In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Kamala Harris’s support from neoconservative groups emerged as one of the unexpected political alliances. The backing of a Democrat by figures such as Dick Cheney, William Webster, Bill Kristol, Alberto Gonzales, and John McCain raises questions about the reasons behind this support and whether a potential Harris victory could reincorporate the Greater Middle East Project (GMEP), a hallmark of neoconservative ideology, into the United States’ strategic agenda.
Neoconservatives, who rose to prominence during the George W. Bush administration, advocated using American power, often through military interventions, under the pretext of promoting democracy and protecting U.S. interests abroad. Their most significant achievement and failure was the Iraq War, launched as part of the GMEP, which aimed to reshape the Middle East by allegedly promoting democracy and capitalism while securing long-term U.S. interests. However, the high human and financial costs of these military interventions provoked widespread criticism, not only from the liberals but also from within the conservative movement.
When Trump entered the political scene, neoconservatism seemed to be in decline. His “America First” doctrine, which emphasized isolationism and opposition to interventionism, was fundamentally at odds with the neoconservative worldview. Trump withdrew U.S. forces from key conflict zones like Syria and Afghanistan, advocated for reducing U.S. military commitments abroad, and prioritized transactional diplomacy over long-term ideological goals—sharply contrasting with neocon principles. Additionally, Trump’s stance on longstanding American alliances, including his regular critiques of NATO, threats to scale back U.S. support for European partners, and openness to collaborating with leaders like Vladimir Putin—often viewed as adversaries—profoundly disturbed neoconservatives.
In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Harris emerged as the neoconservative preference due to her commitment to a globalist U.S. stance, in contrast to Trump’s isolationism. She is prepared to employ hard power as often as necessary. The current global environment for the U.S. is influenced by three key factors: competition with Russia, strategic rivalry with China, and persistent challenges in the Middle East. These elements are expected to inform neoconservative expectations of Harris if she assumes office.
Russia, after annexing Crimea in 2014, intervening in Syria, and later with the war in Ukraine, reestablished itself as a geopolitical rival to the U.S. in both Europe and the Middle East. Neocons have long advocated for a tough stance against Russia. As Russia loses strength and energy in Ukraine and as Europe’s reliance on the U.S. alliance increases, a Harris administration backed by neocons may emphasize expanding the U.S. military presence in Eastern Europe and the Middle East to counterbalance Russian influence.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has strengthened its economic foothold in the Middle East through infrastructure investments and trade agreements. Although China prioritizes economic influence over military intervention, its growing presence in strategic locations like the Persian Gulf poses a long-term challenge to U.S. hegemony. Neocons may expect a Harris administration to counterbalance China’s economic diplomacy in the Middle East by forging stronger military alliances with regional states or increasing U.S. participation in regional trade.
Initially, sceptical pundits doubted the return of the original GMEP format. However, current actions are undeniably generating excitement among neo-con factions. A prime example is the U.S. Central Command’s collaboration with Israel to plan a large-scale military operation against Iran. Despite the absence of a direct threat from Tehran, this aggression—triggered by Israeli airstrikes—could significantly escalate tensions and risk igniting World War III. Such reckless decisions jeopardize regional stability and threaten American lives and the economy, reminiscent of past misadventures like the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which ended disastrously.
This is why two major regional players, Iran and Türkiye, are expressing significant concern. In Tehran, recent events—including the deaths of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian in a suspicious helicopter crash, the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Iran, the multiple assassinations of high-level military officials in Lebanon and Syria, in addition to Israeli continuous strikes on Hezbollah targets in Lebanon—highlight Tehran’s anxiety about potentially being the biggest loser of these new developments.
Iran’s initial reluctance to engage in full-scale conflict with Israel portrayed a sense of weakness, inadvertently encouraging Israel’s desire for further escalation. Many analysts criticized Tehran’s subdued reaction, especially in light of compromises revealed during negotiations with the U.S. through mediators like Oman. Some observers believe that factions within Iran’s elite have effectively abandoned their proxies in Lebanon and Syria, preparing for a soft transition to align with the US/Israel new order.
Meanwhile in Türkiye, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has frequently raised the issue of Israel’s so-called “Greater Israel” map in the past few weeks. This map refers to the borders of the Promised Land (Arz-i Mevud), extending far beyond Israel’s current boundaries. Although not officially endorsed by the Israeli government, this expansionist vision remains a powerful symbol for certain right-wing groups in Israel and is seen as part of a broader Zionist agenda to reshape the Middle East.
The map also bears similarities to the Greater Middle East Project’s expanded version. At this point, the belief in radical Zionism intersects with the Evangelical notion that chaos is necessary for the return of Jesus Christ to the Middle East before the apocalypse. In this context, it is highly significant that the president of one of the region’s most important military and economic powers, which is also a NATO country, draws attention to the dangers looming in the region.
As the 2024 election approaches, Kamala Harris’s support from neoconservative factions raises significant concerns. The alignment with figures historically associated with aggressive military interventions suggests a potential return to the controversial Greater Middle East Project. Such a shift could lead to renewed U.S. military involvement in the region, escalating conflicts and undermining diplomatic efforts. The implications of this partnership could not only destabilize the Middle East but also compromise U.S. interests, echoing the disastrous consequences of past interventions.