The US presidential election next week is extremely important, especially for the Iranian government, whose foreign policy and strategic choices are frequently influenced by American leadership. The complicated web of international sanctions, economic restraints, and geopolitical tensions surrounding Iran might either get tighter or looser depending on the outcome of this election.
Tehran views the election as a pivotal event that might shape its economic destiny, security stance, and regional influence rather than just another election happening elsewhere. Since tensions between Tehran and Israel have escalated to a critical level, this election may very well set the course for the next pivotal chapter in US-Iran relations. Every change in Washington’s authority has the potential to realign Iran’s ability to maneuver on the international stage. The US election is crucial to the stability of the region, and the increased volatility just raises the stakes.
Iran has historically been significantly more interested in the US presidential election than it is in the elections of any other country. The political and economic trajectories of both nations since the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979 are the fundamental cause of this. Iran has experienced the policies of eight US presidents over the course of more than 40 years, each of whom brought with them differing levels of pressure, conflict, or compromise. Some, like Jimmy Carter, saw diplomatic ties deteriorate as a result of the hostage situation, while others, like Barack Obama, attempted to mend them through accords like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear agreement. The stakes are bigger than ever now because of the impending election. In many respects, the choice that American voters will make on November 5 is closely related to Iran’s destiny.
There is a clear and significant policy gap between the two front-runners, especially with reference to Iran. Republican nominee Donald Trump, on the one hand, has continuously called for a return to the “maximum pressure” campaign that characterized his first term. The goal of this approach was to damage Iran’s economy and force its hand on matters such as nuclear development and regional influence by enforcing severe sanctions on the country’s vital energy sector. Trump’s strategy further isolated Tehran on the international scene by targeting nations and businesses that disregarded US sanctions against Iran. Iran’s already precarious economy will probably suffer greatly under this strategy, casting a gloomy picture of its future.
However, as the Democratic presidential contender, Vice President Kamala Harris is anticipated to carry on the Biden administration’s policies, which prioritize diplomacy over conflict.
In an effort to mend diplomatic ties, the Biden administration has been cautious, especially when it comes to Iran, and Harris is probably going to do the same. Harris would likely advocate for a return to the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement that Trump infamously renounced, in regards to Iran’s nuclear development. A Harris administration would seek to restore Iran to the nuclear accord, maybe providing sanctions relief in return for more stringent control over its nuclear operations.
This strategy contrasts sharply with Trump’s combative policies.
Additionally, it is critical to note that the US election is taking place at a critical juncture, with tensions between Israel and Iran at an all-time high. With multiple red lines crossed, the two countries have moved closer to direct armed conflict during the past 12 months. With the possibility of a full-scale conflict hanging over the area, both Israeli and Iranian forces have launched retaliatory attacks. Because the next US president’s policies have the power to either exacerbate or defuse this dangerous scenario, the stakes in this election are much higher. While a more conciliatory approach would open the door for de-escalation, a return to Trump’s more combative posture might intensify the crisis.
In an effort to stop the Iran-Israel crisis from getting worse, the new Biden-Harris administration has adopted a more cautious stance. The White House, for example, has called for prudence in Israel’s military operations, particularly with regard to Iran’s nuclear sites. In contrast to the harsh rhetoric of the Trump era, the present government appears to be concentrating on diplomacy as a crucial instrument for resolving these concerns. But there is a good likelihood that Trump will take a more tough posture if he wins reelection. In an indication that a second Trump administration will probably increase pressure on Tehran and push the region closer to open conflict, he recently stated support for Israel initiating strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
It is important to remember that the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” policy has already had negative effects on the Iranian government for four years. Once a significant source of income, Iran’s oil exports fell to all-time lows. Due to the economic damage caused by the sanctions, the Iranian currency lost a significant portion of its value, which led to inflation and general economic difficulties. As social unrest increased and financial resources decreased, the Tehrani government found it difficult to handle these situations. The Iranian economy has been severely damaged by Trump’s economic warfare, and a return to similar practices will probably make matters worse and put the Iranian regime in an even more vulnerable position.
The Trump administration’s extraordinary measures, such the targeted murder of Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force, must also be remembered. Tensions between the US and Iran reached unprecedented levels as a result of this shocking move. The two countries were on the verge of war for the first time in recent memory.
Iran has not forgotten that Trump’s foreign policy is unpredictable, as the assassination served as a clear reminder. If Trump is reelected, the possibility of more conflicts like this one looms.
In conclusion, the Iranian government is more interested in the outcome of the US presidential election than it has ever been while the world watches. Given the stark differences in the two candidates’ approaches to Iran, Tehran has a lot on the line. The other choice presents the prospect of diplomacy, but the first one might bring fresh pressure and conflict.
Add Comment