Foreign Policy in the U.S. Election Debate
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump will debate on Tuesday hosted by ABC, and this might be the only debate between the two rivals in this election cycle. Recent polls have shown that Harris’s position against Trump hasn’t improved significantly in recent weeks, and at best, it has maintained the achievements from the early weeks and closed the gap that existed during Biden’s candidacy. Harris still faces challenges in some key states, particularly in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia, and cannot take comfort in a one or two percent lead in a few polls. She has openly stated that the main characteristic of her current situation and campaign is being behind Trump and pays no attention to the polls where she is ahead.
One of the most important aspects of Harris’s campaign identity, which we have previously explained, is the unknown nature of many of her political strategies and approaches, largely due to her insistence on maintaining this trait. However, recent polls have shown that Harris has been harmed by this anonymity. In a New York Times poll, Harris was still behind Trump 48 to 47 percent, similar to the previous poll by this institution, and especially in a CNN poll where she was ahead of her rival, but no change in results occurred. The undecided respondents and those who still do not know Harris well enough were notable. An important aspect of the debate and a significant part of electoral politicking is foreign policy, which may not be as important as the economy, livelihood, immigration, and abortion discussions, but it indicates the candidate’s identity and understanding of America and the world to the audience.
In recent months, Trump has shown that with slogans of tariffs on imports, opposition to NATO, and relative sympathy with the Russians, he will pursue the same foreign policy as before; nothing has changed for him. During this time, he has prepared for the debate, and according to recent news, some of his old advisors have remained by his side to offer ideas on foreign policy topics for the debate. Before the debate with Biden, Senator Rubio and Stephen Miller, Trump’s longtime advisor and the theorist of the most extreme xenophobic and containment approaches, were mentioned as Trump’s advisors. Now, Stephen Miller is the most familiar face among Trump’s advisors for the debate with Harris. Richard Grenell, an influential figure in Trump’s past foreign policy era who rose without any serious White House experience, is an important advisor for Trump. He is the driving force behind Trump’s Euro-skeptic policies, which are actually linked with European extremists eager to weaken the European Union and NATO. Interestingly, he is considered one of Trump’s main options for Secretary of State.
What we will hear from Trump in the debate should be considered a restrained and moderated version of his previous declared approaches. It is unlikely that he will resort to harsh and extreme remarks, and his debate discourse designers will not allow him to take such a risk. However, we can expect to hear topics like serious confrontation with Iran, support for Israel, and special conditions for NATO member countries based on his claim of authority, which he has always asserted.
What will Harris do to clarify her foreign policy positions? This is an intriguing question that might be met with the usual response. Important advisors are in her circle, three of whom should be distinguished from the others. Philip Gordon, Harris’s National Security Advisor, is the main figure in her foreign policy, and Colin Kahl, a former senior Defense Department official and a veteran figure in American foreign and military policy, has now joined her foreign policy advisors. Rebecca Lissner, Deputy to Philip Gordon, will also play an important role in theorizing Harris’s foreign policy, whose impact should be seen in the development of the discourse on fighting dictatorship and extremism in Europe and other countries. We have previously mentioned Lissner and Gordon; now, it should be noted that with the presence of Colin Kahl and Philip Gordon, two influential figures in the 2015 JCPOA negotiations are in Harris’s circle. Interestingly, Colin Kahl faced serious opposition from Republicans when he received Senate approval to enter the Senate in 2021, with one of their excuses being his role in the JCPOA negotiations. Given the equal party composition in the Senate at that time, it was Harris, as Vice President and President of the Senate, who with her vote confirmed Kahl’s approval. These advisors may continue to guide Harris away from delving into details, and no action will be taken to clarify her positions. Not much time is left until the debate, and the equations in the Middle East have not changed. Harris does not have much ground to refer to a decisive event that would justify a shift and distance from Biden’s foreign policy positions to suddenly take such a path. Perhaps the responses and remarks of her rival in the debate will give her the space to address topics that could ground Trump. The anniversary of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the criticisms of the withdrawal process and the killing of thirteen American soldiers in the Kabul terrorist attack are issues. House Republicans have released their investigation report on this matter, which, although one-sided and aimed at destruction, contains very shocking points about the Biden administration’s shortcomings. On the other hand, a group of prominent American generals has officially supported Harris and named Trump as the main cause of the problems in troop withdrawal due to his destructive decisions during his presidency. This issue might be a turning point for Harris in the debate, and she could separate her path from her boss by pointing out Trump’s black deeds and Biden’s shortcomings. Such grounds do not exist in the discussion of U.S. policies towards the Gaza crisis.
The debate time is not long enough for the issue of Iran to be raised as the main question. However, Harris has been studying intensively in recent weeks and has been reviewing existing data and preparing for confrontation with Trump with her advisors in various fields. There might be an opportunity to discuss Iran and U.S. policy, where Harris has no choice but to demonstrate the destructive effects of Trump’s policy towards Iran. In that case, Philip Gordon and Colin Kahl will have a lot to say that can be heard from Harris.