US officials say Russia is behind fake election videos of Haitian voters

Everywhere I've been in the last month – New York City, Tulsa, Santa Fe, Dallas, Seattle – someone asks me: “What are the differences between what a Harris administration and a Trump administration would do in the Middle East?” “ My answer: Without any rhetoric, the two candidates overlap more than they diverge.

People usually look at me like I have three heads. But that's only because their expectations of what the candidates might do are based on their feelings about the candidates and not what they actually stand for.

Think about the important topics of the day:

The two-state solution? Both are for it. They may have different ideas about what two states living side by side and in peace could look like, but they have nonetheless devoted energy and resources to advancing that goal.

Iran? Neither is particularly interested in direct confrontation over their evil activities. Former President Donald Trump may have been rhetorically hawkish toward Iran during his time in office, but when he had the opportunity to respond in the summer of 2019, when the Iranians seized oil tankers, mined in the Persian Gulf and shot down an American surveillance drone, then-President plunged into international airspace and attacked Saudi Arabia.

As for Vice President Kamala Harris, the Biden-Harris administration spent most of the first three years of its term trying to coax Iran back into a nuclear deal and has sought de-escalation in the region over the past year to that end a confrontation with Iran.

Regional normalization? Again, both Trump and Harris are in favor, although it seems unlikely that either administration would have the ability to advance Saudi-Israeli normalization without a resolution on the future of the Palestinians.

The differences between Harris and Trump will be, as is often the case, in rhetoric and tone.