Follow us on social

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

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
Analysis | Middle East
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

keep readingShow less

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.