أخبار المركز
  • شريف هريدي يكتب: ("التفاهم الجزئي": السيناريوهات المحتملة لعودة إيران للمفاوضات النووية)
  • أحمد دياب يكتب: (القارة والأرخبيل: أسباب توقيع أستراليا وإندونيسيا على اتفاقية تعاون دفاعي جديدة)
  • إيمان الشعراوي تكتب: (تعدد المنافسين: تحديات النفوذ التركي المتصاعد في دول القرن الإفريقي)
  • د. رغدة البهي تكتب: (تدخلات الخصوم: اتجاهات تزايد التهديدات السيبرانية للانتخابات الرئاسية الأمريكية)
  • آش روسيتر يكتب: (هل يمكن أن تتورط قبرص في صراعات الشرق الأوسط؟)

American Constants in the Middle East

The Policies of Trump and Harris

28 أغسطس، 2024


The Middle East remains a cornerstone of US foreign policy due to its strategic importance in global energy markets, its historical ties to terrorism, and its significant geopolitical ramifications. As the 2024 US presidential elections approach, the positions of the main candidates—former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris—on Middle East issues become crucial for understanding how the United States will navigate this troubled region in the coming years.

What might happen in the Middle East if Trump returns to the presidency? And what about Kamala Harris, for whom Middle East issues have become a domestic challenge that could play a decisive role in her political fate?

US policy in the Middle East has always been driven by several core interests: ensuring Israel’s security, maintaining access to oil, combating terrorism, and containing regional powers like Iran. These interests have led to a complex web of alliances and enmities that have shaped US dealings with the region for decades.

Observers of American politics, both domestically and internationally, have long believed that the president’s influence on these policies was limited, with institutions and the deep state being the main controllers. However, this perception changed when Donald Trump took office following the 2016 election. He demonstrated that a president’s personality could significantly influence policies that once seemed unchangeable.

Trump: An overview

During Trump’s presidency, US policy in the Middle East shifted significantly as he adopted a unilateral approach. Among the key decisions were withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and expanding the Abraham Accords. Trump’s policies marked a notable departure from the multilateral diplomacy favored by his predecessors.

1. Stance on Palestine-Israel relations

Trump’s tenure was marked by clear support for Israel, with his administration taking historic steps to strengthen U.S.-Israel relations. The recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the relocation of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem were significant moves. This decision was seen as a strong endorsement of Israel’s claim to sovereignty over the entire city, a position that contrasts with the international consensus, which considers East Jerusalem as occupied territory.

The former president also generally paid considerable attention to the Middle East during his term, with his first foreign visit as president being to Saudi Arabia. His personal relationships, particularly those of his son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner, with regional leaders played a crucial role in shaping major decisions. Furthermore, he played a significant role in the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab countries. These agreements were considered a breakthrough in Middle Eastern diplomacy, shifting the regional focus away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict towards broader Arab-Israeli cooperation. Trump’s approach largely bypassed Palestinian leadership, cutting aid and closing diplomatic channels in response to their refusal to engage with his proposed peace plan.

As a candidate seeking a return to the presidency, Trump again views the Middle East as a key area of interest and influence. He claims that “the Gaza war would not have erupted if he were president,” pointing to his maximum pressure policy on Tehran, which he argues weakened Iran economically, thereby reducing its ability to support Hamas to the extent of launching the attack on 7 October 2023.

2. Relations with Iran

Iran was the most contentious and volatile issue during Trump’s tenure. Contrary to the notion that US foreign policy remains consistent regardless of who occupies the White House, Trump brought a major shift in policy toward Iran.

Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal that the Obama administration had spent years negotiating. His administration pursued a policy of “maximum pressure” by tightening sanctions on Tehran.

One of Trump’s most significant foreign policy moves was his decision to withdraw from the JCPOA in 2018. He criticized the agreement, negotiated under the Obama administration, as flawed, highlighting its failure to address Iran’s ballistic missile program and support for armed groups in the region. Instead of the JCPOA, the Trump administration implemented a “maximum pressure” campaign, reimposing stringent sanctions on Iran to force it back to the negotiating table.

Trump’s approach to Iran was highly confrontational, culminating in the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani in January 2020. This action was justified as a preemptive measure to prevent imminent attacks on US interests, leading to a significant escalation in tensions between the US and Iran, almost bringing the two countries to the brink of direct conflict.

With tensions today high between Iran on one side and Israel and the US on the other, a Trump return may not necessarily lead to a US war with Iran. However, Trump hints that he could negotiate a deal with Iran on his terms.

3. Possible scenarios in other Middle Eastern countries

Countries that serve as battlegrounds, such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, will be of great importance. Trump’s return to the presidency may lead to sharp changes in these countries. He might withdraw from Syria and possibly from Iraq. It is worth remembering that Trump announced his decision to withdraw from Syria during his presidency, only to reverse that decision under pressure from military leaders.

4. Military presence in the region

Regarding the US military presence in the region, Trump pledged during his 2016 campaign to reduce US involvement in foreign wars and promised to bring American troops home. Despite these promises, his presidency saw a temporary increase in US forces in the region, particularly in the Gulf, in response to Iranian threats. If Trump returns to the presidency, he may continue seeking to reduce the direct US military presence but might rely more on airpower and limited interventions to achieve his strategic goals.

Kamala Harris: A more reserved approach

As Joe Biden’s Vice President, Harris has worked within an administration seeking to realign US engagement in the Middle East. This includes efforts to return to diplomatic norms, re-engage in multilateral agreements, and reduce the direct military footprint in the region.

1. A more balanced stance on the Israeli-Palestinian issue

Unlike Donald Trump, Harris has not extensively discussed strategic policies and initiatives in the Middle East during her tenure as Vice President. However, if she wins the presidency, she will find herself in a position where she must address the region. Harris has already begun taking steps that slightly distinguish her from President Biden in recent months. She was the first US official to call for a ceasefire in Gaza after Washington had supported Israel for several months, rejecting the idea of a ceasefire until Israel achieved its objectives. In that sense, Harris’s positions as a presidential candidate reflect a mixture of continuity with Biden’s policies and potential shifts in response to recent regional developments.

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington in July 2024, Harris’s speech was notably clear and decisive as she called for an immediate ceasefire. While this has not yet been achieved, America’s supportive policy towards Israel is not expected to undergo dramatic changes if Harris becomes president. However, partial changes in approach may occur, something Biden has yet to accomplish.

2. Contending with internal pressures

The Palestinian issue has become intertwined with internal conflicts within Harris and Biden’s Democratic Party. The left-wing of her party strongly demands changes in US policy towards Israel, and American Arab and Muslim voters are especially pressing for this. Kamala Harris has consistently expressed strong support for Israel, but her approach differs from Trump’s in key respects. She supports a two-state solution, viewing it as the only viable path to achieving lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Harris has criticized the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, seeing it as undermining the prospects for peace.

As Vice President, Harris backed the Biden administration’s decision to restore aid to the Palestinian territories and reopen diplomatic channels with Palestinian leaders. While Harris recognizes the importance of the Abraham Accords, she views them as complementary rather than a replacement for efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Her stance reflects a desire to balance strong US support for Israel with a renewed commitment to addressing Palestinian aspirations.

3. Harris on Iran

Kamala Harris was part of the Biden administration’s attempt to return to the nuclear deal with Iran. If she becomes president, she is likely to follow the same course, but she and her team will need to propose new initiatives to move the situation forward.

Whether the next president is Trump or Harris, the United States may face a major decision regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The next president could be tested on whether to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon or to accept its possession and work to contain it.

Harris is a strong advocate of diplomacy as the primary means of dealing with Iran. As Vice President, she supported the Biden administration’s efforts to re-enter negotiations with Iran to revive the nuclear deal, emphasizing the importance of a multilateral approach.

4. Less military interventions, more diplomacy?

For Harris, the general direction of the Biden administration has been to reduce direct military interventions, focusing instead on enhancing diplomacy and regional partnerships. If Harris becomes president, she is likely to continue this approach, seeking to strengthen intelligence cooperation and logistical support for US allies in the region.

In conclusion, while Trump and Harris differ significantly on some issues, they share a common focus on maintaining US strategic interests in the Middle East. Regardless of who the next president is, the region will remain a key focus of US foreign policy, with an emphasis on protecting Israel’s security, containing Iran, and ensuring the continuous flow of oil. However, the approach to these objectives may change considerably, impacting the region’s dynamics for years to come.