Trump or Harris, US Middle East policy will continue to be a muddle

Pro-Palestinian protesters gather near the US Capitol. The US has been deeply divided over the war in Gaza. AFP

The Middle East conflict and this year’s US presidential election are affecting one another in important ways.

We are seeing an internal debate unfolding within the Democratic Party, coupled with a hardening of views on the Republican side. As a result, there is little hope that, whoever wins, there will be any significant change in US policy towards the Middle East.

Israel’s war in Gaza has caused a rift within the Democratic coalition. During the past decade, several mass movements have arisen in the US in response to women’s rights, race, immigration and gun control. All of these have erupted as partisan issues pitting Democrats against Republicans. The mass movement in support of Palestinian rights and a ceasefire in Gaza is the latest of these mobilisations and is made up of the same progressive constituent groups.

But the key difference between the pro-Palestinian movement and the others is that instead of being a strictly partisan effort, it has been an intra-party affair pitting key elements of the Democratic coalition against the party’s leadership.

Recent polling shows that for the first time, more Democrats sympathise with Palestinians over Israelis, want an immediate ceasefire, and support suspension of military aid to Israel. They are also disinclined to see the US militarily involved in conflicts in the Middle East and the rest of the world. These attitudes are especially pronounced among young voters and non-white voters – key components of the Democratic coalition.

Pro-Palestine protester removed from Kamala Harris rally after calling her a war criminal

01:12

Regardless of the outcome of the election, the rift will continue to grow – both within the Democratic Party and between the two parties

This tension within the Democratic Party is real and may cost the party votes in some states.

While changing attitudes within the Democratic Party resulting from the war have caused some to become alienated from the party’s historic ties with Israel, this shift is also beginning to have an impact on policy. Record numbers of Democratic members of Congress have signed on to bills and letters urging a ceasefire or calling for limits on US arms shipments to Israel.

Republicans, on the other hand, remain dominated by the Christian right and remnants of the neoconservative movement. Both share a Manichaeistic world view – that there is a fundamental conflict between good and evil – which is uncritically supportive of Israel’s role in the region and the world. Despite the costs in US lives, treasure and prestige resulting from the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of these ideological currents continue to see the US as the driving force for good in the world.

Regardless of the outcome of the election, the rift will continue to grow – both within the Democratic Party and between the two parties.

I don’t expect that a Kamala Harris-led administration would make any immediate or dramatic shift in its approach. The still-dominant Democratic foreign policy and political consultancy establishments are cautious and out of touch with the changing dynamics within the electorate and the diminished capacity of the US in the world.

But I do expect that eventually, they will be forced to recognise and make some accommodation to the political pressures building from below.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, is Donald Trump. I expect an administration led by him would be as unconventional and as unpredictable as it was the last time around.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, right, and his wife Sara are welcomed by former US President Donald Trump at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, in July. Photo: Israeli embassy in the US

That said, despite his desire to avoid entanglement in foreign wars, he would not deviate from, nor would he challenge, his supporters’ beliefs in US primacy and the righteousness of Israel’s behaviours. But the extent of the complex tensions roiling the Middle East would require him to make some accommodation.

I am not sure that either the Republican or, for that matter, the Democratic foreign policy establishment, are up to the task. They will need to think bigger than playing “whack-a-mole” with Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya and Yemen. They will need to recognise that the US can’t make change without addressing historic grievances. And they will need to address new realities that are transforming the region.

It’s clear that while there is change afoot in both American politics and in the dynamics unfolding across the Middle East, new thinking and creative leadership are needed. This new thinking appears to be developing more in the Middle East than in the US, which is still stuck in the old post-Cold War mindset that sees the US as the “indispensable nation”, the “shining city on the hill”, or the “beacon of freedom”.

While there will continue to be a heated debate on the Democratic side over the US’s role in the region and the world, I’m not confident that the GOP, such as it is, will be capable of engaging in the kind of self-criticism needed to make change possible.

A consequence of this will be partisan tension and gridlock making the US, in the near term, unable to play a meaningful role in contributing to peace and stability in the Middle East. This has resulted in many key US allies moving independently to both secure themselves and ease regional tensions.

Webinar replay: How the war in the Middle East will shape the 2024 US presidential election