American presidential debates have only changed the course of the race twice. The first time this happened was in the race between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy, who outperformed his rival. The second it happened was when Joe Biden faltered in his debate with Donald Trump, compelling Biden to withdraw from the race and pass the torch to his vice president, Kamala Harris.
Most media outlets found that Harris dominated Trump and steered the course of last week’s debate, demonstrating the skills she attained during her time as a prosecutor and not missing a single opportunity to refute her opponent's claims, forcing him to go from offense to defense.
The economy, immigration, the war in Ukraine, and positions on Israel were the central points of disagreement in the debate; Trump was pushed to go over his own record instead of criticizing hers. The candidates did not delve into details and stuck to broad talking points, and Harris managed to present herself as a candidate for change without criticizing the record of Biden, whom she has served for years.
What concerns us is the Middle East, which is boiling with wars and conflicts. It has become clear that it is a priority in the US and that neither candidate has a clear project or vision for the region's future, nor does either candidate have a clear idea of what the US wants from it and what it wants from the US. This is particularly true with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the tragic war in Gaza and South Lebanon, as well as Iran's role in the region more broadly.
Harris presented a clear position on the two-state solution, which provoked the Israeli right but was welcomed by American and European Jews. As for the events of October 7, Harris spoke about it in vague terms; meanwhile, Trump claimed that if Harris is elected president, Israel would be annihilated within two years. On Iran, Harris stuck to her support for containment over aggression.
The question now is: Do the Arabs have a vision for the change in the American presidency that moderate Arab states will present to the new president whoever ends up winning? Will we see a coherent new project for the security and peace of the region that would be difficult to reject and that abandons the rhetoric of the past and accounts for the current realities on the ground?
This project will not be effective if it merely presents the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a basis for establishing security and peace in the region. Instead, it should be grounded in a broader vision for effectively countering Israeli, Iranian, and international plans to thwart peace settlements and undermine moderation.
It should focus on fortifying the region, particularly against destabilizing Iranian meddling, and on consolidating strategic political, security, and economic partnerships among Arab countries and between them and their partners and allies. The vision should explicitly reject violence, extremism, racism, and terrorism, laying out a roadmap for saving the Arab states that are failing. The ultimate goal is the Israeli-Palestinian settlement we seek. To achieve peace and a two-state solution, the obstacles posed by the resistance on both sides must be overcome.
That is not to say that the new president will immediately endorse this initiative. However, it would build a solid foundation for future negotiations. The Americans need it as much as the Arabs, as it would straighten out the confused regional policies of the US. The initiative must account for recent shifts if it is to address them:
First, a realistic and practical approach to Israel’s old-new intransigence. It has aggravated under Benjamin Netanyahu's racist government, and the October 7 operation hardened the positions of most Israelis.
Second, Iran's policy has been to obstruct every pursuit of sustainable peace through a two-state solution, by creating schisms between the Arabs and the West as a whole, but the US in particular, preventing the new Arab states from normalizing ties with Israel, and freezing the agreements that had already been reached.
Netanyahu's policy serves and intersects with this Iranian strategy. The desired initiative should build on the outcomes of the Gaza and South Lebanon wars and the shift in Iran’s policy they gave rise to. Indeed, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei spoke of a "tactical retreat against the enemy" and agreed to resume negotiations after Iran and its allies became aware of the significant edge that Israel and its allies enjoy, as well as the technological chasm between the two sides.
Third, acknowledging that normalization alone will not give rise to the peace we seek if it is not accompanied by a resolution of the conflict that grants Palestinians their rights and ensures that they can live in freedom and lead dignified lives in an independent state.
Fourth, recognizing the threats posed by the longstanding evolution of Russian-Iranian relations, which has been accelerating, as is obvious from their military cooperation. Iran has supplied Moscow with drones to use in the Ukraine war, as well as ballistic missiles, in exchange for advanced Russian technology that helps Iran develop its nuclear program and other technology.
Bilateral cooperation between states is not inherently problematic, but in the case of Tehran and Moscow, it is worrying because Iran’s allies and their actions are harming the region. Most recently, it pushed Hezbollah to launch a war of support from southern Lebanon and helped the Houthis in Yemen disrupt maritime navigation and threaten neighboring countries under the pretext of fighting Israel.
So long as a retreating Iran remains determined to resort to violence through its proxies in the region, the Russian-Iranian relationship cannot be seen as a marginal issue for regional security. Is it a "midsummer night's dream," as is said, or will the Arabs surprise the Americans this time, especially since the next two months will be full of surprises?
