JERUSALEM—The devastating wars launched by Russia’s authoritarian leader Vladimir Putin against Ukraine and the Hamas terrorist movement against Israel are raising uncomfortable questions for President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris about their alleged lack of resolve toward an Israeli victory over the Islamic Republic of Iran-backed proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Fox News Digital turned to experts on the Mideast and Russia for their reflections on the different war strategies embraced by Biden and Harris with respect to Ukraine and Israel.  

“The strategic behavior of the United States toward Ukraine and Israel differs substantially,” David Wurmser, a former senior adviser for nonproliferation and Middle East strategy for former Vice President Dick Cheney, told Fox News Digital.

“There has never been any indication that the United States affords Russia any legitimacy to its reasons for invasion. While a cease-fire in place may be sought, there is no indulgence of Russia’s ostensible grievances or demands,” Wurmser said, adding, “In contrast, regarding the Palestinians, the October 7 attack was blasted as a horror and Israel’s immediate defense was accepted, but the thrust of U.S. policy almost immediately and certainly with ever greater intensity was that a legitimate grievance underlies Palestinian claims and led to these events.”

HAMAS ADMITS ‘PAINFUL, DISTRESSING’ LOSSES AFTER ISRAELI VIDEO SHOWS TERRORIST SINWAR MOMENTS BEFORE HIS DEATH

While many Mideast experts see the effort to establish a Palestinian state as a failed project, the Biden-Harris administration has embraced Palestinian demands and sought to push Israel to accept a two-state solution before the Oct. 7 Hamas invasion and after Hamas massacred nearly 1,200 people in Israel.

The language of Biden and Harris towards Ukraine and Israel also shows a disconnect. In September, after Russian missiles killed more than 50 during an attack on a training facility and hospital, Biden said, “Make no mistake: Russia will not prevail in this war. The people of Ukraine will prevail. And on this tragic day, and every day, the United States stands with them.”

Vice President Kamala Harris shakes hands with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during the Summit on peace in Ukraine, in Obbürgen near Lucerne, Switzerland, on Saturday, June 15, 2024. (Alessandro della Valle/Keystone via AP)

Terminology that advances victory is largely shunned by Biden and Harris when discussing Israel’s ground wars against Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Biden and Harris went as far as to threaten Israel with punitive measures if the Jewish state invaded the last stronghold of Hamas in the city of Rafah. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhau called their bluff and defeated Hamas in Rafah, including the elimination of its terrorist leader Yahya Sinwar last month.

French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Biden announced last month during a discussion of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Victory Plan “their resolve to continue supporting Ukraine in its efforts to secure a just and lasting peace.” In the same statement, the western world leaders stressed “ending the war in Gaza,” a message to Israel that it recoil from its anti-terrorism war.

NETANYAHU SIGNALS TEHRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM COULD BE NEXT TARGET AS IRAN PLANS FUTURE ATTACK

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu conducts a security assessment at the air force HQ at the Kirya Base in Tel Aviv with the Minister of Defense, the Chief of Staff, the head of Mossad and the head of Shin Bet. (Israeli Prime Minister’s office)

Israel Defense Forces have not rooted out all Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip and Hamas’ leadership insists on continuing its war to obliterate the Jewish state. 

The juxtaposition of U.S. policies and language toward the prosecution of wars in Ukraine and in Gaza and Lebanon has revolved around blunting Israel’s paths to victory and its efforts to re-establish deterrence, argue critics of the Biden-Harris school of thought. Ukraine has not experienced the same offensive war restrictions from Biden and Harris, argue experts. 

Wurmser noted that “Ukraine is not facing an incessant attempt from the first days of the Ukraine war of self-defense to stop the war in a way that allows its enemy to consolidate its gains and pocket a victory. Only recently has the United States begun to indicate the preference for, but did not impose material pressure on yet, Ukraine to move toward a cease-fire. Not so with Israel.  From the first week of the war, the United States [has tried] to restrain Israel and press it towards a cease-fire.”

Israel Defense Forces soldiers are battling terrorists in the vital Netzarim Corridor in Gaza. (IDF Spokesman’s Unit)

He continued, “From the start of the Hezbollah attack on Israel on October 8, the United States pressed Israel to minimize its response and move to a cease-fire.  After the Houthis blockaded Israel’s southern port in late October 2023, sent missiles and drones into Israeli cities and attacked Israeli and world shipping, the United States pushed Israel to defer to the United States to guarantee its interests—which it then failed to do. After missiles and drones were sent by Iraqi militias in November 2023 into Israeli cities and ports, the United States similarly urged Israeli passivity but failed to provide Israel security.”

Iran’s regime supports and funds the Houthi movment in Yemen and pro-Iran Iraqi militias.

US DEPLOYS ADDITIONAL MILITARY FORCES TO MIDDLE EAST AMID INTENSIFYING REGIONAL TENSIONS: PENTAGON

Biden and Harris have, however, imposed a restriction on Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles. Zelenskyy appealed to the White House, in a late September meeting, that Biden and Harris increase Ukraine’s leverage to defeat Russia by lifting the ban on long-range missiles that can strike Russian territory. Key Republican lawmakers also urged Biden and Harris to permit Ukraine to use the U.S. long-range missile systems. 

Former U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency officer Rebekah Koffler told Fox New Digital that the “Biden-Harris Team has been trying to appease Iran by trying to micromanage Israel’s war fighting campaign, in which Israel is working to eliminate the existential threat. This incompetent approach — constantly pressuring Netanyahu to do a cease-fire, not letting him finish the job — is inviting escalation from Iran. Iran is emboldened, having witnessed that Biden-Harris don’t have Israel’s back. Iran has gotten so out of control that they’ve targeted Netanyahu’s home – think about that. The Ayatollahs clearly feel that Biden-Harris are on their side.”

Battalion 120 Territorial Defense takes part in training exercises near the Belarus border as the war between Russia and Ukraine has been going on for the last two years in Chernobyl, Ukraine, on March 16, 2024. (Photo by Gian Marco Benedetto/Anadolu via Getty Images)

The Islamic Republic of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei taunted the U.S. and the Jewish state with a “tooth-breaking” response to the actions of both countries on Saturday. Iran’s regime vowed to launch a third attack on Israel in response to Israel’s Oct. 26 attack on Iran, which targeted critical military infrastructure. That attack from Israel came in response to a wave of 200-some missiles launched from Iran into Israel on Oct. 1.

The U.S. State Department referred Fox News Digital to the White House for a comment. The White House and the Harris campaign declined to respond to Fox News Digital press queries.

Fox News’ Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report.

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are fighting down to the last vote to gain the upper hand in tomorrow’s election. There’s a remote possibility that the US poll could end in a draw, however.

This concerns the machinery of the US Electoral College, the winner-takes-all system that determines which presidential candidate will win the White House.

The Electoral College comprises 538 votes, distributed in varying proportions among the fifty states plus the District of Columbia. A tie between two presidential candidates is therefore theoretically possible.

Harris and Trump could each receive 269 electoral votes, resulting in a complete draw scenario, with both candidates unable to achieve the majority of electoral votes required to become president.

Similar stalemates have occurred twice in US history, in 1800 and 1824.

What happened when there was a tie in the past?

In the 1800 election, Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans defeated the incumbent Federalist President John Adams.

At that time, presidential candidates had a “running mate” from a different state, similar to today’s candidates for vice president. The electors had to cast two votes each: the candidate with the most votes would become president, while the candidate with the second-most votes would become vice president.

However, the Democratic-Republicans did not coordinate well, resulting in their candidate for president (Jefferson) receiving the same number of votes as their candidate for vice president (Aaron Burr).

The election was therefore decided by the House of Representatives using a one-state, one-vote rule after a long deadlock that nearly resulted in a military confrontation, as Sanford Levinson, a professor at the University of Texas Law School, has noted.

For this reason, the 12th Amendment was introduced, which still regulates the election of the US president. It clarifies that electors “shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President,” to avoid any possible tie between candidates from the same party.

However, there remains the possibility that no candidate receives a majority of the total number of electors appointed—currently, that crucial threshold is 270.

This actually happened in 1824, when Andrew Jackson received 99 votes, John Quincy Adams 84, William Crawford 41, and Henry Clay 37. All of these candidates were from the same Democratic-Republican political party, which was split into regional factions.

The 12th Amendment states that in such cases, the House of Representatives shall immediately choose the president by ballot from the top three choices of the electors. Votes are taken by state, with each state having one vote and a simple majority required.

This means that Wyoming, the smallest state in the US with fewer than 600,000 people, would have the same say in choosing a new president as California, which has almost 40 million residents (even though Wyoming appoints only three electors and California 54).

Additionally, the choice of the new president would depend on the composition of the House of Representatives, which is set to be voted on in parallel with the presidential elections.

ADVERTISEMENT

How likely is a tie?

While a tie is unlikely, it is still a possibility to consider, with various scenarios outlined by the website 270toWin.

One scenario is that Trump wins Pennsylvania and Georgia, while Harris secures victories in Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, and one electoral vote in Nebraska, which alongside Maine is the only state that splits its allocation of electors.

Another scenario, even more unlikely, is that Harris wins all the states Biden won, plus North Carolina, which current polls indicate could go to Republicans. If Trump then reclaims Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and also wins Nevada for the first time, the outcome would be a 269-269 tie.

This would trigger a “contingent election,” with the House of Representatives tasked with deciding the US president for the first time in two centuries, requiring a simple majority of 26 states to elect the new commander-in-chief.

ADVERTISEMENT

With the country sharply divided, newly sworn-in US congress members would face immense pressure and, in some cases, might have to choose between backing their party candidate or the one who received the most popular votes in their own state (there is no requirement for state delegations to honour the winner of their state’s vote).

This situation would likely unfold on 6 January, right after Congress determines that no candidate has a majority, according to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service.

Even more surprisingly, the tie scenario could lead to cohabitation between a Republican president and a Democratic vice president or vice versa.

Indeed, according to the 12th Amendment, in the event of no majority, the US vice president is chosen by the Senate from the two candidates with the highest number of electoral votes, with each senator entitled to one vote (the US Senate has 100 members, with each state electing two).

ADVERTISEMENT

Finally, the Senate could select a vice president even if the House is deadlocked in the election of the president. So, if a president is not selected by Inauguration Day, 2o January, the newly chosen vice president would serve as acting president. This is a scenario that no one in the US can envision as of today.