Trump or Harris — fate of Middle East hangs in the balance

When US voters cast ballots, the whole world watches in suspense. This year, no region will be more directly affected by the result of the US November’s presidential election than the Middle East — which has been caught up in its latest cycle of violence since the Islamist group Hamas launched a terror attack against Israel on October 7, 2023.
The US, Israel’s closest ally, holds considerable geopolitical sway in the region and can directly influence the future course of events there. No matter if Kamala Harris follows fellow Democrat Joe Biden into the White House or Donald Trump returns after being voted out of office in 2020, the election will have a profound impact on the region.   
Trump sees himself as “the most pro-Israel president in US history” according to a video he posted on his social media platform Truth Social. As president, he fulfilled many of Israel’s most long-held wishes: In 2018, he had the US embassy moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — something that other countries, including Germany, have refused to do, pointing to East Jerusalem and its as yet unresolved status under international law.
In March 2020, the US also recognized the Golan Heights, which Israel annexed from Syria, as sovereign Israeli territory.
Shortly afterwards, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner presented a peace plan that was widely seen as being one-sided in favor of Israel. Trump then cut funding to UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, as well as making it difficult for the citizens of numerous Muslim countries to enter the US.
In the fall of 2020, the US negotiated the Abraham Accords, a series of bilateral agreements in which Israel — 70 years after its founding — normalized relations with a number of Arab and North African states.
Would that trend continue if Trump were to return to the White House?
“Trump will certainly continue to reach out to Israel,” said Peter Lintl, Middle East expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), a Berlin-based think tank. It is also possible that Trump’s plans for ending the current conflict would largely benefit Israel, he said.
But more recently Trump has also warned Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Lintl noted. In an April radio interview, Trump called for a swift end to the war between Israel and Hamas, saying Israel was “absolutely losing the PR war” as images showed the widespread suffering of civilians in Gaza.
“This war could be a real millstone for Trump,” Lintl told DW. “He may therefore put much more pressure on Netanyahu to end it than [President Joe] Biden has been able to over the past several months.”
Biden has repeatedly attempted to talk Netanyahu out of undertaking military operations — such as a ground offensive in the Gaza city of Rafah — yet he has failed at every turn.
In March, the US abandoned its usual approach in the UN Security Council and decided not to use its veto power to block a cease-fire resolution critical of Israel’s military operation.   
Julien Barnes-Dacey, Middle East director of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) — a non-profit, pan-European think tank — says Biden possesses the tools to pressure Netanyahu but has thus far been reluctant to use them.
“I think the question is: will Harris decide that the moment has come for the US to use its political influence over Israel to squeeze them and press them towards the cease-fire,” said Barnes-Dacey.
“Will they condition the ongoing provision of very important US military assistance on an Israeli shift towards a cease-fire?” he asked, adding that he doesn’t expect Harris to make an about face on the issue.
So far, Vice President Harris has been moderate in her public statements, underscoring Israel’s right to defend itself, while at the same time bemoaning “far too many” civilian deaths in Gaza and calling for deescalation and a cease-fire in Gaza as well as Lebanon.
“It’s a tough situation for Kamala Harris,” said SWP’s Peter Lintl. “It’s clear that Trump runs no risk of alienating the Republican base with his pro-Israel policies. Things are a little different for Harris though because she runs the risk of losing not only her pro-Israel supporters but also pro-Palestinian voters, not necessarily to Trump but to the non-voting bloc.”
And that is naturally a situation that could cost her the presidency in a close election, that’s why she has remained relatively quiet on the issue.”  
US-based Middle East analyst Mohammed Al-Satouhi told DW he believes Biden’s inability to deescalate the situation could ultimately spell trouble for Harris.
“With the conflict spreading north into Lebanon, and fears that a regional war could break out at any time amid high tensions with Iran, Harris is also suffering from a decline in support among American Arabs and Muslims, especially Michigan, which is an important swing state,” he said.
Iran has taken on a pivotal role in the current Middle East conflict. Not only did Iran directly attack its archenemy Israel for the first time earlier this year, it has also continued to back groups hostile to the Jewish state — such as Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Houthi militants in Yemen. Iran’s nuclear program — restarted in 2018 after Trump withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal — poses a further threat. Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama had signed the agreement, which envisioned sanctions relief for Iran in exchange for Tehran giving up its nuclear ambitions.
As president, Trump pursued a “policy of maximum pressure” to force Iran to cease all belligerent acts aimed at the US. His administration leveled harsh economic sanctions on Iran and in early 2020 Trump ordered the targeted killing of high-ranking Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.
Trump’s current running mate, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, has praised that approach on the campaign trail, saying, “If you’re going to punch the Iranians, you punch them hard.”
But could a Republican victory in November signal a direct US military confrontation with Iran?
“I’m not so sure that is Trump’s dream scenario,” said Peter Lintl. “Maybe a few air strikes … maybe he’ll back targeted Israeli military or intelligence services operations. But I think he’d shy away from a full-scale war involving US ground troops.”
The ECFR’s Julien Barnes-Dacey can also envision US support or even participation in Israeli air strikes. And he agrees that a US troop deployment seems highly unlikely.
He adds that Trump would again turn up economic pressure on Iran: “This would involve a much tougher implementation of US sanctions, looking to ensure that Iran has no space whatsoever to maintain any oil sales and really using the combined political, economic and possibly military pressure to force significant compromises out of Iran.”
Kamala Harris has said that one of her “highest priorities” would be to ensure that Iran, “never achieves the ability to be a nuclear power.” In 2019, she called for the reimplementation of the JCPOA, though she has not repeated such calls since, nor has she explained how she would achieve her goals vis-a-vis Iran.  
No matter whether it is Trump or Harris, the next US president will need get the region’s most important power, Saudi Arabia, involved in any effort to bring stability to the Middle East.
The Gulf monarchy remains the only direct neighbor not to formally recognize the Jewish state. It would have been the crown jewel in Trump’s Abraham Accords had he been able to normalize Saudi-Israeli relations; something Biden, too, has sought to do.
Thus, both presidential nominees would seem likely interested in bringing about an agreement.  But Saudi Arabia has said it won’t sign on until serious steps are taken to create a Palestinian state.
In the US, Democrats clearly support a so-called two-state solution and vehemently condemn Israel’s illegal West Bank settlements. The Biden administration has gone so far as to sanction individual settlers.
That is a very different approach than the one taken by Trump, who is ideologically more closely aligned with Netanyahu’s far-right religious government and its absolute rejection of the concept of a two-state solution.
“I think the Harris team will know that they need to have a political deal with the Palestinians to allow for Israel’s wider integration,” said Julien Barnes-Dacey, “compared to a Trump team that essentially thinks that it can integrate Israel at the expense of the Palestinians.”
Mohamed Farhan contributed to this article, which was originally published in German.