On foreign policy issues, both candidates fell short of expectations. JD Vance claimed that Donald Trump delivered effective deterrence against Iran, yet conveniently failed to mention that Tehran struck two U.S. military bases in Iraq with ballistic missiles days after a U.S. drone killed Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani. Tim Walz blamed Donald Trump for having an affinity for dictators yet apparently fails to realize that interaction with unsavory people, moral scruples notwithstanding, is often a part of the job as commander in chief. On the most pressing issue of the day, the escalating violence in the Middle East, Vance and Walz chose to trumpet generalities over specific policies. Vance, for instance, needs to explain why he thinks it’s wise for the U.S. to provide unconditional support to Israel if it decides to conduct a preemptive attack on Iran—particularly when tens of thousands of U.S. troops in the region could receive the brunt of any Iranian retaliation that ensues. Similarly, Walz must explain what a potential Kamala Harris administration would do to put Iran’s nuclear program back in a box and what tough but necessary concessions it’s willing to offer to get there. I suppose we will all have to wait a little longer for actual plans.
Featuring
Daniel
DePetris
Fellow
More on Western Hemisphere
Events on Grand strategy
