The violence between Israel and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah jeopardizes Kamala Harris’ presidential aspirations, as it threatens to lay bare a candidate whose foreign policy knowledge and experience is primitive and problematic.
The Middle East policy that the vice president endorses is broken, questions swirl about her judgment and leadership, and Israeli actions remain a contentious issue among Democratic and independent voters. In an election to be determined by the narrowest of margins, the last thing Harris needs is a controversial conflict that places attention on the weakest element of her candidacy.
Kamala Harris is running to be America’s commander-in-chief and top diplomat. Unlike her boss, who served 34 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, she lacks the portfolio to reassure voters of her international acumen. Her inexperience places her at a disadvantage when U.S. international leadership is sought and needed, particularly in the Middle East.
Harris has regurgitated the Middle East policy of her Democratic predecessors — Biden and Obama. According to this agenda, the U.S. protects and supports its regional allies while negotiating settlements between longtime enemies. Peace and coexistence are the objectives. Minimizing U.S. involvement in the region and pivoting toward Asia is the end game.
The policy is a proven disaster. It has accomplished the opposite of what it has intended. U.S. troop levels in the Middle East have increased. Violence has escalated. Diplomacy has proved futile. Relations with allies have suffered. Enemies have become empowered.
Israeli–Hezbollah fighting is the latest example of the disastrous policy. The Biden–Harris administration looks helpless to resolve it. Its warnings go unheeded.
The failure also creates more fodder for critics of Harris’ feeble foreign policy background. It focuses attention on Harris’ judgement or lack thereof. Why did the vice president endorse a broken policy? Is she capable of (re)formulating effective policy? What does this say about her ability to lead?
Harris has not spoken at length about the fighting between Israel and the Lebanese militia. She has simply subsumed the two combatants’ 12 months of fighting within the Israel–Hamas conflict. She repeatedly calls for ceasefires, diplomacy, and a settlement. It is an attempt to walk the “fine line” of pleasing both sides of her electorate. She is adamant about being an ally of Israel and its right to self-defense while also expressing sympathy with the plight of Palestinians and Gazans.
However, Hezbollah is not Hamas. Lebanon is not Gaza.
The escalation in fighting demands an informed response and an elaboration of policy distinct from Gaza. The dynamics and repercussions of the conflict in Lebanon are different. Lebanon is a sovereign country. The Lebanese state does not have a military pact with Hamas. The Lebanese did not choose to attack Israel. Hezbollah carved out a state within the Lebanese state and operates with impunity.
The question is whether Harris is capable or can afford to (re)formulate a policy. Voters expect a presidential candidate to address an international development to demonstrate his or her international proficiency, strength, and assertiveness as a leader, as well as the ability to think in a crisis, but substantively addressing the fighting is a no-win situation for Harris.
Israeli actions and U.S. support of Israel are divisive issues among many Democratic and independent voters. More than 100,000 voters in the Michigan Democratic primary (a decisive state in the election) chose to vote uncommitted to demonstrate their displeasure with the Biden–Harris administration’s handling of Israel’s war in Gaza.
For many Democratic and independent voters, the fighting in Lebanon realizes U.S. interests. Members of Hezbollah killed Americans. The militia has disrupted the region, impeded democratic processes, and stifled freedoms. The elimination of Hezbollah’s leadership and the organization’s continued degradation improves the security of the U.S., Israel, and other regional allies.
For a growing number of progressive voters, the fighting is another manifestation of Israeli aggression. It produces mounting civilian deaths, a growing humanitarian crisis, and no immediate resolution. U.S. support of aggression — diplomatically and by military armaments — makes the U.S. complicit in the violence that further tarnishes the U.S.’s image as an international arbiter.
Who is the vice president? Who and what does she represent?
Does Harris want to present herself as a champion of international law and order? A stalwart ally? A fighter of terrorism?
Harris likes to remind voters of her career as a prosecutor. If Harris remains loyal to her prosecutorial roots, she should endorse the Israeli escalation against Hezbollah for two reasons: 1) international law: and 2) a U.S. rules-based order.
International law supports an Israeli escalation. The initiator of this conflict is Hezbollah. The Lebanese militia violated Israel’s sovereignty by launching an unprovoked attack against Israel on Oct. 8, 2023. It refuses to cease its attacks or surrender.
A similar argument can be made for the Biden–Harris administration’s belief in a U.S. rules-based order. Tolerating an attack by a militia/terrorist organization upends the order. It encourages further defiance and a disruption of the “order.” The leader of the order must be vested in maintaining it.
Or does Harris want to be a champion of progressive values?
Harris thrives on being an ally of the weak and marginalized. Her rhetoric and legislative history work to alleviate power disparities and injustice. During a recent interview, she expressed a willingness to restrain Israel in Gaza by denying it offensive weapons. The measure demonstrates that she favors dialogue and compromise.
Middle ground does not exist between being the prosecutor of the law and the promulgator of progressive values regarding this conflict. Enforcing international law or a U.S. rules-based order entails suffering inflicted on populations. Protecting weak and vulnerable populations provides a reprieve to the initiator of the conflict — Hezbollah. Harris cannot have her cake and eat it too.
Like with much of Harris’ presidential platform, her true colors on the Israeli–Hezbollah fighting remain unclear. Can the vice president afford to be coy about a major international development for another month in a tight presidential race? Without a strong foreign policy portfolio to fall back on, the Democratic presidential nominee is in a lose-lose situation.
Eric Bordenkircher, Ph.D., is a research fellow at UCLA’s Center for Middle East Development.
