The 2024 Presidential Election: Implications for the Middle East

Graphic by Miles Kershner.

Millions of Americans will go to the polls over the coming weeks with a number of crucial domestic issues in mind, as the fate of the country seems to hang in the balance. Elsewhere, millions of others have their own preferred candidate, too. What would a Harris-Walz administration mean for escalating violence in the Middle East? Or perhaps Trump-Vance? Foreign policy issues aren’t always a priority for the average American voter, but in this election year, as a new crisis develops seemingly every other day in Gaza, Lebanon, Israel, and around the region, our choice at the ballot box will have implications for far more than just ourselves.

As it stands, conflict has continued to escalate and the humanitarian situation has worsened. Israel’s rocket attacks against Hezbollah have only increased, as the total death toll in Lebanon since October of last year has reached over 2,100, with the Lebanese Health Ministry reporting that most of these have come in the last two weeks. In response, rocket attacks against Israel in cities like Haifa have also increased. Despite the escalation in its war against Hezbollah, Israel continues to fight on two fronts as there is increasing political pressure to wipe out Hamas, an objective considered to be optimistic at best.

In Gaza, the healthcare system has essentially collapsed. Hospitals have been bombed, supplies destroyed or blocked from entering the area, and doctors targeted by the IDF. Hunger is rampant, and a majority of Palestinians are in desperate need of medical attention due to disease or injury. 

Those skeptical of Harris’ qualifications to be commander-in-chief are quick to point out the recent escalations between Israel and Hezbollah as proof of her foreign policy incompetence. It’s also worth noting that she was in full support of President Biden’s less than perfect withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, which allowed the Taliban to ultimately regain control. 

Despite these criticisms, it's important to consider Harris's actual role and responsibilities in the current administration. As Vice-President, she has little control over any policy decisions, least of all those pertaining to foreign affairs. Kamala Harris is also not Joe Biden, and therefore should not be judged as such. So what can be expected from a Harris administration? In addition to being endorsed by prominent Republicans such as Dick Cheney, Harris has also been endorsed by over 700 national security officials. Why? Because according to Retired Army Maj. Gen. Randy Manner, “she relies on the competence of the experts to try to find a balanced way to best approach a problem and then to make the final decision.” 

This approach of relying on expert advice could lead to more nuanced and informed decisions in complex Middle East situations. Her actual platform, which includes working towards a ceasefire in Gaza and ultimately a two-state solution, addressing the Palestinian humanitarian crisis more vocally, taking a firm stance on reining in Iran's nuclear program, and prioritizing intelligence and special forces approaches to neutralize threats from regions like Afghanistan, Yemen, and across Africa, makes her potentially a more stable choice for the Middle East when combined with her competent approach to decision making. 

But while there’s comfort in predictability, her strategy might simply follow the status quo. She has consistently reaffirmed her support for Israel, and will likely be unwilling or unable to force any major concessions out of Netanyahu in the search for a ceasefire deal. While she can be trusted not to make things even worse, they might not get better under a Harris administration – at least not right away. 

While Harris is confident in the judgments of foreign policy experts and advisors, Donald Trump believes himself to actually be the expert. It’s been seen before and it will undoubtedly be seen again: anyone who does not agree with Trump will not last long in his administration. He’s also unpredictable, which makes it harder to guess what his policies might be towards the Middle East should he take office again. Assuming the war against Hamas and Hezbollah is still ongoing, Israel can expect Trump’s full-throated endorsement, more so than with Harris. 

Neither candidate is at all likely to suspend military aid to Israel, but Trump might not even pursue a ceasefire deal as urgently, based on his advice to Netanyahu to “get your victory and get it over with.” While he did call for the violence to end, not pursuing a ceasefire is not going to achieve that, especially given the difficulty Israel has had with eliminating Hamas and now having to fight on two fronts. On Iran, he’s already infamous for pulling the U.S. out of the 2015 nuclear deal. Now, he supports even harsher sanctions (which were lifted in exchange for Iran dismantling their nuclear program as part of the deal) that mainly affect civilians, while the Iranian government and its proxies still remain a threat. 

The Biden administration has been unsuccessful at reaching an agreement with the Iranians on a new deal, but you can be sure that Trump won’t even try. Trump is also likely to continue to encourage Arab countries to normalize ties with Israel, regardless of the creation of a Palestinian state. This will only embolden Israel to continue denying all Palestinian rights, as they face less pressure within the region. 

Governments in the Middle East – especially autocracies, monarchies, dictatorships, and of course Israel – are more likely to prefer Trump, as he generally turns a blind eye to human rights violations and won’t pressure democratization. Netanyahu is certainly hoping for a Trump victory as well, as a Harris administration would be much more likely to condition military aid to Israel and would be less enthusiastic about forking over billions to protect Israeli airspace. As for Harris, there’s no doubt she would be a more calculated decision maker, focusing on diplomacy while also putting pressure on abusers of human rights. But while she may be a better guarantee of U.S. domestic safety, there’s no guarantee that conditions in the Middle East would actually improve, continuing in the same trajectory from the Biden administration. The bottom line? While neither are perfect, Harris is the more trustworthy candidate to take the wheel of U.S. foreign policy.