��������Ƶ

Next week’s US presidential election holds immense significance, particularly for the Iranian government, whose strategic decisions and foreign policies are often shaped by the American leadership. The outcome of this election could either tighten or loosen the complex web of international sanctions, economic constraints and geopolitical dynamics that surround Iran.

For Tehran, it is not just another election taking place overseas but a decisive moment that could define its economic future, security posture and regional influence. Every shift in Washington’s power potentially realigns Iran’s ability to maneuver on the global stage and this election could very well set the course for the next crucial chapter in US-Iran relations, especially as tensions between Tehran and Israel have reached a critical point. This heightened volatility only amplifies the stakes of the US election, making it a pivotal moment for the region’s stability.

Historically, Iran has paid exceptionally close attention to US presidential elections, far more than it does to any other nation’s electoral process. The reason for this is deeply rooted in the intertwined political and economic fates of both countries since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979. In the span of more than four decades, Iran has witnessed the policies of eight US presidents — each bringing varying degrees of pressure, confrontation or negotiation. While some, like Jimmy Carter, saw diplomatic bridges begin to crumble with the hostage crisis, others such as Barack Obama tried to restore ties through agreements like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal. Now, with the upcoming election, the stakes are higher than ever. Iran’s future is, in many ways, intricately connected to the decision American voters will make on Nov. 5.

Heightened volatility only amplifies the stakes of the US election, making it a pivotal moment for the region’s stability

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

The policy divide between the two main candidates running for office, particularly regarding Iran, is vast and striking. On the one hand, Donald Trump, the Republican candidate, has consistently pushed for a return to the “maximum pressure” campaign that defined his first term. This strategy involved imposing harsh sanctions on Iran’s crucial energy sector, aiming to cripple the country’s economy and force its hand on issues like nuclear development and regional influence. Trump’s policy also targeted countries and corporations that violated US-imposed sanctions on Iran, isolating Tehran even further on the world stage. Under this approach, Iran’s already fragile economy would likely suffer immensely, creating a bleak outlook for its future.

On the other hand, Vice President Kamala Harris, as the Democratic presidential nominee, is expected to continue the Biden administration’s policies, which emphasize diplomacy over confrontation. The Biden administration has shown restraint, particularly in its dealings with Iran, seeking to rebuild diplomatic bridges, and Harris is likely to follow suit. When it comes to Iran’s nuclear program, Harris would probably push for a return to the JCPOA, the nuclear deal that Trump famously abandoned. A Harris administration would aim to bring Iran back into compliance with the nuclear agreement, potentially offering relief from sanctions in exchange for stricter oversight of its nuclear activities. This approach stands in stark contrast to Trump’s confrontational policies.

It is also important to point out that the timing of the upcoming US election is crucial, occurring at a moment when tensions between Iran and Israel have reached unprecedented heights. Over the last year, the two nations have edged closer to direct military confrontation, crossing numerous red lines along the way. Both Israeli and Iranian forces have engaged in retaliatory strikes, with the risk of full-scale war looming over the region. The stakes of this election are, therefore, even more significant, as the policies of the next US president could either fuel or quell this explosive situation. A return to Trump’s more aggressive stance might escalate the conflict, while a more diplomatic approach could create opportunities for de-escalation.

The stakes for Tehran are incredibly high, as the gap between the two candidates’ policies on Iran is vast

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

The current Biden-Harris administration has taken a more measured approach regarding the Iran-Israel conflict, attempting to prevent further escalation. For instance, the White House has caution when it comes to Israel’s military actions, especially in relation to Iran’s nuclear sites. The current administration seems to be focused on diplomacy as a key tool for resolving these issues, in contrast to the hawkish rhetoric of the Trump era. However, should Trump return to office, the chances of a more hard-line stance are high. He recently support for Israel launching strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, signaling that a second Trump administration would likely ramp up the pressure on Tehran, bringing the region closer to open conflict.

It is worth noting that the Iranian government has already endured four years of the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” policy and the consequences were severe. Iran’s oil exports, once a major source of revenue, plummeted to record lows. The sanctions crippled the economy, causing the Iranian currency to lose much of its value, which in turn sparked inflation and widespread economic hardships. The government in Tehran struggled to manage these crises, as financial resources dwindled and social unrest grew. Trump’s economic warfare left deep scars on the Iranian economy and a return to such policies would likely exacerbate these challenges, leaving the Iranian government in an even more precarious position.

It is also critical to recall the unprecedented actions taken by the Trump administration, such as the targeted killing of Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force. This move, which shocked the world, escalated tensions between the US and Iran to new heights. For the first time in recent memory, the two nations stood on the brink of war. The assassination was a stark reminder of the unpredictable nature of Trump’s foreign policy, which Iran has not forgotten. The specter of further such confrontations looms if Trump is reelected.

In conclusion, as the world watches the US presidential election, the Iranian government is more invested in the outcome than ever before. The stakes for Tehran are incredibly high, as the gap between the two candidates’ policies on Iran is vast. While one candidate may bring renewed pressure and confrontation, the other offers the possibility of diplomacy.

• Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian American political scientist. X: @Dr_Rafizadeh