Cutting Off Iran’s Arms: A Shared Goal for Trump and Harris – Unless Obama Casts His Heavy Shadow

Next week, the eyes of the world will be on the climax of the U.S. presidential?election, watching for its outcome and repercussions. Expectations are that one?candidate may narrowly win over the other, amid intense suspense and anxiety. We?do not yet know if Democratic candidate, current Vice President Kamala Harris, and?Republican candidate, former President Donald Trump, will end up nearly tied,?potentially triggering a recount due to the close margin and possibly involving the?Supreme Court in determining the winner. We do not know if either candidate will?challenge the results or refuse to concede. What we do know is that the United?States will remain protected by its Constitution, and will not lose its status as the?world’s sole superpower due to this election. We also know that the American?establishment will ensure the continuity of institutions, and the political and security?apparatus will adapt to either candidate’s victory sooner not later.?

But the question on everyone’s mind following the election revolves around the?nature of American diplomacy under either a Trump or Harris administration. Will the?militarization of diplomacy be a shared element between them??

Let us first talk about their character. We know Donald Trump much better than we?know Kamala Harris. We know his boisterous personality, which frightens some and?is considered unpredictable and dangerous—but at least he is known. On the other?hand, Kamala Harris remains largely unfamiliar, as she has served as Vice President?rather than President, and did not succeed during her campaign in fully introducing?herself to the public. Both candidates are distinctive in their own ways, though vastly?different. Trump is direct and blunt, while Harris is enigmatic and diplomatic.?

These traits will influence the American voter, who wants a capable leader for the?United States. America is divided between those who view candour as a virtue, even?when it comes with arrogance, unpredictability, and hostility, and those who fear such?traits, believing that America needs consensus, calm, and gentleness—qualities that?are associated with Harris, a newcomer to the spotlight. Indeed, the ability to lead?and make tough domestic and international decisions will weigh on voters; minds,?even if their primary focus is on economic and domestic issues.?

For the international community, the question is how each of Trump and Harris will?deal with challenges and conflicts, and whether the world would be better off with the?relatively unknown Harris or Trump the ‘open book’.?

Trump has a reputation for having an unstable team during his presidency, frequently?dismissing high-ranking officials unexpectedly. Instability and inconsistency?characterized his administration, influenced by his own erratic behaviour. Today, some?of those who left Trump’s administration have returned to his side. Additionally, there?are those close to him whose loyalty is unwavering—seasoned individuals in politics?and diplomacy who will take up significant roles if he is re-elected. Although the?general impression is that members of the “MAGA” movement are violently loyal, this?does not negate the fact that they have some intelligent, organized, and capable?people in their ranks.?

Harris, meanwhile, struggles under the heavy shadow of former President Barack?Obama and his wife Michelle over her campaign, with concerns that “Obamaism”?might return to the White House in the guise of Kamala Harris. The current Middle?East team under President Joe Biden, which is professional and experienced, could?be involved in Harris's administration. However, the biggest challenge for this team?will lie in shoring up Harris’s independence from Obama.?

Ironically, much of Biden's Middle East team served under Obama, but their?diplomacy during Biden’s term diverged sharply from Obama’s policy—a matter?worth examining, as it touches the core of U.S. foreign policy.?

Barack Obama made significant blunders regarding the Middle East, as well as the?Arab, Iranian, and even Turkish peoples. His embrace of political Islam, represented?by the Muslim Brotherhood, led him to hide behind the banner of democracy while?exploiting the “Arab Spring.” Obama turned that uprising into a project to support the?rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, imposing their control over Arab countries, from?Egypt to Libya to Syria, under Turkish and American auspices.?

Thus, Obama gained a reputation for supporting Sunni extremism, and history will?record that he planted the seeds of civil war to serve the project of Sunni?fundamentalism in Arab states.?

However, Obama did not stop at support for Sunni fundamentalism through wars that?devastated Arab peoples and states. He also worked to enable Shia extremism in?Iran, albeit through different means—supporting Iran’s use of proxy militias (“arms”)?in Arab states to overthrow sovereignty and spread chaos, specifically in Iraq, Syria,?Lebanon, and Yemen. Moreover, he assured Iran’s regime of non-interference in its?internal affairs or to seek its removal, endorsing it as a legitimate government while?Iranians suffered under its dictatorship.?

In other words, Obama harmed the Iranian people by endorsing their oppressive?regime and harmed the Arabs by toppling governments without building institutions?to rescue their nations. Moreover, he disregarded U.S. historical relations with Gulf?Arab countries, undermining their long record of strategic cooperation.?

All of this ultimately served Israel, whether Obama wished to admit it or not. Indeed,?he encouraged Israel’s declaration of itself as a Jewish state with explicit racism, by?endorsing Sunni Islamism in states like Egypt hoping it would expand in the region;?and endorsing Shia Islamic rule in Iran.?

Why does all this matter now? Because Biden’s team—much of which served under?Obama—has diverged from Obama’s legacy during Biden’s term.?Obama’s team enabled and strengthened Iran’s proxies, like Hezbollah in Lebanon,?Hamas in Palestine, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Popular Mobilization Forces in?Iraq.?

Biden’s team, on the other hand, has given Israel a mandate and massive military?support to destroy these proxies, particularly Hezbollah and Hamas, as part of a?strategy to dismantle the “Resistance Axis” supported, trained, and funded by Iran.?

Thus, the militarization of diplomacy has become a strategic decision for the United?States, at least during Biden's and previously Obama's tenure.?

Currently, Biden's team appears to be failing in its efforts to achieve a ceasefire in?Gaza and Lebanon. On the surface, they seem weak in the face of Israeli Prime?Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, submitting to his insults and refusals to comply even?with American presidential requests.?

In reality, Biden's diplomacy stems from U.S. national and institutional strategy,?where the establishment seeks to empower Israel to destroy Iran's proxies with?decisive U.S. support. This approach is likely to continue under Kamala Harris if she?wins the presidency, unless Barack Obama intervenes. It will also continue under?Donald Trump if he is re-elected, with additional measures aimed at bankrupting?Iran.?

Trump will not wage war against Iran to convince it to abandon its militias and?expansionist policies which hind behind the guise of resistance and defiance. He will?not engage with Iran either. Instead, he will isolate it, impose sanctions, and?economically cripple it.?

Harris, likewise, will not wage war against Iran to convince it to reform its ideology?and cease using subversive proxies. Instead, she will continue a policy of?engagement through intermediaries and direct talks, while tacitly endorsing Israel’s?mission to dismantle Hezbollah’s military infrastructure in Lebanon and Hamas in?Gaza.?

If Harris retains Biden’s administration team, they will adapt to Israel’s dictates and?faits accompli, as they have practically moved away from Obama’s doctrine and?become convinced that the only way to change Iran’s strategy is through Israeli?militarized diplomacy to cut off Tehran’s arms.?

That is, unless Obama influences Harris's thinking and shifts the equation. And that’s?assuming Biden’s Obama-era team has genuinely evolved away from Obama’s?influence rather than that Obama remains the primary decision-maker for the?Democrats in power, with surprises in store if they retain it.?

Trump’s actions, however, will not be surprising. He has made clear his plans toward?Iran and Israel. He is against Iran and supports Israel, but he will not encourage or?assist Israel if it seeks to drag the United States into a war with Iran. Trump dislikes?wars and prides himself on having avoided any in the Middle East during his?presidency, while Biden's administration has failed to stop the Gaza war despite?diplomatic attempts by the Secretary of State and CIA Director. The reason, as?Trump claims, is their lack of determination and inability to leverage U.S. influence.?

This may be true, but what if this weakness is part of a clever, hidden policy to?provide diplomatic cover for the core national and strategic policy—that is, proxy?warfare to spare the U.S. the cost of direct involvement??

Donald Trump might not abandon such a strategy, even if it is inherited from a?Democratic administration. After all, both Republican and Democratic administrations?have pursued the strategies of the deep state. For this reason, the scenario in the?Middle East might not look very different under either Kamala Harris or Donald?Trump.?