If there is a Harris foreign policy do we call it Biden-lite?

Now that President Joe Biden has made the unprecedented decision to end his reelection campaign and endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for president, we need to ask: what will be her foreign policy if she wins in November?

It is safe to assume that there will be broad continuity with the Biden administration’s overall approach to the world, but there is some evidence that Harris might guide U.S. foreign policy in a somewhat less destructive direction than where it has been going under Biden.

First off, Harris did not run for president in 2020 on foreign policy and has relatively little foreign policy experience from her short time in the Senate and her tenure as vice president. While she has cast a number of tie-breaking votes in favor of Biden’s domestic agenda in the Senate, she has played a smaller role in foreign policy by representing the U.S. at international meetings that the president has been unable to attend. She was tasked by Biden to focus on the “root causes” in Latin America leading to the undocumented migrant issue at the nation’s southern border, drawing mixed reviews at best.

Meanwhile, her voting record in the Senate offers some bright spots, including her opposition to U.S. backing for the Saudi coalition war on Yemen, and her early opposition to arms deals with Riyadh. She joined with her Democratic colleagues in objecting to Trump’s withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and she has been generally supportive of arms control and nonproliferation measures.

During her 2020 presidential run, she signaled openness to “rewrit[ing] the Authorization for Use of Military Force that governs our current military conflicts.” And while Harris has a history of close ties to AIPAC, she called Trump’s Iran nuclear deal exit “reckless” during the 2020 campaign and vowed to re-enter the JCPOA as president.

But no one should expect any radical overhauls under Harris. She is a conventional liberal internationalist for better or worse. There are some hints that she might have a different approach to the war in Gaza than Biden, but these have mostly been differences in tone rather than major disagreements over policy so far. In contrast to the president, Harris has shown more genuine empathy for the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. She also called for a ceasefire earlier than Biden did, but on the whole she has followed the administration’s script as one would expect from a vice president.

Harris has indeed been required by her position as vice president to be a vocal supporter of the president’s policy agenda, so to some extent we will have to wait to find out what Harris’s own views are and how much they might differ from Biden’s. This is definitely the case for the Ukraine War where she has been in absolute lockstep with the president if she talks about it at all. In her remarks at the Munich Security Conference, she echoed the administration’s framing of this as a war between democracy and autocracy:

"No nation is safe in a world where one country can violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another where crimes against humanity are committed with impunity; where a country with imperialist ambitions can go unchecked.

"Our response to the Russian invasion is a demonstration of our collective commitment to uphold international rules and norms. Rules and norms which, since the end of World War Two, have provided unprecedented security and prosperity not only for the American people, not only for the people of Europe, but people around the world…

"Again, the United States will continue to strongly support Ukraine. And we will do so for as long as it takes."

Her previous opposition to backing the Saudi coalition in Yemen suggests that she might be more open to curtailing or ending U.S. support for the war in Gaza, but that remains to be seen. Given all of Biden’s political headaches in swing states like Michigan, the war in Gaza is clearly one issue where Harris would stand to benefit by breaking with current administration policy.

Some of the former government officials that resigned in protest over U.S. support for the war in Gaza are cautiously optimistic about Harris. After Biden’s unconditional backing for the war, any alternative is an improvement in their eyes. Josh Paul, the first State Department official to resign in protest, told Politico, “I would say I have cautious and limited optimism — but also a deep sense of relief that the Democratic party will not be nominating for the Presidency of the United States a man who has made us all complicit in so much and such unnecessary harm.”

The vice president reportedly depends heavily on her foreign policy advisers, so it is worth looking more closely at the thinking of her current national security adviser, Philip Gordon, who would presumably serve in that capacity if Harris is elected.

Gordon is a Clinton and Obama administration veteran with a background in working on European and Middle Eastern issues. He was one of the U.S. negotiators responsible for securing the JCPOA. After leaving government, he became one of the deal’s most vocal defenders.

Gordon has demonstrated that he understands the Iranian government better than a lot of his colleagues, and that could be very useful in reviving negotiations with Iran under its new reformist president Masoud Pezeshkian.

Gordon has absorbed some of the important lessons from U.S. foreign policy failures, including the disastrous interventions in the Middle East and North Africa and has written about those lessons at length in his book, “Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East.” The book reviews the history of major U.S. regime change policies of the last 70 years and in each case Gordon shows how the policies ended up leaving both the U.S. and the affected countries worse off.

It is notable that he criticized destructive Obama administration interventions just as sharply as he did the policies of other presidents. Some analysts see Gordon’s role as Harris’s top adviser as an encouraging sign that her foreign policy could be an improvement over Biden’s. Bourse & Bazaar CEO Esfandyar Batmanghelidj commented, “[Gordon] would be a big upgrade on Sullivan, especially when it comes to thoughtful approaches to the US role in the Middle East.”

There probably wouldn’t be many departures from Biden administration foreign policy under Harris. As Biden’s vice president and would-be successor, Harris has strong incentives to continue with his agenda. That said, there are a few reasons to hope that U.S. foreign policy could be smarter and more constructive if Harris takes Gordon’s best advice to heart.