Follow us on social

'I'm speaking now': Harris rebukes Gaza protesters

'I'm speaking now': Harris rebukes Gaza protesters

This and a key advisor’s tweet this morning suggest her differences with Biden on Israel may be more style than substance

Analysis | Middle East

This week, Vice President Kamala Harris has missed important opportunities to distinguish herself from President Biden’s disastrous approach on Gaza — renewing serious concerns about how she might handle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if elected in November.

At a campaign rally in Detroit last night, Harris was met with protests of the Biden administration’s unconditional support for Israel’s war in Gaza, which has killed at least 40,000 Palestinians (and likely many more). “Kamala, Kamala, you can’t hide, we won’t vote for genocide,” the protesters chanted — echoing the disgust with America’s role in the slaughter in Gaza that led more than 100,000 primary voters in Michigan to cast a ballot for “uncommitted” during the state’s democratic primary.

After first responding cordially — “I’m here because we believe in democracy. Everyone’s voice matters. But I am speaking now” — Harris shifted to dismissiveness when the protesters continued chanting, telling them, “You know what? If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking.”

Since assuming the Democratic nomination, Harris’ approach to the U.S.-backed war in Gaza has differed somewhat in style from Biden. This was evident in her campaign’s decision to invite leaders from Michigan’s “Uncommitted” campaign to a rope line at yesterday’s rally, where they reportedly aired their concerns with Vice President Harris and her ticketmate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. But her dismissal of the protesters from the podium, along with a tweet this morning from Harris’ key foreign policy advisor, Phil Gordon, suggests that those of us hoping that her different style might portend substantive policy change shouldn’t hold our breath.

Vice President Harris, Gordon writes, “has been clear: she will always ensure Israel is able to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups. She does not support an arms embargo on Israel. She will continue to work to protect civilians in Gaza and to uphold international humanitarian law.”

I resigned from the State Department in March because America’s unconditional support for Israel’s war in Gaza made protecting civilians in Gaza and upholding international humanitarian law impossible. In July alone, Israel has bombed 17 United Nations Relief and Works Agency schools serving as temporary shelters — another Israeli violation of international humanitarian law, likely committed with American bombs.

Refusing to withhold U.S. weapons from Israel as it conducts what the ICJ has ruled is plausibly a genocide is wholly incompatible with Harris’ purported humanitarian goals. And now, as the Middle East awaits a worrying escalation in violence between Israel and its opponents, there is an extraordinary risk that the U.S. will be boxed into entering a regional war for Israel — an outcome that would not only put U.S. service members in the line of fire and spell far more needless death and destruction in the region, but also deal a perhaps fatal blow to Harris’ presidential ambitions.

Vice President Harris needn’t risk her campaign and U.S. lives to satisfy Netanyahu, who hopes to prolong his political viability by putting Israel in a state of semi-permanent war. America has massive leverage to prevent further Israeli aggression in the region — it’s time to use it. If Harris and the Democrats want to win in November, they must work diligently now to avert a regional war by convincing Biden to withhold all further security aid until Netanyahu agrees to a full cease-fire in Gaza.

Israel needs to know that America won’t fight this war for them. Pairing more weapons shipments with increased displays of empathy for Palestinians and rope line greetings will do nothing to avert an escalation that could have catastrophic consequences for Harris’ campaign, America, the region, and the world.


Kamala Harris addresses protesters in the crowd at Detroit, Michigan, rally, Aug. 7. (Screenshot/You Tube)

Analysis | Middle East
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.