Walz and Vance agree on backing Israel against Iran in VP debate

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D) and Ohio Senator J.D. Vance (R) faced off in their first - and likely only - Vice Presidential Debate of the 2024 elections cycle in New York City on Tuesday night. 

Although foreign policy did not get much attention on the debate stage, it was the inaugural issue of the night, specifically in light of Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launching over 200 ballistic missiles onto Tel Aviv and various other Israeli cities in retaliation for both the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza and the expansion of the conflict to Lebanon, namely the targeting and killing of the top leadership of Iran-allied militant group Hezbollah.

More specifically, the question posed to both Vice Presidential hopefuls was whether they would support a preemptive strike on Iran by Israel. 

“Israel’s ability to defend itself is absolutely fundamental,” Walz said, “getting its hostages back - fundamental, and ending the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. But...[there is] an absolute fundamental necessity for the United States to have a steady leadership there.” 

While he went on to commend the US’ contribution to the Israeli response and counter-strikes, Walz notably seemed to dance around the question for the most part, opting to invoke criticism of former President Donald Trump.  

“A nearly 80 year-old talking about crowd sizes is not what we need at this moment,” Walz continued on reference to the former President’s September debate against his running mate, Vice President Kamala Harris. 

Although the Vice President has not shown so much daylight between herself and President Joe Biden when it comes to the situation in the Middle East, she has notably on multiple occasions adopted a tone that is more sympathetic towards Palestinians, and has indicated her openness to meetings with pro-Palestine groups and community organizers.

However, several of these pro-Palestine and anti-war groups, along with a number of members of the “Uncommitted” Movement and protest vote campaign, still do not deem her stances as satisfactory; their main demand remains an explicit embargo on U.S. arms and aid to Israel.

They also condemned the Democratic National Committee’s refusal to allow any Palestinian-American speakers on stage at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois, or any speakers who were to address the war in Gaza on stage. 

The former President, on the other hand, has also been clear with regards to his support for Israel and met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in July to further discuss the war, although he had been critical of the direction in which Israeli military operations in Gaza have gone, suggesting Israel is “losing the PR war”.

Former President Donald Trump has provided what he referred to as a “play-by-play” of the debate through live-posting on his Truth Social app, although he did not bring up foreign policy issues or the wars in Israel-Gaza-Lebanon throughout. 

Vance’s retort appeared drawn for the most part from a talking point often repeated by the former President: That the war would have never started if he was still in The Oval Office (the phrase Vance had for this was “effective deterrence”). 

“Donald Trump recognized that for people to fear the United States, you need peace through strength,” Vance said shortly after a false claim that Iran was able to retrieve $100 million in unfrozen assets from the Biden-Harris administration (Iran did take possession of that amount of money after the Iran Nuclear Deal was signed under the Obama-Biden administration, not the Biden-Harris administration.

Trump ended the deal during his term as president. Shortly after the October 7th, 2023 attacks on Israel, the Biden-Harris administration froze $6 billion in funds that Iran were to retrieve following a prisoner exchange deal). 

Vance did go on to explain that such a decision to strike Iran would be up for Israel to make, with support for the key Middle Eastern ally being up to the United States as the right approach. 

Vance’s running mate has promised on several occasions that he would end the war if he is re-elected, and even used that as a hook in recent efforts to court the Arab-American and American Muslim electorates in states like Michigan.

But he has also come under fire during his debate against President Joe Biden - their only debate of the 2024 elections season before President Biden dropped out of the race - after he called him a “very bad Palestinian” for what he deemed as stances not supportive enough of Israel, with critics likening his usage of the word “Palestinian” in such a context to that of a slur.

He later faced similar criticism for condemning Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro (D) and his support of the Vice President’s own presidential bid, suggesting that Shapiro, who is Jewish and was a top contender to be Vice President Harris’ running mate, should have supported him instead for being “the best friend that Israel, and the Jewish people, ever had”.

Critics, including Shapiro himself, condemned the statement and its invocation of the “dual loyalty” antisemitic trope. 

With that in mind, it is highly unlikely that this Vice Presidential Debate - or any Vice Presidential Debate, for that matter - would be swinging polls across the United States in favor of the Trump-Vance or the Harris-Walz presidential ticket - historically, Vice Presidential Debates would make little to no impact on presidential races, and this debate is no exception.

Furthermore, even if this debate were to ultimately influence a significant number of voters either way, Vice Presidents primarily preside over the U.S. Senate and have a role that is more akin to a highly trusted aide or advisor to a sitting U.S. President.

In other words: It is former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris who would ultimately be making the key decisions pertinent to key issues like foreign policy in the White House when elected, although, to paraphrase CBS Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent and debate co-moderator Margaret Brennan, either Walz or Vance would be the final voice the President would hear prior to said key decisions.