likely prioritize diplomatic engagement over decisive action.
In Sudan, where civil war and genocide are brewing and where Iran and Russia are vying for control of the strategic Red Sea coast, a Harris administration would likely resort to tepid sanctions after significant pressure from Congress. But don’t expect any serious efforts to hold Sudanese leaders accountable for war crimes. Harris’ foreign policy team, intent on finding a “grand bargain” with Iran, might even seek to trade sanctions relief for vague promises of peace—much like the failed negotiations with North Korea over the past three decades.
As for Israel, it would face a new reality of diminished U.S. support. Harris’ administration would likely apply pressure on Israel to make concessions in peace talks with Iran, leaving the Jewish state more vulnerable than ever. Israel’s current focus on achieving decisive victories in Gaza and potentially in Lebanon might be driven by the fear that under a Harris administration, U.S. military and intelligence support could dwindle, forcing Israel to act alone.
America’s allies are already sensing the shift. Ukraine’s Zelensky has escalated his military actions against Russia, likely anticipating that under a Harris presidency, any peace conference would favor territorial concessions. Israel’s aggressive stance in Gaza is also a preemptive measure, reflecting the understanding that U.S. support may be waning.
A Harris presidency promises a significant departure from the U.S.’s traditional role in the Middle East. Her foreign policy, driven by the notion of “what can be,” risks abandoning allies and emboldening enemies, leading to greater instability in an already dangerous world. The stakes are high, and the consequences of a Harris foreign policy could be disastrous—not just for the Middle East, but for global security.
