'Whoever wins US election will need to strike delicate balance amid Middle East tensions'

The Mirror's US editor Christopher Bucktin says that both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris face the monumental task of addressing the volatile situation in the Middle East

As the 2024 US presidential election, a pivotal moment in global politics draws near, the world watches with apprehension as the Middle East implodes.

With President Joe Biden stepping down, the race has narrowed to former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Both candidates face the monumental task of addressing the volatile situation in the region, where conflicts are intensifying, and the threat of a broader confrontation - potentially leading to World War III - looms larger than ever.

Under Biden, US foreign policy in the Middle East has shifted toward diplomacy, albeit with mixed and now arguably failed results. Efforts to revive the Iran nuclear deal died, while relations with key allies like Saudi Arabia have been tested.

Now, with Biden no longer running, the region looks anxiously to the next US president for direction. Whether it's Trump or Harris, their approach will have profound implications for global peace.

If revived, the former president's Middle East strategy would likely emphasise transactional diplomacy and hardline measures. Trump's key legacy was the Abraham Accords, which brokered peace agreements between Israel and several Arab nations, creating a rare diplomatic success.

His hardline stance on Iran, including withdrawing from the nuclear deal and reinstating severe sanctions, drew both praise and criticism. On the one hand, his approach created a united front of Israel and Arab nations against Iran, but on the other, it deepened tensions and led to increased proxy conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq.

A second Trump presidency could see a return to this aggressive containment strategy, pushing for further regional cooperation while isolating Iran. However, his unpredictable style and tendency to bypass traditional diplomatic channels could escalate tensions, and his "America First" agenda might reduce US military presence, creating a power vacuum for adversaries like Iran and Russia to exploit.

On the other hand, Harris represents a potential continuation of Biden's diplomatic approach but with her emphasis on human rights and multilateralism. She would likely focus on de-escalation through dialogue, possibly reopening talks with Iran while maintaining alliances with Israel and the Gulf states.

Her commitment to talks could offer stability, but the complexity of the Middle East crisis requires a firm, unified strategy. If perceived as weak, her diplomatic efforts could also embolden opponents.

Both candidates must strike a delicate balance between averting immediate threats of global conflict and restoring stability to the region. Trump's assertive style might deter adversaries but risks inflaming the situation further.

Harris' diplomatic approach could promote peace, but missteps might lead to increased aggression from hostile powers. As the November election approaches, the stakes couldn't be higher - not just for America but for the world. The next US president's Middle East strategy may determine whether we inch closer to World War III or find a path to lasting peace.