-Analysis-
PARIS — In more peaceful times, foreign policy has little impact on American elections. But on Tuesday, the debate between vice-presidential candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz began with the subject of the Middle East: It took place just after Iran’s missile attack on Israel, so the issue was hard to escape.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
Indeed, the two major conflicts, Ukraine and the Middle East, figure prominently in the issues pitting the two candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, against each other.
While American voters are more interested in their pocketbooks and abortion rights, they can’t ignore the fact that they will be choosing the leader of the world’s leading power at a time of growing international chaos.
It is not certain, however, that voters will have all the facts when they make their choice in a month.
Complex issues
On Tuesday, the would-be vice-presidents exchanged accusations about Iran that will be hard for the uninformed viewer to decipher. Yet the subject is an important one.
Walz, the Democrat, said former President Donald Trump made a major mistake by ending the United States’ participation in the nuclear deal in 2018. The agreement had been signed under the Obama administration. By withdrawing from it, Trump allowed Tehran to resume its uranium enrichment program, which today brings it close to the nuclear threshold.
This type of debate does not allow the public to grasp the complexity of the issues at stake.
Vance, Trump’s running mate, counter-attacked by accusing the Democrats of having transferred tens of millions of dollars to Iran, which he claims were used to manufacture the missiles fired at Israel. He forgot to mention that this was Iranian money blocked in the United States that was released in exchange for Tehran’s commitment to freeze its nuclear program.
This type of debate does not allow the public to grasp the complexity of the — very real — issues at stake. It’s all about scoring points.
Global consequences
On Ukraine, too, it’s not certain that voters have all the information, but at least the divide is clear. Trump swore he’d end the war in 24 hours, even before taking office. You’d have to be a bit naive to believe him. Unless you think that handing Ukraine over to Russian President Vladimir Putin is the way to solve the problem.
The Democrats, for their part, are trying to convince voters that it’s in America’s interest to continue helping Ukraine resist the Russian invasion. But they’re struggling because the sums involved are astronomical, and the stakes less clear than they were during the Cold War.
In both conflicts, the role of the United States is central enough for the choice of president to be decisive. In the end, the choice will undoubtedly be between the degree of trust voters place in Trump’s unpredictability, or in the fact of entrusting a woman, for the very first time, with the role of commander-in-chief of the world’s leading power.
In fact, the U.S. presidential election will have more of an impact on the world’s crises than those crises will on American voters’ choices. A frustrating realization, it must be said, when you don’t vote and still suffer the consequences.
