- ‘The atmospherics might change. The diplomatic language might differ but ultimately, big money and entrenched lobbies have their way,’ Nimer tells Anadolu
- ‘The strategic outlook of a Harris administration would be shaped by tough decisions, particularly in navigating the US role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict while balancing competing demands, such as tensions with China,’ argues John Calabrese of the Middle East Institute
ISTANBUL
With less than a week to go until election day, the question of how the US’ next president will shape the country’s foreign policy is shaping outlooks on how major conflicts and disputes could play out over the next four years.
According to analysts, Vice President and Democratic candidate Kamala Harris’ potential presidency is likely to follow the basic course of President Joe Biden’s foreign policy.
John Calabrese, a professor and senior fellow at the Washington-based Middle East Institute, told Anadolu that a Harris presidency is likely to prioritize a “blend of pragmatism” and “continuity” with the foreign policy of the Joe Biden administration, especially regarding key international conflicts.
Mohamed Nimer, an assistant professor at American University, made a similar argument, maintaining that the core strategic vision of US foreign policy largely remains the same even when a new president takes office.
“The atmospherics might change. The diplomatic language might differ but ultimately, big money and entrenched lobbies have their way,” he told Anadolu, adding that the challenges facing the US economy and global hegemony arise not from changes in presidential leadership, but from the emergence of other powers and economies.
“If elected, Harris will not change the US outlook or the growing challenge to its dominance.” According to Nimer, these challenges include Russian and Chinese aspirations for a greater global role, along with addressing Washington’s “duplicity” on the Russia-Ukraine war and Israeli-Palestinian conflict amid growing perceptions that the US is “enabling genocide” in Gaza.
Israel’s Gaza offensive
Calabrese believes that Harris’ call for a cease-fire in Gaza framed the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar by Israeli forces earlier this month as an opportunity to end the war and facilitate the return of hostages.
“Nonetheless, her approach remains rooted in longstanding US policy prioritizing Israel’s security,” he said. One way Harris and her running mate Tim Walz have kept with earlier foreign policy is by maintaining support for a cease-fire in Gaza and a two-state solution, “although without a clear roadmap.”
While the vice president has demonstrated a “stronger focus” on Palestinian suffering than President Biden with a call for a six-week Gaza cease-fire earlier this year, Calabrese doubts this will lead to a significant policy shift.
“If elected, President Harris could avoid some of the trade-offs and dilemmas faced by the Biden administration, assuming Israel’s military campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon wind down by then, albeit with new challenges left in their wake,” he said.
Nimer believes Harris is likely to pursue the same foreign policy in Gaza as Biden, especially if Israel succeeds in suppressing Palestinian resistance groups, something it has been unable to do despite daily ongoing attacks that have claimed tens of thousands of Palestinian lives.
“History tells us colonizers retreat when the colonized people take the beating but prove capable of sustaining their fight,” he argued.
“So, if Harris pushes for a two-state solution, it will not be because she adopted new values and definition of the national interest, but because the security elite in this country will have concluded the Israeli occupation is doomed and has become a burden for the US.”
“In other words, how the war goes will be the bigger factor.”
Nimer emphasized that restoring Israeli deterrence in the region will remain a priority for the US. If this effort fails, the US — whether under Harris or other leadership — will have no alternative but to shift its approach, he added.
“Will the US instead adopt a policy of regime change in Iran? This depends on how the challenge to its global dominance shakes out.”
If the US proves unable to secure a favorable outcome for itself, a regional war is less likely to occur, argued Nimer. “If the US beat the competition, cause Russia to retreat and dent China’s great power aspirations, it might feel confident enough to support a more aggressive Israel.”
He stated that Washington currently does not want the situation to escalate either in the runup to the election or in its aftermath, suggesting that geostrategy and the balance of power will determine the US’ course of action.
Russia-Ukraine war
In another conflict long in the US’ focus, Harris has voiced strong condemnation of Russia’s ongoing war on Ukraine, pushing for continued support for Kyiv and is likely to maintain Biden’s backing of the country, according to Calabrese.
Nimer agrees that Harris is likely to continue the current Russia-Ukraine war policy course.
“If the current level of support for Ukraine brings proven benefits, there’s a chance more support will be forthcoming — and vice versa,” he added.
Despite this likelihood of a continued pro-Ukraine stance, Calabrese said there are still questions about the future administration’s goals and whether Washington has sufficient resources keep supporting a Ukrainian victory.
“While reaffirming its support for Ukraine’s self-determination and pledging indefinite backing, the Biden administration has not provided a concrete vision for how to secure a decisive victory.”
“In her dual role as vice president and presidential candidate, Kamala Harris has yet to signal any significant departure from current policies or clarify what her administration might do differently,” he added.
“Facing potential dilemmas in aligning NATO strategy and military resources, a future Harris administration would need to decide whether to fully commit to Ukraine’s victory or to maintain the current trajectory,” he added.
Whichever direction Harris chooses will have significant implications for US “global leadership” and the country’s “strategic priorities,” Calabrese stressed.
Relations with China
On China, Nimer noted, the US is increasingly adopting a protectionist stance against Beijing, particularly concerning sensitive technology trade, such as semiconductors, that have emerged as a point of contention between the two sides.
This course of action is also “likely to remain unchanged,” he said.
For Calabrese, China will factor into Harris’ foreign policy in a way that could counter-balance attention on other regions.
“The strategic outlook of a Harris administration would be shaped by tough decisions, particularly in navigating the US role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict while balancing competing demands, such as tensions with China.”
