In accepting her party’s presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention, Kamala Harris articulated as full-throated an endorsement of American military might as any card-carrying member of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. In a few short sentences, she put the world’s tyrants on notice.
She had to. Doubts about Ms. Harris’s foreign policy chops and inclinations had dogged her as Vice-President. She had played a peripheral role next to President Joe Biden, who came to office with far more experience on the world stage than any of his recent predecessors. Ms. Harris mostly watched, and learned.
“As commander-in-chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world,” Ms. Harris forcefully told the world in her DNC acceptance speech. “And know this: I will never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to defend our forces and our interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists. I will not cozy up to tyrants and dictators like [North Korea’s] Kim Jong-un, who are rooting for [Donald] Trump.”
Ms. Harris underscored her Republican opponent’s narcissism and the danger it poses to U.S. national security. The tyrants and dictators want Mr. Trump to win, because “they know how easy he is to manipulate with flattery and favours.” As a want-to-be autocrat himself, she warned, Mr. Trump will simply not hold autocrats accountable.
A speech, no matter how strong, is one thing. Just how far Ms. Harris, as president, would go to exercise American power remains an open question. Unlike Mr. Biden, a pure product of the postwar Washington establishment that still sees the United States as the “indispensable” nation, Ms. Harris is not likely to be influenced by such “old-school” thinking. She would likely be a risk averse commander-in-chief.
“[A]s president, I will never waver in defence of America’s security and ideals, because in the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know where I stand and I know where the United States belongs,” Ms. Harris told the convention.
It was her only nod to the higher moral calling that Mr. Biden routinely evokes in discussing U.S. foreign policy. If anything, Ms. Harris is more a student of the Barack Obama school of foreign policy – skeptical about the U.S. ability to shape world events, eager to avoid open-ended foreign entanglements, and more focused on getting America’s house in order than preaching the gospel of democracy abroad.
Ms. Harris’s closest confidante on foreign policy is Philip Gordon, who has served as her national security adviser since early 2022, after having joined the Vice-President’s office as deputy NSA on her 2021 inauguration. Mr. Gordon remained by her side throughout her term as Vice-President, even as other top aides came and went with alarming frequency. She is said to trust his instincts.
Mr. Gordon is, hence, considered a likely candidate to serve as Ms. Harris’s national security adviser if she wins the White House. He has the résumé to suit the times. Though he served as the top U.S. State Department official responsible for Europe during Mr. Obama’s first term, it is Mr. Gordon’s stint as the White House co-ordinator for Middle East affairs in the aftermath of the Arab Spring and the outbreak of Syria’s civil war that most shaped his foreign policy outlook.
Mr. Obama’s handling of that war remains a black mark on his presidency. He drew a “red line” on Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons, only to recoil from the use of U.S. military force when Mr. al-Assad crossed it. In a 2020 book, Mr. Gordon argued against U.S. efforts to engineer regime change in the Middle East as a fool’s errand.
Mr. Gordon’s fingerprints were also on the Obama administration’s 2015 deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, and he continued to defend the agreement after Mr. Trump pulled out of it.
In a 2020 op-ed in The New York Times, Mr. Gordon warned: “If the Trump administration does not move to reduce tensions, it will soon find itself facing the very dilemma the nuclear deal was designed to avoid: the choice between a nuclear Iran or the need to start a war to prevent one.” Those are chilling words, and ones that could come back to haunt Ms. Harris if she wins the White House.
In a June speech in Israel, Mr. Gordon advocated for “a sustainable end to the war in Gaza in a way that leaves Israel secure, brings the hostages home, removes Hamas from power, and ensures a path to Palestinian dignity, freedom, self-determination, and security.”
Ms. Harris’s convention speech contained an almost identical line, except for the Hamas reference. If she makes it to the Oval Office, it will fall to her to realize that vision, perhaps with Mr. Gordon at her side.