That would likely provoke a war with Iran, and even then, he wouldn't be able to do that without bipartisan support. If he can do that, and it can be proven Kamala would not, that is tangible evidence of escalation, something everyone else here failed to provide in any capacity, thanks.

Still, again, I question his ability to actually accomplish that even if he wanted to, and question that under conditions that allow him to be able to that Kamala would not also go through with it, given her record of unconditional support for genocide.

[–] klep@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

One of the candidates from the major parties will win. Period. One will gleefully do what he can to accelerate the genocide in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel has said they're not concerned with Iran, and they shouldn't be with all the weapons the west sends them.

Harris is currently the VP and can't just openly go against the administration she is serving in and therefore is in a tough spot, I'd imagine. Do I think Harris will commit to a weapons blockade or any sort of immediate solution? Absolutely not.

I do, however, think that Harris will 100% be more open to measures to bring about a ceasefire through pressuring Netanyahu and the Israeli state. That's the choice.

Nobody in US politics has a chance to stop the genocide instantaneously. That's the fact. Nobody that will be elected can do that. Harris, I believe, will be far more open to measures that will bring about change.

Is there a perfect option? There never is.