Foreign policy analysts are sifting through documents and speeches and even casting a few runes and studying used tea leaves to determine what foreign policy directions a Kamala White House may take.

It is still a bit murky. Constructive ambiguity, is one of the buzz soundbites of 21^st century diplomacy and is heard often in the Harris camp. But outlines are appearing, especially in contrast to a Trump foreign policy.

The transactional diplomacy favoured by the former president is out. Gone – and hopefully forgotten – will be days when American support was tendered only when Washington could point to easily quantifiable successes negotiated along narrow obvious channels of self-interest. Aka transactional diplomacy.

Instead, expect a move towards consensus building and closer work with allies. This implicitly means closer relations with America’s oldest allies – NATO – who since 2016 have lived in constant dread of an American pull out. A Harris Administration would be pro-NATO which in turn means very pro-Ukraine. Perhaps more so than Biden

The Asian Pivot, however, is still very much on the cards. But it is expected to be based more on alliance-building than military ship building, specifically with Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, the Philippines and India. America cannot afford a two-front war and will need to shift some of its regional military responsibilities onto local shoulders. The Biden Administration has already started the ball rolling. Harris is expected to push it further down the road.

At the same time, a Harris Administration, will also want to continue to attract more businesses from China and the Asian tigers to American shores. Harris is opposed to the Trans Pacific Partnership and wants to continue tariffs ranging from 25% to 100% on $18 billion of Chinese exports. Trump, on the other hand, proposes a 60 percent blanket tariff on $551 billion of Chinese goods. Economists fear that a Trump Administration would push up inflation in America and create deflation in China.

South of the border—or at least America’s southern border—is a diplomatic Achilles heel for Kamala Harris. She has been unfairly dubbed “border Tsar” and blamed for high immigration figures. In fact, in 2021 President Biden gave her the task addressing the “root causes” of migration from Mexico and Central America. These were such things as corruption, violence, drug trade, and poverty. As a result, the Biden Administration has allocated $4 billion to address those problems and set up a programme to encourage businesses to invest in the region, create jobs and give wannabe immigrants a reason to stay in their homelands.

This plus an executive decree speeding the processing of asylum claims has led to immigration figures dropping for five consecutive months. In August 57,000 illegal immigrants were stopped by border patrol compared to 250,000 in December.

The perpetual problem of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular, the war in Gaza, will be a major priority for a Harris Administration. The issue is particularly difficult given the divisions within the Democratic Party. The younger members are increasingly pro-Palestinian while the old guard backs Israel.

Ms Harris tried something-for-everyone in her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. For the traditionalists she committed herself to defending Israel’s right to existence. She said: “I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself.” For the party’s growing pro-Palestinian wing she expressed support for the Palestinians “right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination.”

It is one of Washington’s open secrets that Kamala Harris thinks that President Biden has not been tough enough with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. She underscored her opposition to the man by boycotting his recent address to a Joint Session of Congress. In this regard she is being led by her national security adviser Philip (Phil) Gordon and his deputy Rebecca Lissner.

Philip Gordon has served in foreign policy roles in three Democratic administrations (Clinton, Obama and Biden). He was a keen supporter of the Iran Nuclear Deal and has told friends that he bears the scars of countless negotiations with an Israeli government that was perpetually changing the goalposts.

61-year-old Gordon has specialised in the Europe and the Middle East. He is known as a bit of anglophile, possibly because he is married to a British woman. He is being tipped for the job of National Security Adviser in a Harris White House, although he might also be moved to Foggy Bottom to become Secretary of State. He and Rebecca Lissner are more or less in lockstep on four priorities: 1- Work with allies. 2- Defend sovereignty. 3- Ensure the free flow of capital and 4- fight for human rights.

All laudable goals and, as usual, the devil is in the detail. In this case a lot of the detail involves the methods to achieve these goals. The Gordon-Lissner duo want to move away from trying to build democracies through the barrel of a gun or to make peace by force of will power. That is not to say that they rule out military force.  But expect less shoot-from-the-hip diplomacy and more of an emphasis of examination of the consequences before taking action.

They also want to step away from simple solution thinking. In a 2016 article for The Atlantic, Philip Gordon, said: “What I’m suggesting is the need to bring a certain humility to the notion that is some simple solution to big challenges. It would be very surprising if, in fact, there were right answers to Iraq, Libya and Syria and … successive administrations just applied the wrong ones to the wrong issues.”

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and author of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain". To subscribe to his email alerts on world affairs click here.