Last week’s US presidential debate clearly demonstrated that Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump see the world differently – and, therefore, their policy proposals couldn’t be more different from one another. This is especially the case when it comes to foreign policy. Mr Trump said his objective is to end wars – not manage them. He accused Ms Harris – and by extension, President Joe Biden – of an inherent weakness that, according to him, enabled the Ukraine and Gaza wars to erupt in the first place. Ms Harris confirmed her alignment with Mr Biden’s policy of bolstering Nato’s unity by sustaining military and financial support to Ukraine until Russia is defeated, no matter the cost to the US. Her approach, in short, is to support the Ukraine war’s continuation until victory is achieved. Mr Trump rejected the victory-defeat equation, claiming that it doesn’t serve US interests. Instead, he advocated for ending the war through a deal. He said he doesn’t want the US to pay for others’ problems, spending billions that could be better used to address domestic issues such as inflation. This will, undoubtedly, resonate with voters. The difference in their positions on the Palestine-Israel conflict is equally striking. The Biden-Harris administration advocates for working towards a “ceasefire” as a crucial step in addressing the Gaza war, while Mr Trump believes that supporting Israel in its bid to “finish the job” by destroying Hamas is the necessary approach. This distinction is key: a ceasefire aligns with a containment and gradualism policy, while ending the war suggests securing an immediate resolution, whether through military means or a deal imposed without piecemeal concessions. Mr Trump, however, provided few details. If there is one thing Mr Trump and the Biden-Harris administration support, it is a grand deal between Israel and Arab world. The difference lies in Mr Trump’s belief that he has the tools to achieve this deal by strengthening the Abraham Accords, while sidelining the Gaza war and its consequences. In contrast, the Biden-Harris team sees a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza as the key to such a grand deal, while paving the way for the two-state solution, which key Arab powers consider essential to their approval of any grand bargain. Both campaigns have pledged unwavering support for Israel under the banner of “the right to self-defence” and consider Hamas a terrorist organisation. Mr Trump refuses to engage with the group under any circumstances, while the Biden administration has delegated Arab partners to negotiate with it. Mr Trump seeks to eradicate Hamas and will not pressure Israel to accept any alternative. The Biden team, on the other hand, believes that eliminating Hamas is impossible. When it comes to Iran, however, the divide between the candidates is starker. Mr Trump refuses to deal with Tehran unless it meets his conditions, relying on the principle of bankrupting it in order to weaken its ability to support Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and the Popular Mobilisation Forces. However, the Biden administration – whose policies Ms Harris is likely to continue, were she to win in November – approaches Iran through appeasement and seeks to engage in deals similar to those struck by former president Barack Obama. This strategy, according to the Biden camp, allows for containing Iran and its proxies through diplomacy rather than bankruptcy through sanctions. During the debate, right from the moment she shook hands with Mr Trump, Ms Harris made it a point to distinguish herself from both Mr Biden and the former president. She emphasised to the voters that she is an independent woman, not merely Mr Biden’s subordinate, despite being the Vice President. She also sought to banish any notion that she was going to simply continue her boss’s policies. And yet the challenge for the Biden-Harris administration is to ensure that it can secure a win on the global stage, particularly in the Middle East, given how close the election is likely to be. This is where Ms Harris has an advantage: after all, it is Mr Biden – and not Mr Trump – who can effect change by virtue of occupying the White House. For example, the current administration is attempting to de-hyphenate Lebanon from Gaza, while working to convince Israel not to activate its northern front as this could lead to a wider regional war. It is also trying to persuade Israel to not turn the West Bank into another Gaza, as this is not in Israel’s or the US’s interests, knowing that such a policy would undermine the broader peace deals being pursued with key Arab powers. Those deals, in the administration’s view, are what would guarantee Israel’s security, not the opposite. The question, then, is whether these are just hopes and reassurances, or there are actually elements of deals being quietly negotiated with the various stakeholders.
