Trump vs. Harris: MENA Holds Its Breath as U.S. Election Heats Up

• MEDMed this WeekMiddle East and North Africa

The MED This Week newsletter provides informed insights on the most significant developments in the MENA region, bringing together unique opinions and reliable foresight on future scenarios and key issues which will be the focus of the 10th edition of the Rome MED Mediterranean Dialogues (25-27 November), co-organised by ISPI and the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. Today, we shed light on the US Presidential elections seen from MENA region.

The MENA region is closely watching the US presidential election, particularly in the Levant, where countries are directly impacted by the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon. Both US candidates have outlined their visions for US policy in the region, signalling no major shifts in American posture. Should she be elected, Kamala Harris is expected to continue Biden's legacy while increasing pressure on Israel to end the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, with a greater emphasis on the humanitarian impact of the war. On the other hand, Donald Trump is seen as unpredictable but pragmatic and assertive. During his previous term, he made key decisions -such as mediating the Abraham Accords, moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and recognising Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara - that have significantly shaped regional dynamics in the following years. Regardless of who becomes the US President, MENA countries' top priority remains ending the conflict, alongside safeguarding their own national interests.

We have invited experts from the ISPI and Rome MED Mediterranean Dialogues network to share their insights on US Presidential elections seen from MENA region.

Although still highly unlikely, an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement might be likelier with a new Trump administration

"A Harris or Trump administration would not be materially different in terms of how Palestinians experience US engagement in the Middle East. The current Biden-Harris administration's disastrous policies have supported ethnic cleansing, and arguably, according to the World Court, a plausible genocide in Gaza. That is likely to continue in one form or another under the administrations of either Harris-Walz or Trump-Vance. The presidential campaigns of both Harris and Trump - and past experience during the Trump presidency - indicate that neither candidate see Palestinians as endowed with the same humanity as Israelis. One significant difference potentially exists, however: Trump is more transactional. He will want to get something for the billions of dollars in aid to and diplomatic cover bestowed upon Israel. A second term President Trump will also be keen to claim that he succeeded in making regional peace where others failed. The crown jewel of normalization deals, Saudi Arabia, has been clear recently that this will require establishment of a sovereign state of Palestine. Thus, an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal might be more possible during a second term Trump administration than it is in a first term Harris administration - even if still extremely unlikely.".

Zaha Hassan, Fellow, Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

The Lebanese know that neither candidate cares much about Lebanon

"The Lebanese have known for months that no cease-fire deal is likely until after the US elections. They suspected that neither Iran nor Israel will stop their war by proxy until US intentions became clearer. But beyond the feeling that the US election was a necessary precondition for a cease-fire, the Lebanese are uncertain and divided regarding which US presidential candidate is more likely to deliver a deal - and notably one that is good for Lebanon. Trump's election will embolden Netanyahu who once called the former US president 'the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House'. This should have been sufficient to make Harris the Lebanese' preferred candidate. But the Lebanese fear that Harris will simply end up perpetuating Biden's policies - impotently complaining about Israel's attacks while continuing to arm it. Many - with no affection for Trump - think his unpredictable behavior and his obsession with making 'a deal' make him more likely to stand up to Israel's efforts to drag the US in its regional wars. Ultimately, the Lebanese know that neither candidate cares much about Lebanon and that their fate will ultimately be decided by the interests of foreign capitals."

Nadim Houry, Executive director, Arab Reform Initiative

For Israel, both Trump and Harris will push for an end to the Gaza war, but in different ways

"The identity of the next US president will shape Israel's foreign policy, especially its regional affairs vis-à-vis Iran and the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip. The majority of the Israeli public and decision makers consider Trump as a favorite because they believe he will be more hawkish towards Iran and allow Israel flexibility and support in military efforts against the nuclear program. Although both will probably push Israel to end the war in the Gaza Strip, Trump won't pressure the government to make concessions towards the Palestinians. Harris, however, will put the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip at the forefront and will be more susceptible to pressures from progressive elements in the democratic party. There is a concern in Israel that if Harris is elected, her administration will utilize the US military aid package to pressure Israel's policies in the region."

Noa Shusterman, Program Director, MIND Israel

Whatever the winner, the US will have to regain the trust of the Arab populations where anti-Americanism is growing

"Every government in the MENA region has its own national interest in ensuring that the new US administration breaks the cycle of war and escalation surrounding the Palestinian issue. However, neither candidate has demonstrated the capabilities to find a quick solution to the long-standing conflict in the region. What is certain is that, among the Arab populations from North Africa to the Middle East, the perception of the US as a mediator between the two sides has significantly eroded in recent months. Popular mobilizations against the war (and against US support for Israel) have largely been channelled by the regimes in power. This stance has been shaped by the strategic needs of each government to prevent the resurgence of major rebellions, at the cost of full and unreserved support for the Palestinian cause, which has been reduced to a convenient slogan in the official narrative. Harris or Trump will thus need to find a way to facilitate the resolution of the impasse, not only to protect their own strategic interests but also to prevent the further growth of popular anti-American sentiment in the region."

Caterina Roggero, Senior Associate Research Fellow, ISPI

For Tehran, US hostility will remain, but if Trump might use "maximum pressure" Harris would prefer dialogue

"Some in Tehran believe that U.S. hostility toward the Islamic Republic is a constant and doesn't change with political shifts in Washington. For these hardliners, it's the relationships with Russia, China, Gulf neighbours, and the broader Global South that matter. But even Iran's most unyielding factions can't entirely escape reality: U.S. policies do leave their mark. Sanctions, whether ratcheted up or softened, seep into the veins of the Iranian economy, inflicting pain or easing the strain. And any escalation of tensions with U.S.'s allies - or, indeed, with Washington itself - carries the looming threat of regional entanglements. A Harris win would likely bring continuity to Biden's cautious engagement - a recognition on both sides that, however limited, dialogue is preferable to the alternative. Meanwhile, Trump's rhetoric on a 'deal' with Iran hints at an approach laden with sticks rather than carrots. A return to 'maximum pressure' policy, which is likely to be implemented in conjunction with efforts to destabilize the regime, is more likely than not to put Iran and the U.S. back on a collision course rather than on a pathway toward the bargaining table."

Ali Vaez, Senior Adviser to the President & Project Director Iran, Crisis Group

For Jordan, Trump could pose a threat to stability, while Harris would maintain the status quo

"Substantively, little would change for Amman whether Trump or Harris is elected. US-Jordan relations have a long and stable history but they were tested under the first Trump administration with the unilateral move of the American embassy to Jerusalem, the repeated violations of historic status quo at Jerusalem's holy sites by right wing Israeli extremists, among others moves. While the Trump administration did not significantly alter the bilateral relationship, senior advisors in Trump's circle could pose a threat to Jordanian stability if they give a blank check to Israel's far right movement. President Biden's close relationship to the Hashemite family was visible in the many interactions between the countries' two leaders, providing stability and continuity in the US-Jordan relationship. A Harris administration would maintain the status quo of supporting Jordan through political, economic and military support and provide the expected talking points supporting Jordanian sovereignty in the face of Israeli right-wing threats, while utilizing Jordan's decades-long role as a mediator in the conflict."
Tuqa Nusairat, Executive Director, Institute for Social Policy & Understanding

Despite the Sisi-Trump special ties, Harris would push for Egypt's main interest: an end to the war in Gaza

"On a personal level, Egypt's president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, would doubtless welcome President Trump's return to the White House. Trump hosted Sisi twice at the White House and famously described him as 'my favourite dictator'. By contrast, Joe Biden initially froze contacts with Sisi over human rights concerns, and Kamala Harris would also be likely to limit her contacts with Sisi because of his repressive policies. However, in strategic terms, Egypt's interests might be better served by a Harris presidency. Trump would probably give Israel freer rein in Gaza than Harris, allowing it to maintain a military presence and to clear areas of the strip as 'buffer zones'. Such policies would ensure that Gaza remains in a state of limbo - and that in turn would ensure continuing pressure on Gaza's border with Israel. Failure to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza would also make it impossible to curtail Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, which harm Egypt's economy by deterring transit through the Suez Canal. Harris, by contrast, would put more pressure on Israel to reach a sustainable settlement in Gaza, which would help Egypt more than the symbolic gestures of friendship that Trump might extend to Sisi."

Anthony Dworkin, Senior Policy Fellow, ECFR

The Gulf countries' priority is to maintain strategic cooperation on shared US-GCC interests

"The Gulf region is adhering to its long-standing policy of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other nations. The Gulf has consistently emphasized its commitment to working constructively with any US administration, regardless of political affiliation or the specific outcomes of the presidential election. Despite acknowledging that US election outcomes will influence American foreign policy, particularly concerning the Middle East and US-GCC relations, the region has underscored its respect for the sovereign decisions of other nations. By avoiding entanglement in American domestic politics, the Gulf countries aim to ensure that their bilateral relations with the United States remain focused on strategic cooperation and shared interests, irrespective of political shifts in Washington."

Amnah Mosly, Researcher, Gulf Research Center

Doha's role as mediator and its relationship with Hamas may come under more scrutiny from Trump than from Harris

"Doha's most important consideration in the US election is making sure the US-Qatar security relationship remains strong under the new president. The US is Qatar's primary security guarantor, and the latter hosts the Al Udeid base, the largest US military installation in the Middle East. Another concern is the Gaza ceasefire talks and how the new president will manage these negotiations. As talks continue to stall, scrutiny of Doha's mediation role and its relationship with Hamas will likely increase under either administration. But Doha is more concerned about this scrutiny gaining momentum and leading to policy changes with Trump in the White House, especially if Republicans also gain more Congressional seats. Although unlikely, more partisan attacks on Qatar could undermine US-Qatar relations and even threaten Qatar's special 'Non-NATO ally' status - a major pillar of Doha's national security. Besides their immediate bilateral relationship with the US, Qatar will be closely following the next president's willingness to pressure Israel to end its wars in Gaza and Lebanon, as well as their policies on Iran. Doha certainly hopes that the new president will be more willing to curb Israel's military campaigns in the region and promote diplomacy with Iran, both of which are essential to conflict de-escalation and stability in the region."

Anna Jacobs, Senior Analyst, International Crisis Group

The next U.S. president must navigate complex Iraqi-American relations as the Global Coalition against ISIS winds down

"Iraqis are familiar with both the potential administrations of Trump and Harris, which makes them capable of dealing with either. Harris is expected to have a similar policy towards Iraq as President Biden. Of course, President Biden is also remembered by Iraqis as the man who blithely suggested the division of the country. Under the Trump presidency, the US assassinated General Qassem Soleimani of the Iranian IRGC in Baghdad along with Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, of the Popular Mobilization Forces. This is a critical year for Iraqi-American relations, however, because of the negotiations surrounding the timeline for the conclusion of the Global Coalition to defeat ISIS in 2025. This could potentially take place under two new administrations, as Iraqi elections are scheduled for October 2025 and Prime Minister Sudani is not likely to get another term, which means that the final outcome is up in the air."

Marsin Alshamary, Assistant Professor, Boston College

For governments in the Maghreb, ending the war in Gaza is a priority for the next US administration

"The people in the Maghreb region exhibit minimal interest in the US presidential election. Since Israel launched its war against the Palestinians, and more recently against Lebanon, with substantial backing from the United States, there has been a significant degree of resentment towards the US among the Maghrebi populace. The media in this area have also largely ignored the election, focusing instead on the Middle East, particularly the dire humanitarian situation faced by the Palestinians. The governments in the Maghreb do not expect any major shifts in US policy, regardless of the election outcome. Their primary concern is whether any of the candidates will take genuine steps to resolve the Middle Eastern conflict, which could potentially destabilize the Maghreb regimes."

Yahia Zoubir, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Middle East Council on Global Affairs

Whether it is Harris or Trump, Morocco will remain an indispensable US ally for regional stability and security

"Morocco has consistently served as a key US ally in the Maghreb and one of the most important in the broader MENA region, maintaining strong ties across successive US administrations. The Trump administration's recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara was a strategic move to further strengthen these ties, achieving two major outcomes for Washington: facilitating Rabat's normalization of relations with Israel and reinforcing Morocco's role in regional security. Under the Biden administration, the US has continued to support Morocco's geopolitical ambitions, bolstering Rabat's legitimacy in its autonomy plan for Western Sahara and encouraging US economic investments in the kingdom. For the United States, Morocco remains essential for regional stability and security, regardless of whether a Republican or Democratic president is in office, underscoring the enduring importance of the US-Moroccan relationship".

Youssef Siher, ISPI Mena Centre

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.