Five Ways Harris Can Navigate the Politics of the Middle East
The region has been difficult for her boss. It doesn’t have to be the same way for her.
CONVENTIONAL WISDOM SAYS that voters don’t cast ballots based on foreign policy. But that doesn’t mean the topic won’t have a profound impact in November. Arguably, it could prove to be among the trickiest for Vice President Kamala Harris to navigate amid pressures of a Democratic base angered over the Israel-Hamas war and attacks from Republicans over the record of the Biden-Harris administration.
The last three administrations have tried to disengage from the Middle East, but none has fully succeeded. What Harris says about the region on the campaign trail will matter not only for winning votes, but for setting her up for a successful presidency if she wins in November.
With the heightened scrutiny of the Democratic convention coming up, here are five pieces of advice for Harris and her team.
1. Supporting Israel While Easing Tensions
THE CONFLICT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND HAMAS remains a significant source of instability in the Middle East—and within the Democratic coalition. While it is crucial for the United States to support Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorist organizations like Hamas, Harris must also play a role in calming tensions and preventing further escalation. In essence, continuing the Biden policy while making it clear the United States will not allow Israel to be attacked again.
Harris’s policy should include ensuring that Israel has the necessary resources and intelligence to defeat the group. However, this support must be balanced with efforts to minimize civilian casualties and prevent a broader regional conflict. Harris should work with regional partners and international organizations—and, to the degree practicable, the Israelis—to provide humanitarian aid to civilians affected by the conflict and to promote ceasefires when appropriate.
At the same time, she should use her influence to encourage Israel to reduce tensions and build trust with the Palestinian population. This could include economic initiatives, infrastructure development, and efforts to improve living conditions in Gaza and the West Bank—not be funded or implemented by the United States, but by Arab nations. By doing so, Harris can help create the conditions for a more lasting peace, one that addresses the root causes of the conflict while ensuring Israel’s security. By emphasizing her long-term humanitarian vision for a two-state solution, she can implicitly separate herself from Biden’s policy toward Israel, which many in the Democratic coalition have condemned as too indulgent of Israeli militarism.
2. Building on the Abraham Accords
THE ABRAHAM ACCORDS, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab countries, marked a significant breakthrough in Middle Eastern diplomacy. Harris should build on this momentum to facilitate further peace agreements between Israel and other countries in the region, as the Biden administration has been trying to do. Expanding these accords could contribute to a more stable and peaceful Middle East, reducing the influence of hostile actors such as Iran and Hezbollah.
Normalizing relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors—most prominently Saudi Arabia—requires, if not a two-state solution, at least an end to the Gaza war. As with so many facets of foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, much of this is outside the control of any president. But how Harris discusses the issue can be key to uniting the pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian segments of her coalition: Israeli-Arab normalization is the reward for a successful conclusion to the Gaza war that doesn’t leave Israel de facto or de jure in charge of the Palestinian territory. Harris can promise to work toward a post-Hamas two-state solution and normal diplomatic relations in the region—everyone can get behind that.
3. Stabilizing Iraq: A Key to Regional Security
IRAQ IS A NEURALGIC ISSUE for many Americans, but the United States has invested significant resources there, and ensuring its stability is crucial not only for the country's future but also for the broader region. A stable Iraq can act as a bulwark against the spread of extremism, serve as a counterbalance to Iranian influence, and help in the fight against ISIS remnants. Harris might find it easier to talk about Iraq not as a source of violence and chaos, but as an independent partner with whom we can build stability and prosperity without (major) military force.
Harris should prioritize working with Iraq’s government to strengthen its institutions, support economic development, and improve security. This could involve a combination of military assistance, economic aid, and diplomatic support. By helping Iraq build a strong, inclusive government, Harris could contribute to reducing sectarian tensions and ensuring that Iraq remains a stable and sovereign state.
Iranian influence will be a challenge to Iraqi sovereignty and security for the foreseeable future, but the United States should encourage Baghdad to maintain balanced relations with both the West and its neighbors, particularly Saudi Arabia, to prevent it from becoming a battleground for proxy conflicts.
No one wants to talk about Iraq, but we ignore Iraq at our own peril. The country has made many strides toward internal stability and real sovereignty. I saw the country’s deployments during my deployments there: In 2008 when I was flying over Baghdad, we would look outside the aircraft and see hardly anyone outside. But in 2009 on my first mission back, I noticed something that took my breath away: children, outside, playing soccer. Life had returned to something like what we would expect in any large American city. ISIS interrupted this progress, but it’s continued since the defeat of the caliphate.
Helping Iraq develop isn’t just in America’s interests; it’s the right thing to do. Many American lives need not have been lost in vain.
4. Standing Firm Against Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions
ONE OF THE MOST PRESSING CHALLENGES in the Middle East is Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. While hawkishness on Iran is one of the few similarities Trump has with the traditional Republican party, Harris can find support among Democrats by framing the issue around nonproliferation. A nuclear-armed Iran would drastically alter the strategic landscape of the region, likely leading to a nuclear arms race and increased instability. Harris’s Middle East policy must include a firm stance against Iran’s nuclear ambitions, utilizing a combination of diplomacy, economic sanctions, and, if necessary, military options to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The Biden administration’s efforts to resuscitate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action failed, mostly because Iran wasn’t given enough incentive to reenter negotiations. That incentive can take the form of either a carrot or a stick, and here Harris can exploit one of Trump’s weaknesses: The secret to successful sanctions against Iran has always been working with America’s allies, and Trump famously demeans and devalues them. Harris should emphasize her commitment to rallying American in Europe and the Middle East to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
And if Harris does choose to discuss the Iranian regime directly, she has plenty of ways of doing so that will appeal to her base, starting with human rights. It could be a magical moment if the first female major party nominee were to endorse the Iranian protest slogan, “Woman, Life, Freedom.”
5. Protecting American Interests in Syria
IN SOME WAYS, SYRIA MIGHT BE the most complicated foreign policy issue Harris will face. Since the civil war broke out in 2011, the American response has been indecisive and tepid. Support for the pro-democratic forces was pitiful; the failure to enforce the “red line” has since been recognized as one of the major foreign policy failures of the Obama administration; neither Barack Obama’s deal with Vladimir Putin nor Donald Trump’s one-off missile strikes succeeded in curbing the use of chemical weapons in the country. Iranian and Russian influence has grown. ISIS still controls pockets of territory. It would be easy for Harris to criticize Trump’s foreign policy as a way of burnishing her own chops, but Democrats share the blame for America’s Hamlet-esque dithering on Syria.
The Syrian Civil War probably can’t be solved from within—the only “solution” would have to result from a significant change in Tehran or Moscow. But that gives Harris the opportunity to contrast with Trump again: By promising to push back against the dictators and butchers massacring innocents in Syria, Harris can contrast herself with the dictator-loving Trump. Whereas Trump abandoned America’s Kurdish allies, Harris can promise to stand by them with a continued, limited U.S. military presence in the region to support local partners such as the Syrian Democratic Forces in their fight against ISIS.
 | A guest post by
|