he answer is no!” was President Joe Biden’s response to a direct question whether the United States will support and facilitate a possible Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites.

Even Biden, who comes from a generation of traditionalist politicians with consistent sympathy for Israel, seems to have reached a point where supporting Israel in all its positions and actions is becoming hard. Israel’s history of aggression and the current use of disproportionate force, sponsored mainly by the US, has become a central issue for American voters. While the moral argument against Israel’s self-defence stance remains important for most people, their opposition to funding expensive wars overseas comes from the need for more resources for domestic issues. During several appearances alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Biden has promised to stand by Israel, while adding a caveat, “Don’t do what we did after 9/11.”

His warning seems to have been ignored. Swanee Hunt, a US diplomat during the Clinton administration, once remarked that sometimes smart people who make foreign policies do something outrageously stupid when they invite only war makers and say, “now let’s create peace.” This, he argued, was what America seemed to be doing in Middle East and Ukraine. Unlike 9/11, which helped Bush to an easy re-election, America’s appetite for war has tapered, especially since a messy and irresponsible exit from Afghanistan, and earlier, Iraq. The near unanimous public support for the invasion of Iraq isn’t there, because American soldiers are not in direct combat. This doesn’t mean that Americans are less concerned about humanitarian cost of the war, but there has been no attack this time on the US soil.

What does that mean for the two candidates and their supporters? A recent CNN poll asked likely voters about the most important issues in 2024 presidential elections. Foreign policy, surprisingly, sat at number seven followed by climate change and reproductive rights. Put that next to the highest number of first-time voter registration, and an important player emerges: the young voter.

Usually, foreign policy is pivotal during presidential elections. Candidates are pressed on their foreign policies towards Iran (nuclear programme) and Israel (settlements on Palestinian land and the two-state solution). However, this time there are wars going on. US policy towards Israel and the Middle East is influenced by what some scholars have called a loose coalition of people and groups in American institutions. This group, often referred to as the Israeli lobby, ensures that US foreign policy is favourable to Israel. After the World War II, United States has provided remarkable diplomatic and military support to Israel. Not even when Israel openly pursued its own interest - when its agents bombed US embassies in Egypt in 1954, or when it sold military supplies to Iran in 1979 – did American support for Israel falter.

“A new way forward,” is Kamala Harris’s campaign slogan. This is a carefully calibrated message putting her next to an older white man who lost a second term and whose strong base is predominantly rural. Harris’s approach to Middle East policy reflects a blend of traditional diplomacy and a focus on human rights. In her speeches, she emphasises the importance of strengthening alliances, particularly with Israel, while also advocating for the rights of Palestinians. Harris has consistently voiced support for a two-state solution, acknowledging the legitimacy of aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians for self-determination and security.

Foreign policy is often pivotal during presidential elections. The candidates are pressed on their foreign policies towards Iran (nuclear programme) and Israel (settlements on Palestinian land and the two-state solution).

Harris’s comments often highlight the need for a balanced approach that incorporates humanitarian aid to Palestinian communities, reflecting her belief in addressing underlying inequalities. Both she and her running mate, Tim Walz, have expressed concern over violence in the region and called for de-escalation in times of conflict, advocating for dialogue to achieve long-term stability. Her campaign has prioritised addressing issues like climate change and its impacts on regional security, something Trump has avoided commenting on.

Trump has been there before. The hallmark of Trump’s Middle East strategy was the strong emphasis on Israel. He famously reversed decades-old US policy in December 2017 to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This move, negotiated by his son-in-law Jared Kushner, was celebrated by many in Israel and among evangelical supporters in the US. However, it also sparked widespread protests and condemnation from Palestinian leaders and other Arab nations, who viewed it as a significant obstacle to peace.

In addition to his pro-Israel stance, Trump sought to isolate Iran. He withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in May 2018 citing concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its support for terrorism in the region. His administration implemented aggressive sanctions against Iran, aiming to curtail its influence across the Middle East.

Trump also brokered the Abraham Accords that ‘normalised’ relations between Israel and several Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. This heralded significant economic cooperation and stability in the region, emphasising Trump’s focus on realpolitik and prosperity over traditional diplomacy centred on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In his speeches, Trump often had a transactional tone, favouring bilateral agreements and emphasising US interests, including economic benefits and security cooperation. This contrasted with the previous administration’s emphasis on multilateralism and peace processes. His approach left a lasting impact on Middle Eastern geopolitics, sparking controversies that continue to influence the region’s dynamics.

Whether it is Trump or Harris in the White House, there is little chance of a major shift in US policy in the Middle East. Young voters, who mostly favour Democrat’s progressive approach, are apprehensive of their place in a volatile economy and America’s role in the war. With a race this close, and a war this uncontainable, both candidates must woo the young voters who want their tax dollar in their communities instead of supporting allies.

Tim Walz, during a VP debate last week, answered a question on the war with a question: “How did it start?” However, the real question might be: “How will it end?”

The author is a freelance writer based in the US. She can be reached at sikandar.sarah@gmail.com