A Kamala Harris Presidency would mean more of the same for the Middle East

A Kamala Harris presidency would spell disappointment for the Middle East, offering a façade of change that masks a continuation of America’s entrenched foreign policy. Underneath her occasional humanitarian rhetoric lies a fundamental adherence to long-standing US doctrine that have perpetuated, rather than resolved, regional conflicts.

Kamala Harris’s cautious approach

Harris’s tenure as Vice President has largely mirrored Joe Biden’s stance on key Middle Eastern issues. She has a history of political manoeuvring rather than genuine policy recalibration. Take her stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: while she described the situation in Gaza as “inhumane,” she stopped short of advocating for meaningful action such as pushing for sanctions or banning arms sales to Israel. This hollow rhetoric, devoid of concrete policy shifts, exposes a familiar pattern of political equivocation.

Her calls for immediate de-escalation in Gaza, while maintaining unwavering support for Israel’s security, exemplify the delicate balancing act that has long characterised the US approach to this complex issue. This dual stance, far from revolutionary, is a well-worn path trodden by countless American politicians before her: prioritising political expediency over substantive change.

Harris has been far from immune from criticism of her stance on Gaza. Indeed, only this week at the Democratic National Convention, as Harris continues to walk a seemingly premature victory lap, protestors have gathered outside, demanding real action and accountability for the US response to the war in Gaza.

We’re kicking off the first night of the 2024 Democratic National Convention. Tune in now. https://t.co/kcwWzCLtuL

— The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) August 19, 2024

In contrast, Harris has shown a willingness to challenge long-standing US alliances in the region, criticising US arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and opposing American support for Saudi-led operations in Yemen. It’s doubtful that this rhetoric will last should Harris assume the presidency though – the realpolitik of countering Chinese and Russian influence in the region are likely to temper any dramatic policy changes. The US-China rivalry, in particular, may emerge as a defining feature of Harris’s Middle East strategy, potentially creating tension with nations that have carefully balanced relationships with both superpowers.

When it comes to Iran, Harris is likely to follow a path pursued by her Democratic predecessors — a nuclear trade deal in some form. However, with escalating tensions in the Middle East and Iran increasingly entangled in regional conflicts, maintaining that course may prove more challenging. The recent assassinations of top Hezbollah and Hamas leaders by Israel have further complicated the situation, leaving Iran less likely to come to the negotiation table.

In contrast, many in the Middle East would likely relish a return of Donald Trump to the White House, viewing his “America First” approach as less interventionist in regional affairs. If anything, this underscores the region’s weariness with traditional US foreign policy — which Harris appears poised to continue.

Her selection of Tim Walz as her running mate further reinforces the perception of policy continuity. Walz’s record as a congressman shows consistent alignment with mainstream Democratic positions on Middle Eastern issues, including support for the Iran nuclear deal and US aid to Israel. While he has advocated for a ceasefire in Gaza and emphasised the need for increased humanitarian aid for Palestinians, these stances are unlikely to translate into significant policy shifts.

As the campaign unfolds, Middle Eastern leaders and observers should look beyond broad policy statements and pay close attention to the nuances in Harris’s rhetoric and the composition of her foreign policy team. These subtle indicators may offer the best clues to how a Harris administration would engage with this critical region.

Region hopes for change but expects continuity

While the Middle East hopes for a new direction in US foreign policy, the reality is that a Harris presidency would likely deliver more of the same. The broad strokes of US Middle East policy may remain constant, with only minor adjustments in the details. For a region in dire need of fresh perspectives and approaches, this continuity may prove to be a disappointment rather than a relief.

For over a month, Harris has campaigned for her presidency, but has yet to lay out any concrete policies, give media interviews, or hold a press conference – a fact that Republicans have been quick to criticise her for.

This lack of substantive policy proposals has led some to characterise her campaign as being based purely on “vibes,” with little in the form of substance. This “vibes-based” approach leaves voters and international observers in the dark on how a Harris administration would act on the important issues of the day. Perhaps she did not anticipate becoming the nominee until Biden’s sudden withdrawal, or perhaps she’s still making up her mind.

Either way, one can only hope that, should she win the presidency, her administration will work towards reducing conflict in the region, challenge obsolete historical precedents, and focus on more than just the “vibes.”