America and the world at large were eagerly awaiting the first presidential debate between former US president Donald Trump, the Republican candidate in the presidential elections in November, and the Democratic candidate, current US Vice President Kamala Harris.

The debate finally took place on 10 September in Philadelphia.

People across the US wanted to know what Harris stood for in policy terms, not as US Vice President in the Biden administration, but rather as president if she wins on 5 November.  Around the globe, leaders in almost every corner of the world also wanted to hear from her how she would steer US foreign policy in a turbulent world and how the foreign policy she would pursue would be different, or similar, to that of the present US administration, particularly as regards the war in Ukraine, the war on Gaza, and US-China relations.

US public opinion, as well as people in nations around the world, wanted to know how a second Trump administration might differ from the first one in 2017 to 2021 and how this administration, if Trump manages to obtain the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win in November, will deal with international crises from the Middle East to Ukraine and the future of US-China relations.

Viewers of the debate on 10 September saw the well-rehearsed prosecution of the former US president by Harris, a former attorney-general of California. She succeeded in putting him in the dock, and he helped her succeed in the prosecution, not only in terms of his policies while he was president, but also in personal terms. She managed to keep him off balance throughout the 90 minutes of the debate.

As the UK magazine the Economist wrote afterwards on 14 September, Harris “made the former president look small and angry and out of his depth.”

Before the debate, Harris was already riding high after the Democratic Party National Convention in Michigan in August. The debate and her well-prepared strategy in conducting it against Trump amplified this momentum. She looked presidential, whereas the former president proved that he had not changed. Even his promises concerning how he would handle the war in Ukraine were devoid of detail.

This does not mean that Harris convincingly explained her own future policies regarding the myriad domestic and international challenges facing the US, however. From a Middle Eastern point of view, the debate left some important questions unanswered.

For instance, how will the next US administration, whether Republican or Democrat, handle the war on Gaza and its aftermath? Harris was supportive of the two-state solution and called for a ceasefire and a hostage-release deal in Gaza. However, this sounded more like a continuation of the Biden administration’s positions rather than new directions for dealing with Palestinian-Israeli relations and the Palestinian question as a whole. Another important issue has to do with US relations with Iran.

As far as Middle Eastern questions are concerned, the conclusion to be drawn after the 10 September debate is that we should not expect US policies over the next four years, whether we are dealing with a Trump administration again or a Harris one, to be appreciably different. In other words, the status quo will not significantly change. Regrettably, this is good news for Israel.

Harris should be credited, from an Arab point of view, with demonstrating more empathy with the plight of the Palestinian people and implicitly criticising the way Israel has been exercising its “right of self-defence” in retaliation for the 7 October attacks by Hamas. However, the unwavering commitment of the US to the security of Israel remains paramount and supersedes any other considerations when it comes to the Middle East.

An important question is how the Arab countries, including Egypt, will deal with the next US administration, particularly because the search for lasting peace and security in the Middle East will ultimately depend on a fair solution to the Palestinian question in the context of the relevant UN resolutions.

In the meantime, the way the presidential elections in the US unfold will have a direct impact on the Middle East and other regions of the world, especially Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Will Trump concede the elections if he does not get the needed 270 Electoral College votes? He said earlier this year that there would be a “bloodbath” in the US if he loses.

Maybe this is the reason why Edward Carr, deputy editor of the Economist, concluded the magazine’s coverage of the Trump-Harris debate by saying that “as the campaign switches into overdrive, three things are clear: the race is getting uglier, the result is on a knife-edge, and, unfortunately, America’s way of running elections is destined to create conflict.”

This will certainly directly impact the path international relations will pursue over the next few years.

The writer is former assistant foreign minister.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 19 September, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly