As the Democratic National Convention convenes in Chicago, a handful of “Uncommitted” delegates hopes to influence the party to stop funding genocide. With all respect to the moral certainty of this tiny group, they are tilting at windmills and have already been told to shut the hell up. The party’s 2024 platform planks on Israel remain unchanged from 2020. More importantly, Kamala Harris’s choice of Middle East advisor offers the greatest clue about her policies; the advisor may talk a good game, but in the end he joins all his predecessors as little more than a creature of empire and occupation.
Harris’s advisor, Philip H. Gordon, previously served under Bill Clinton, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton and is a member of the National Security Council and the Council for Foreign Relations. Although tapped as Harris’s Middle East advisor, Gordon’s expertise is mainly on Europe and Eurasia. He has been around a while and published articles in The New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, the Atlantic, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Le Monde, and others.
Compared to much of the American foreign policy establishment, Gordon at first glance appears to be a moderate. He has argued, for example, against US involvement in regime change schemes, for the preservation of the US-Iran nuclear deal, and has questioned the usefulness of crippling sanctions on nations the US opposes. Gordon’s less belligerent tone immediately placed him in the GOP’s crosshairs. MAGA whackadoodle Elise Stafanik actually accused Gordon of being in bed with Iranian foreign agents.
Because Israel is constantly pushing the US toward outright war on Iran, Iran-watchers have naturally been curious about Gordon’s background. Last week the Iranian expat website Iran International produced an interesting and extraordinarily detailed roundup of Gordon’s career and connections (for example — who knew? — Gordon and Biden’s Secretary of State Anthony Blinken used to play on the same indoor soccer team at the Washington DC Edlavitch Jewish Community Center). Similarly, Jewish Insider also ran a profile of Gordon, as did Politico and The Nation.
Bottom line: Gordon is simply Pepsi to someone else’s Coke or Dr. Pepper. In terms of foreign policy there is little to suggest that a Harris presidency will look any different from any that have preceded it. Gordon was a booster of NATO’s disastrous involvement in the US war in Afghanistan. And given that both Gordon and Harris support continued US support for the war in Ukraine and continued US support for arming Israel, defense contractors have nothing to worry about under a Harris presidency.
Repairing the U.S.-Israel Relationship
For readers of this substack, Gordon’s monograph Repairing the U.S.-Israel Relationship, written together with Robert D. Blackwill, the Henry Kissinger Senior Fellow at the Council for Foreign Relations, may provide the best idea of his orientation toward Israel and Palestine. Gordon and Blackwill argue that the US and Israel ought to exhibit as little divergence (“daylight”) in policy as possible, particularly where Iran is concerned. In the preface written by CFR President Richard N. Haass:
“Here they note the widening gap between many in Israel and the United States over the desirability and feasibility of pursuing a two-state solution to this long-standing conflict. They then go on to suggest a more conditional American approach that would tie elements of U.S. policy to a range of Israeli actions on the ground, including settlement policy and what Israel is prepared to do to improve the daily lives of Palestinians and prospects for the emergence of a viable Palestinian state.”
Gordon and Blackwell acknowledge the dirty little secret of Israel’s reliance on the United States:
“Israel prides itself on being able to “defend itself by itself,” but the reality is that it continues to rely heavily on the United States for both military and diplomatic support. The United States has provided Israel some $100 billion in defense assistance since the 1979 Camp David peace treaty and regularly expends an enormous amount of political capital at the United Nations and in a wide range of other international organizations to shield Israel from criticism or sanction. Israel can choose to shrug off concerns about growing differences with Washington if it wants, but a decline in support from the United States would only embolden Israel’s enemies and imperil its legitimacy and security.”
but also Israel’s strategic importance to the United States:
“Despite the arguments of some of Israel’s critics, the United States profits substantially from the relationship as well. Israel is the United States’ closest strategic partner in the world’s most unstable region and shares valuable intelligence with Washington on terrorism, nonproliferation, and regional politics. The United States also derives important military benefits from the partnership, in areas such as military technology, intelligence, joint training and exercises, and cybersecurity. And, despite its relatively small population, Israel is the largest regional investor in the United States, the third largest destination for U.S. exports in the Middle East, an important research and development partner for the U.S. high-tech sector, and a source of innovative ideas on confronting twenty-first-century challenges such as renewable energy and water and food security.”
The thesis of their monograph is that certain tweaks need to be made to the US-Israel relationship:
“The future of the U.S.-Israel relationship is at risk. The two countries continue to share many interests and deep cultural bonds, but the relationship is threatened by diverging strategic perspectives on a region undergoing fundamental change and by long-term demographic, political, and social trends that are undermining the pillars on which the relationship once stood. No one is well served by pretending that these risks do not exist. For strategic, historical, and moral reasons, both governments should do all they can to reframe and revive the U.S.-Israel strategic partnership. The upcoming transition to a new U.S. administration provides an opportunity to put recent disagreements aside and to show the political will needed to reverse the negative policy trends described. This report offers several realistic and necessary steps the leaders on both sides should take as they contemplate their stewardship of this important relationship in the years to come. Although some of these steps would entail painful compromise and political risk, those leaders should understand that preserving this special relationship is worth the effort.”
These tweaks included:
- Seek to reframe the relationship at a summit in early 2017 at Camp David focused on developing a new strategic vision for a changing Middle East, committing the United States to remain engaged in the region, seriously addressing the Palestinian problem, and institutionalizing an intensive bilateral strategic dialogue.
- Enhance Israel’s sense of security and confidence in the United States by committing to expanded missile defense, anti-tunnel, and cybersecurity cooperation under the terms of the September 2016 longterm defense assistance Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
- Move beyond the debate about the merits of the Iran nuclear agreement and work together to implement and rigorously enforce it, with a commitment to imposing penalties on Iran for noncompliance and a joint plan for preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons after the deal’s main restrictions expire.
- Develop detailed common understandings about how to more effectively contain Iranian hegemonic regional designs and take action designed to do so.
- Agree on a set of specific, meaningful measures that Israel will take unilaterally to improve Palestinian daily life and preserve prospects for a two-state solution, linking continued U.S. willingness to refrain from or oppose international action on Israeli settlements or the peace process to Israel’s implementation of such positive, concrete steps.
- Expand economic cooperation focused on bilateral trade, investment, energy, innovation, and Israel’s integration into the region.
Unfortunately, the monograph’s proposals were simply so much boilerplate. US “engagement” in the region from administrations Gordon served in had already consisted of destabilizing Iraq, Syria, and Libya, undermining the Arab Spring, and arming Saudi Arabia to the hilt. Naturally, all joint security initiatives with Israel were pursued. Ignoring Gordon’s tepid suggestions, the Biden Administration made no effort to re-establish the Iran nuclear agreement and dismissed Gordon’s concerns about increasing sanctions. “Meaningful measures” to improve Palestinian life were never implemented by either Donald Trump or Joe Biden. Israel’s “integration into the region” was pursued by both Trump and Biden under the rubric of the Abraham Accords. And now the United States has doubled-down on the complete destruction of Gaza and its people.
There has been virtually no difference between Democratic and Republican policies vis-a-vis Israel or Palestine. Democrats who imagine a Harris administration will abandon a road long traveled are simply deluding themselves.
Further reading
Anderson, Lisa. “Book Review – Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East.” Foreign Affairs, 5 Feb. 2021, www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2020-12-08/losing-long-game-false-promise-regime-change-middle-east.
Deutch, Gabby. “The Obama Mideast Expert Guiding VP Harris on Foreign Policy.” Jewish Insider, 22 Dec. 2023, jewishinsider.com/2023/12/phil-gordon-national-security-advisor-to-the-vp-kamala-harris/.
Gordon, Phil. “Harris’ Support for Israel ‘Ironclad’ after Attack on Golan Heights.” Reuters, 28 July 2024, www.reuters.com/world/harris-support-israel-ironclad-after-attack-golan-heights-2024-07-28/.
Gordon, Philip H. “As Israel’s Greatest Defender and Closest Friend, We Owe It to You to Ask Fundamental Questions.” Times of Israel, 9 July 2014, www.timesofisrael.com/as-israels-greatest-defender-and-closest-friend-we-owe-it-to-you-to-ask-fundamental-questions/.
Gordon, Philip H. “Back up NATO’s Afghanistan Force.” The New York Times, 6 Jan. 2006, www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/opinion/back-up-natos-afghanistan-force.html.
Gordon, Philip H. “Philip Gordon and Ray Takeyh on Iran.” Council on Foreign Relations, 10 Jan. 2018, www.cfr.org/podcasts/philip-gordon-and-ray-takeyh-iran.
Gordon, Philip H., and Robert D. Blackwill. “Repairing the US-Israel Relationship.” Council for Foreign Relations, 1 Nov. 2016, cdn.cfr.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2016/11/CSR76_BlackwillGordon_Israel.pdf.
Gordon, Philip H., and Robert D. Blackwill. “Repairing the US-Israel Relationship.” Council on Foreign Relations, 1 Nov. 2016, www.cfr.org/report/repairing-us-israel-relationship.
Gordon, Philip, and Ariane Tabatabai. “The Choice That’s Coming: An Iran with the Bomb, or Bombing Iran.” The New York Times, 6 Jan. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/opinion/irans-crisis-nuclear-expansion.html.
Gordon, Philip. “Opinion: Israel’s Arabian Fantasy.” Washington Post, 27 June 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/06/27/israels-arabian-fantasy/.
Harris, Kamala. “Readout of National Security Advisor to the Vice President Phil Gordon’s Trip to Israel and the West Bank.” American Presidency Project, 26 June 2024, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/readout-national-security-advisor-the-vice-president-phil-gordons-trip-israel-and-the-west.
Israel National News, Editors. “VP Harris’ Security Advisor: ‘Some in Israel Reject a Ceasefire Deal, We Simply Disagree.'” Israel National News, 25 June 2024, www.israelnationalnews.com/news/392050.
Comments are closed.