Senior Fellow and Director, Reimagining U.S. Grand Strategy Program
The vice presidential debate began with a question on the widening war in the Middle East, and a follow-on concerning Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal during his presidency. These were the only foreign policy questions of the evening. There was no mention of Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine. China came up only in the context of trade and tariffs. Tensions in the South China Sea, and what to do about Taiwan, never came up. The Pentagon’s budget – which is ballooning, in part, in order to deter war with China over Taiwan, or win that war if deterrence fails – was similarly off the table.
This is all somewhat surprising, even though foreign policy is traditionally less salient than the many other issues that voters care about, including the economy, housing affordability, health care, and climate change and the environment.
Still, Senator Vance’s and Governor Walz’s answers to a straightforward question – “Would you support or oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran?” – were unlikely to reassure the vast majority of Americans who are wary of the United States becoming involved in yet another war. There are already an estimated 40,000 US troops in the region, and more are on the way, even though nearly half of Americans surveyed in six key swing states favor reducing the U.S. military presence in the Middle East. The risks to U.S. servicemen and women are grave – and rising. I wish that Senator Vance and Governor Walz had been more forthcoming about how they would advise the next president to prevent the United States from being drawn even deeper into a region where trillions of dollars – and too many American lives – have already been squandered.
"The speed and scope of our nation’s energy transition from fossil fuels is having a tremendous impact on our economy, including trade, and posing some challenging questions for U.S. policymakers."
The Vice-Presidential Debate was more substantive and civil than either of the two Presidential debates, revealing more detailed and nuanced policy positions. Some of those positions, however, on both sides rested on misunderstandings or construed facts. A notable example came early in the debate on the issue of climate change and the transition to clean energy.
The speed and scope of our nation’s energy transition from fossil fuels is having a tremendous impact on our economy, including trade, and posing some challenging questions for U.S. policymakers. Responding to a question on Hurricane Helene and the role of climate change, Senator Vance first pointed out that climate change was not ALL due to carbon emissions. Some commentators incorrectly interpreted that comment to mean that it had no impact, but his point was just that 100% could not be attributed to greenhouse gases. Next, he asserted that to reduce carbon emissions the U.S. should “reshore as much manufacturing as possible, … because we’re the cleanest economy in the entire world.” Given that the United States has one of the highest rates in the world of carbon emissions per capita, this raised some questions. Digging deeper, the United States is, according to the IMF and the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, produces an equivalent unit of economic output with half the carbon emissions of China. However, the European Union’s rate is half again that of the United States. Substituting U.S. manufacturing for Chinese imports would, then in principle result in lower greenhouse gas emissions, but switching the imports from China to Europe would reduce them even further.
There are of course other economic and political implications of reshoring manufacturing back to the United States. Governor Walz focused on the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the jobs that have been created by the transition to clean energy. Senator Vance’s somewhat incoherent response, despite Republican opposition to the IRA, was that even more effort should have been made to return clean energy jobs to the United States from China. He also pointed out the slow pace of bringing new nuclear sources of power online. Governor Walz concluded by veering back toward promoting domestic energy production and Administration efforts to weatherproof U.S. infrastructure.
While it was not the most edifying discussion on energy and climate change, it touched on some important topics. Both VP candidates’ positions, for example, on the importation of China solar panels elided the conundrum of how lower cost equipment can accelerate the adoption of green energy resources versus the prospect of an increased share of domestic U.S. manufacturing of that equipment. This remains a dilemma U.S. policymakers will continue to confront as the green energy transition continues to pick up its pace and share of U.S. energy production.
“The omission of North Korea’s denuclearization from both the Democratic and Republican policy platforms has not been lost on South Korea”
The vice presidential debate did not address Korean Peninsula issues—which was expected, given the urgency of the Middle East conflict.
That notwithstanding, Tim Walz’s comment about the importance Harris places on allies and allied forces may reinforce some experts’ thinking that a second Trump term may entice Kim Jong Un back to the nuclear negotiating table. It is logical to assume that Kim would prefer to talk to Trump: Trump and Kim are known to have rapport, with Trump showing continued interest in North Korea on the campaign trail.
Furthermore, Trump is more likely to show some flexibility in nuclear negotiations with North Korea than Harris, who has already declared she would not “cozy up to” Kim Jong Un.
While a Trump presidency may change Pyongyang’s tactics, it is unlikely to change North Korea’s broader strategy toward Washington. North Korea at the highest levels have consistently indicated since the breakdown of the Hanoi summit in 2019 that Kim’s personal feelings for Trump will not affect North Korea’s policy toward the United States. This was confirmed by Kim Jong Un himself only two months ago, and reaffirmed by North Korea’s permanent representative to the United Nations on September 30.
The lack of any substantial discussion on North Korea’s nuclear program during the Harris-Trump debate and again during the Vance-Walz debate almost certainly has not been lost on South Korea and may even fuel concerns about a lack of US interest in the North Korean nuclear issue. South Korean media have already expressed worry over the omission of North Korea’s denuclearization from both the Democratic and Republican Parties’ policy platforms.
“Nuclear energy made a brief appearance, but it didn’t get the airtime – or fact checking – it deserved.”
Senior Fellow and Director, Partnerships in Proliferation Prevention Program
Nuclear energy made a brief appearance at Tuesday night’s vice-presidential debate, but did not get the airtime or fact checking it deserved. J.D. Vance said that the United States needed to invest in “more energy production” to address the climate crisis, commenting that more solar panels should be manufactured domestically rather than in China and that no nuclear facilities had been built in the past 40 years (incorrect).
While he defended Minnesota’s role in domestic solar panel production, Tim Walz missed an opportunity to highlight the current administration’s actions to promote nuclear energy both at home and abroad, just as Vance overlooked work toward the same ends under the Trump administration. Given the variable nature of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, it is indeed likely that nuclear power will need to form at least part of a mix of clean energy sources to provide stable and consistent generation. Yet it faces major cost barriers: the two most recently constructed reactors in the United States, at Georgia’s Vogtle power plant, were completed years behind schedule and for billions over budget.
Both the Trump and Biden administrations have supported bipartisan legislation seeking to jump start innovation and overcome the cost barriers in the sector through government support, the first through the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, and the latter through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021, through which the U.S. Department of Energy launched an Advanced Reactor Demonstration Projects initiative to support design, licensing, construction, and operation of two advanced reactor technologies. More recent legislation supporting nuclear energy includes the Inflation Reduction Act and the ADVANCE Act, as well as a ban on Russian uranium imports.
As other countries consider adding or expanding nuclear power in their energy mixes, the United States is also seeking to regain a share of its technology export market, competing with Chinese and Russian sales pitches as it seeks also to ensure responsible deployment of new technologies. Indeed, the challenges that will face either party after the election in fostering the growth of nuclear energy domestically and abroad are numerous and complex: from developing capacity for producing fuel for the domestic fleet today or new fuels for new reactor technology of the future to managing upfront costs alongside security and proliferation concerns and the need for addressing the question of safe and secure nuclear waste disposal.
“It was perhaps inevitable that the sole foreign policy issue raised in the debate was on the Middle East.”
On a day when Iran retaliated for a series of Israeli assassinations of Iranian and allied officials by shooting a barrage of ballistic missiles at Israel, it was perhaps inevitable that the sole foreign policy issue raised in the debate was on the Middle East.
Democrat Tim Walz appeared caught off guard when CBS’s Margaret Brennan kicked off the debate by asking if Walz would “support or oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran” in response to the Iranian strikes, which were largely intercepted.
Walz fumbled and misspoke about “the expansion of Israel and its proxies” before pivoting to Donald Trump’s alleged leadership deficits and reminding viewers that Trump withdrew from a 2015 nuclear deal that had been containing Iran’s nuclear program.
In answering the same question, JD Vance began by digressing into his biography before stating inaccurately that the “Kamala Harris administration” had unfrozen $100 billion in Iranian assets. In fact, the Biden administration in 2023 okayed South Korea unfreezing $6 billion in return for the release of Americans jailed in Iran – money that Iran has yet to access. Vance ultimately replied that “it is up to Israel what they think they need to do to keep their country safe.”
Walz did point out that the current conflict in the Middle East began with a massive attack on Israel by Hamas last October 7. But there were no follow-up questions or comments on how to end the conflict, which has steadily escalated and widened with seemingly no end in sight. And while Vance has in the past opposed U.S. military intervention abroad, the vice presidential hopeful said last night only that “we should support our allies wherever they are when they’re fighting the bad guys” – hardly an illuminating answer.
The State of US Foreign Policy in the Vance-Walz VP Debate
By Christopher Preble • Andrew Hyde • Rachel Minyoung Lee • Christina McAllister • Barbara Slavin
Grand Strategy
“Unlikely to reassure the vast majority of Americans who are wary of the U.S. becoming involved in yet another war.”
The vice presidential debate began with a question on the widening war in the Middle East, and a follow-on concerning Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal during his presidency. These were the only foreign policy questions of the evening. There was no mention of Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine. China came up only in the context of trade and tariffs. Tensions in the South China Sea, and what to do about Taiwan, never came up. The Pentagon’s budget – which is ballooning, in part, in order to deter war with China over Taiwan, or win that war if deterrence fails – was similarly off the table.
This is all somewhat surprising, even though foreign policy is traditionally less salient than the many other issues that voters care about, including the economy, housing affordability, health care, and climate change and the environment.
Still, Senator Vance’s and Governor Walz’s answers to a straightforward question – “Would you support or oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran?” – were unlikely to reassure the vast majority of Americans who are wary of the United States becoming involved in yet another war. There are already an estimated 40,000 US troops in the region, and more are on the way, even though nearly half of Americans surveyed in six key swing states favor reducing the U.S. military presence in the Middle East. The risks to U.S. servicemen and women are grave – and rising. I wish that Senator Vance and Governor Walz had been more forthcoming about how they would advise the next president to prevent the United States from being drawn even deeper into a region where trillions of dollars – and too many American lives – have already been squandered.
"The speed and scope of our nation’s energy transition from fossil fuels is having a tremendous impact on our economy, including trade, and posing some challenging questions for U.S. policymakers."
The Vice-Presidential Debate was more substantive and civil than either of the two Presidential debates, revealing more detailed and nuanced policy positions. Some of those positions, however, on both sides rested on misunderstandings or construed facts. A notable example came early in the debate on the issue of climate change and the transition to clean energy.
The speed and scope of our nation’s energy transition from fossil fuels is having a tremendous impact on our economy, including trade, and posing some challenging questions for U.S. policymakers. Responding to a question on Hurricane Helene and the role of climate change, Senator Vance first pointed out that climate change was not ALL due to carbon emissions. Some commentators incorrectly interpreted that comment to mean that it had no impact, but his point was just that 100% could not be attributed to greenhouse gases. Next, he asserted that to reduce carbon emissions the U.S. should “reshore as much manufacturing as possible, … because we’re the cleanest economy in the entire world.” Given that the United States has one of the highest rates in the world of carbon emissions per capita, this raised some questions. Digging deeper, the United States is, according to the IMF and the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, produces an equivalent unit of economic output with half the carbon emissions of China. However, the European Union’s rate is half again that of the United States. Substituting U.S. manufacturing for Chinese imports would, then in principle result in lower greenhouse gas emissions, but switching the imports from China to Europe would reduce them even further.
There are of course other economic and political implications of reshoring manufacturing back to the United States. Governor Walz focused on the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the jobs that have been created by the transition to clean energy. Senator Vance’s somewhat incoherent response, despite Republican opposition to the IRA, was that even more effort should have been made to return clean energy jobs to the United States from China. He also pointed out the slow pace of bringing new nuclear sources of power online. Governor Walz concluded by veering back toward promoting domestic energy production and Administration efforts to weatherproof U.S. infrastructure.
While it was not the most edifying discussion on energy and climate change, it touched on some important topics. Both VP candidates’ positions, for example, on the importation of China solar panels elided the conundrum of how lower cost equipment can accelerate the adoption of green energy resources versus the prospect of an increased share of domestic U.S. manufacturing of that equipment. This remains a dilemma U.S. policymakers will continue to confront as the green energy transition continues to pick up its pace and share of U.S. energy production.
“The omission of North Korea’s denuclearization from both the Democratic and Republican policy platforms has not been lost on South Korea”
The vice presidential debate did not address Korean Peninsula issues—which was expected, given the urgency of the Middle East conflict.
That notwithstanding, Tim Walz’s comment about the importance Harris places on allies and allied forces may reinforce some experts’ thinking that a second Trump term may entice Kim Jong Un back to the nuclear negotiating table. It is logical to assume that Kim would prefer to talk to Trump: Trump and Kim are known to have rapport, with Trump showing continued interest in North Korea on the campaign trail.
Furthermore, Trump is more likely to show some flexibility in nuclear negotiations with North Korea than Harris, who has already declared she would not “cozy up to” Kim Jong Un.
While a Trump presidency may change Pyongyang’s tactics, it is unlikely to change North Korea’s broader strategy toward Washington. North Korea at the highest levels have consistently indicated since the breakdown of the Hanoi summit in 2019 that Kim’s personal feelings for Trump will not affect North Korea’s policy toward the United States. This was confirmed by Kim Jong Un himself only two months ago, and reaffirmed by North Korea’s permanent representative to the United Nations on September 30.
The lack of any substantial discussion on North Korea’s nuclear program during the Harris-Trump debate and again during the Vance-Walz debate almost certainly has not been lost on South Korea and may even fuel concerns about a lack of US interest in the North Korean nuclear issue. South Korean media have already expressed worry over the omission of North Korea’s denuclearization from both the Democratic and Republican Parties’ policy platforms.
“Nuclear energy made a brief appearance, but it didn’t get the airtime – or fact checking – it deserved.”
Nuclear energy made a brief appearance at Tuesday night’s vice-presidential debate, but did not get the airtime or fact checking it deserved. J.D. Vance said that the United States needed to invest in “more energy production” to address the climate crisis, commenting that more solar panels should be manufactured domestically rather than in China and that no nuclear facilities had been built in the past 40 years (incorrect).
While he defended Minnesota’s role in domestic solar panel production, Tim Walz missed an opportunity to highlight the current administration’s actions to promote nuclear energy both at home and abroad, just as Vance overlooked work toward the same ends under the Trump administration. Given the variable nature of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, it is indeed likely that nuclear power will need to form at least part of a mix of clean energy sources to provide stable and consistent generation. Yet it faces major cost barriers: the two most recently constructed reactors in the United States, at Georgia’s Vogtle power plant, were completed years behind schedule and for billions over budget.
Both the Trump and Biden administrations have supported bipartisan legislation seeking to jump start innovation and overcome the cost barriers in the sector through government support, the first through the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, and the latter through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021, through which the U.S. Department of Energy launched an Advanced Reactor Demonstration Projects initiative to support design, licensing, construction, and operation of two advanced reactor technologies. More recent legislation supporting nuclear energy includes the Inflation Reduction Act and the ADVANCE Act, as well as a ban on Russian uranium imports.
As other countries consider adding or expanding nuclear power in their energy mixes, the United States is also seeking to regain a share of its technology export market, competing with Chinese and Russian sales pitches as it seeks also to ensure responsible deployment of new technologies. Indeed, the challenges that will face either party after the election in fostering the growth of nuclear energy domestically and abroad are numerous and complex: from developing capacity for producing fuel for the domestic fleet today or new fuels for new reactor technology of the future to managing upfront costs alongside security and proliferation concerns and the need for addressing the question of safe and secure nuclear waste disposal.
“It was perhaps inevitable that the sole foreign policy issue raised in the debate was on the Middle East.”
On a day when Iran retaliated for a series of Israeli assassinations of Iranian and allied officials by shooting a barrage of ballistic missiles at Israel, it was perhaps inevitable that the sole foreign policy issue raised in the debate was on the Middle East.
Democrat Tim Walz appeared caught off guard when CBS’s Margaret Brennan kicked off the debate by asking if Walz would “support or oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran” in response to the Iranian strikes, which were largely intercepted.
Walz fumbled and misspoke about “the expansion of Israel and its proxies” before pivoting to Donald Trump’s alleged leadership deficits and reminding viewers that Trump withdrew from a 2015 nuclear deal that had been containing Iran’s nuclear program.
In answering the same question, JD Vance began by digressing into his biography before stating inaccurately that the “Kamala Harris administration” had unfrozen $100 billion in Iranian assets. In fact, the Biden administration in 2023 okayed South Korea unfreezing $6 billion in return for the release of Americans jailed in Iran – money that Iran has yet to access. Vance ultimately replied that “it is up to Israel what they think they need to do to keep their country safe.”
Walz did point out that the current conflict in the Middle East began with a massive attack on Israel by Hamas last October 7. But there were no follow-up questions or comments on how to end the conflict, which has steadily escalated and widened with seemingly no end in sight. And while Vance has in the past opposed U.S. military intervention abroad, the vice presidential hopeful said last night only that “we should support our allies wherever they are when they’re fighting the bad guys” – hardly an illuminating answer.
Recent & Related