Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1629657541-scaled

What’s at stake in the upcoming presidential elections in the US and Iran

If Joe Biden wins in November, there may not be much time to repair the damage Donald Trump has done.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

The U.S. presidential election will take place in less 100 days and analysts in both Washington and Tehran are speculating about the future of U.S.-Iran relations. There are those who think that if elected, Joe Biden and his administration will seek a more “balanced” approach to Iran by re-joining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and providing sanctions relief. And then there are those who think that if Trump is re-elected, his administration will continue implementing the pernicious “maximum pressure” strategy. What’s clear is that both Trump and Tehran are not seeking a military confrontation although the Trump administration, guided by Iran hawks, is more unpredictable.

Predicting the outcomes of the U.S. election, and the upcoming presidential election in Iran, is no easy task. But it’s more important to ask what Iran’s current political calculations are given that it has experienced Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. Having a clear account of what is Iran’s current political calculation is necessary for any credible analysis of possible outcomes.

The truth is that there is a tremendous distrust and cynicism accompanied with disappointment in the U.S. policies among Iranian officials. After 12 years of intensive negotiations, Iran and the world powers succeeded in agreeing to one of the most comprehensive nuclear agreements.

Under the JCPOA, Iran accepted the highest level of maximum transparency and limits in its nuclear activities that no other country has ever accepted, according to the IAEA’s reports. To be sure, the JCPOA was an international agreement ratified by the United Nation’s Security Council in Resolution 2231. Iran fully implemented each and every part of the JCPOA with zero failure for three years with maximum transparency.

But in return, Trump has rewarded Iran with the most comprehensive sanctions ever since the revolution in 1979 after he withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018. He also enforced the travel ban executive order to prevent Iranian nationals from traveling to the U.S., even visit their relatives. Trump sanctioned Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei as well as its Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and he bullied the European companies who were legally allowed to do business with Iran and punished them for doing so. Trump also designated a branch of Iran’s national army namely, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, among others.

Hence, the Trump administration’s policies and actions have turned into a narrative among Iranian officials. The conclusions that Iranian officials have drawn has four major elements.

First, Iranian officials believe that the United States can never be trusted because it has no hesitation to violate bilateral and international agreements with Iran — or to withdraw from them if it sees fit. From Tehran’s point of view, no matter how much Iran shows good will and transparency, it makes no difference to the United States to change the course of action.

Even with the highest level of commitments and compliance, Iran would be rewarded by highest level of pressures and sanctions. Iranian officials believe, now more than ever, that negotiations with the U.S. are doomed to failure and not safeguard Iranian interests.

Second, the Trump administration’s withdrawal doctrine and the frequency by which it pulls out of important international accords is indeed a new phenomenon in international relations which confirmed Iranian pessimism about the U.S. commitment to international norms and rules. The U.S. not only withdrew from the JCPOA, but it also pulled out of other important international agreements and treaties like 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the 2012 South Korean trade deal (KORUS), the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the 1945 UN Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), among others.

Third, Iranian officials have been convinced that Israel always plays the key role in the U.S. foreign policy with respect to the Middle East. For instance, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bragged that he convinced Trump to pull out of Iran nuke deal. Netanyahu also disclosed that he asked President Trump to label the IRGC a terrorist organization. Israeli intelligence also reportedly helped the U.S. assassinate Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Iranian officials find this magnitude of involvement of Israel in U.S. foreign policy worthy of blocking any attempt for possible rapprochement. 

Forth, Iranian officials have been surprised by the complacency of other world powers, mainly the European Union, in the face of the American bullying. Knowing that Iran has fully complied with the deal, Europe did next to nothing in safeguarding the deal and in making sure that its economic benefits are at least partially delivered to Iran.

Europe’s Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX) as a special-purpose vehicle to facilitate transactions with Iran to avoid the U.S. sanctions has been a total failure. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei reflected this sentiment, saying in his Eid speech that the “Europeans did nothing” to hold its part of the bargain in the nuclear deal and therefore they can not be trusted.

What’s next?

With two important presidential elections are coming up in the U.S. and Iran, expectations are that Iran’s next president will be from the Principalists (conservative) faction, just like the result of recent parliamentary elections. The conservative faction’s ascendance is largely due to the fact that Western powers backed away from the JCPOA. The Principalists have always been extremely suspicious of any negotiations with the United States given its dishonest record.

That said, rapprochement may is possible, particularly with a change in administration in January 2021. The U.S. must show goodwill in three areas.

First, re-join the JCPOA and in accordance with the U.N Resolution 2231, to dismantle all of its illegal nuclear related sanctions that it imposed after its withdrawal from the deal.

Second, remove all of sanctions that it imposed beyond the nuclear issue on Iran such as key state officials namely the Supreme Leader and its Foreign Minister, and the designation of IRGC as a terrorist organization.

Third, terminate the triangle alliance with Israel and Saudi Arabia to bring regime change in Iran and even to disintegrate Iran. 

It is important that the U.S. demonstrate goodwill and its commitment to the U.N. resolution and international rules and regulations by rejoining the JCPOA and removing all sanctions Trump imposed prior to the Iranian election in summer 2021.


Photo: Asatur Yesayants / Shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: Afghan Taliban fighters patrol near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in Spin Boldak, Kandahar Province, following exchanges of fire between Pakistani and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer

What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means

QiOSK

Pakistan’s airstrikes on Kabul and Kandahar over the last 24 hours are nothing new. Islamabad has carried out strikes inside Afghanistan several times since the Taliban’s return to power. Pakistan claimed that the Afghan Taliban used drones to conduct strikes in Pakistan.

What distinguishes this latest episode is the rhetorical escalation, with Pakistani officials openly referring to the action as “open war.” While the language grabbed international headlines, it is best understood as part of a managed escalation designed to signal resolve without crossing red lines that would make de-escalation impossible.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.