Kamala Harris, the U.S. Vice President, does not seem a stranger to foreign policy. She has gained experience through her ongoing attendance at National Security Council meetings and her meetings with high-ranking officials such as the Secretary of State. However, her public stances on Middle Eastern issues raise concerns from some perspectives, as she is seen as holding views that could be detrimental to stability in this volatile region.

American writer and investigative journalist Richard Miniter stated in a report published by National Interest that, with the Republican candidate Donald Trump and his Democratic competitor Kamala Harris reaching a tie in polls, it is time to ask the following question: What will Harris's foreign policy look like?

Miniter adds, "First, let’s dismiss the idea that Harris lacks experience in foreign policy and will thus rely heavily on seasoned politicians in the Biden, Obama, and Clinton administrations."

This opinion is comforting to officials of previous Democratic administrations and favors continuity. It is also reassuring for supporters and analysts on both sides of the Republican and Democratic divide, allowing them to defend or attack Harris based on Biden’s record.

But this is a false assumption. In fact, Harris has more foreign policy experience in the executive than Trump did in 2016 and more than the Republican contenders did in 2012 and 2008.

Harris has visited 21 countries on 17 overseas trips as a representative of the president and has met with over 150 leaders of allied or independent countries, including the leaders of China and Russia.

Importantly, she led the U.S. delegation at three security conferences in Munich, where NATO leaders gathered to discuss global threats.

These meetings included prime ministers, defense ministers, foreign ministers, generals, admirals, and diplomats.

Harris honed her foreign policy views within the White House by attending "nearly every National Security Council meeting and, importantly, almost every presidential daily briefing," according to Fred Kaplan in Slate.

The daily briefings rely on the most complete information that U.S. intelligence can provide, and the implications of different developments are analyzed by subject matter experts and senior presidential staff.

It is not just a daily seminar at the graduate level, but a real-time laboratory for processing information and making executive decisions.

Finally, she has years of regularly scheduled one-on-one meetings with Secretary of State Antony Blinken. In these meetings, views were formulated, tested, sharpened, excluded, or rephrased.

Thus, the notion that Harris lacks her own views on foreign policy is a laughable idea.

No one at this level of expertise and access is a blank slate that assistants can write on as they please.

Some point to the "many changes" among the Vice President's office staff to suggest that her opinions are unstable or inconsistent. This "evidence" does not lead to the proposed conclusion. In fact, there has been very little change among her core national security team.

Her first foreign policy advisor, Nancy McEldowney, served until March 2022, and her deputy Philip Gordon has been promoted and remained in place since then. Most of Harris's other foreign policy advisors have served for years.

The statistics cited by critics pertain to young people in their twenties working in media and scheduling roles where turnover is always high. In reality, her foreign policy team has seen very little change, and they respect her views and share her political thoughts.

So, what are those political ideas? It is unlikely that Harris will make a sweeping national security statement or issue a "Harris doctrine." The details will not earn her any votes and may even weaken her fragile coalition. It is beneficial for the candidate to remain ambiguous.

Nonetheless, her public statements, whether as a U.S. senator or as Vice President, suggest she is ready to make some radical shifts in policy, especially regarding Iran and Israel.

As a senator, Harris called for rejoining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) of 2015, the Iranian nuclear deal. This agreement was a deal with Iran to ease sanctions in exchange for slowing down its nuclear program, which was strongly opposed by the Prime Minister of Israel, and the Trump administration halted its commitment to it.

As Politico noted, Harris "condemned the military strike carried out in January 2020 against prominent Iranian leader Qasem Soleimani and co-sponsored unsuccessful legislation to prevent further military actions against Iranian leaders and targets."

Soleimani was directly linked to the killing of American citizens, including military personnel. The American military strikes proved to change, at least temporarily, Iran’s use of proxy forces to carry out attacks against Israel and other U.S. allies. Thus, Harris's position on the use of military force against America's primary adversary in the Middle East marks a significant shift from the last five U.S. presidents.

Based on previous statements, Harris is likely to be more concerned about Israel's response to Iranian attacks than the attacks themselves.

In regard to Sudan, the situation is more dire. The civil war and genocide are leading to a refugee crisis possibly the size of the crisis seen in Ethiopia in the 1980s. Iran and Russia may soon control most of the African coast along the Red Sea, threatening a major global trade route. Harris may reluctantly consider imposing economic and political sanctions on Sudan and is likely to respond only after sustained and significant pressure from Congress. As for holding Sudanese criminals accountable in The Hague for war crimes and genocide, do not expect that.

Miniter indicates that Harris's officials are likely to seek a "grand deal" with Iran. Peace talks with Tehran will begin to halt missile and drone attacks in exchange for lifting sanctions and freeing trade. Once Iran possesses nuclear weapons, negotiations will be unrealistic and futile, just as the talks with North Korea have been over the past three decades.

As for Israel, it will have to adjust to even less support than it received during President Biden’s tenure. If its people vote to remove Netanyahu's party and elect a leader from the centrist or leftist party, the transition away from American support may be somewhat softened.