Follow us on social

google cta
V020113dl-0301

How a feminist framework can guide US, European Iran policy

The Biden administration will need to work with Europe to get back to the nuclear deal and beyond.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

The election of the nation’s first female vice president marks a political watershed in Washington, DC. And while President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris have promised a different kind of foreign policy, the real question about “building back better” is — how exactly, and for whom?

Who benefits? Whose interests will be taken into account? Whose voices will not be heard? Such are the questions that a feminist approach would ask of every policy. Some countries have already adopted a paradigmatic shift towards what is called “feminist foreign policy,” such as Sweden, Canada, France, and Mexico. And it’s time for the United States to follow suit, or even jumpstart refinements of the progressive approach.

Feminist foreign policy is rooted in a positive concept of peace and security that goes beyond the mere absence of war. It includes dimensions of “human security” such as equitable and sustainable development as well as social cohesion. Moreover, it is about inclusive decision-making representing all those impacted by the results — not only because it is right, but also because it produces better outcomes. Therefore, diversity and gender equality are core pillars of the concept. This ultimately requires an assessment of a given policy’s gendered impact on indicators such as political participation, employment and education opportunities, or specifics such as gender-based violence.

Comprehensively implementing a feminist foreign policy requires paradigmatic shifts in how policy making is thought of and conducted. However, even before any full-fledged policy overhaul, a feminist approach allows for better decision-making. Because, simply put, more diversity in decision-making leads to better decisions — including in matters of national security far away from any idealist setting.

In a recent paper, we have demonstrated why a feminist approach can help devise better policies even when dealing with a oppressive regime such as Iran’s. Because feminist foreign policy begins with critical self-reflection and has nothing to do with going ‘soft’ on the other (a term that is in itself gendered, as ‘hard’ is often considered to have masculine qualities) but allows for a more complete picture of the challenges ahead. With a broad understanding of security, by decoding (international) power relations, and by recognizing the political agency of women and other marginalized groups, it offers a more effective and sustainable approach.

The incoming Biden administration would be well-advised to look at the challenges posed by the Islamic Republic in the long term. “Maximum pressure” has arguably only led to escalation across the board, whether on the nuclear program or on Iran’s regional posture. While the first months of 2021 offer a small window of opportunity for a ‘compliance-for-compliance’ deal to halt the downward spiral, the real test comes with recalibrating U.S.-Iran relations: from establishing lines of communication and confidence-building to eventually using negotiations to make the deal stronger.

Here, feminist foreign policy, as we understand it, offers tangible benefits with a three-pronged strategy centered on broadening the approach, increasing the diversity in decision-making, and engaging civil society.

A broad and regional approach looks beyond the nuclear file and Iran and considers the human security needs of Iranians, their Arab neighbors, Israel and other countries in conjunction. This would allow for immediate humanitarian gestures in the face of the pandemic, which would help build trust where there is little going around. Maritime security, environmental degradation, and even nuclear safety — with soon three civilian nuclear programs active around the Persian Gulf — are areas ripe for technical cooperation that can pave the way for enhanced political dialogue.

Diversity starts at home, by decreasing the barriers to representation and participation of women and other marginalized groups in U.S. foreign policy making. On top of promoting diversity in numbers, this requires cultural change to overcome a gender-stereotypical security discourse that inherently limits policy options. As Rep. Jackie Speier, Co-Chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus, said when tabling a resolution calling for the adoption of a feminist foreign policy this September, such a whole-of-government approach requires “a commitment to diversity and gender parity in hiring and promotion in the national security and foreign policy sectors”.

Finally, strengthening and working with civil society means to include civic actors, such as Iranian or American women’s networks, in the development of Iran-specific or regional strategies. Their expertise can help develop smart policy options to support women without attaching a feminist label, for example through economic empowerment in the service sector and of small and medium-sized enterprises, or through environmental protection programs. Here, obviously, the United States can work closely with its European partners, some of which also have in-depth experience — both good and bad — with human rights dialogues with Iran.

A return to transatlantic cooperation would obviously be a good thing, as the United States and Europe have only been successful on Iran policy when working together. However, this cannot simply mean to turn-back the clock four years and pick up where the two sides left. Importantly, the Democratic Party’s platform promises to “prioritize nuclear diplomacy, de-escalation, and regional dialogue“ when it comes to Iran, while making “gender equality a key foreign policy priority and [working] to achieve gender parity across our national security team.” The former chimes well with the Europeans’ long-standing approach on Iran, and the latter echoes the European Parliament’s recent call to develop a European feminist foreign policy.

As dire as the situation looks on the ground and vexed as the issues around Iran are — this is the moment for both Washington and European capitals to rethink their foreign policies and the Islamic Republic is indeed a good case to start implementing a feminist approach.


Vice President Joe Biden and German Chancellor Angela Merkel walk on the balcony outside the Chancellor's office overlooking Berlin, Germany, Feb., 1, 2013. (Official White House Photo by David Lienemann)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?
Top image credit: bluestork/shutterstock.com

Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?

Latin America

On January 7, the White House announced its plans to withdraw from 66 international bodies whose work it had deemed inconsistent with U.S. national interests.

While many of these organizations were international in nature, three of them were specific to the Americas — the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, and the U.N.’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. The decision came on the heels of the Dominican Republic postponing the X Summit of the Americas last year following disagreements over who would be invited and ensuing boycotts.

keep readingShow less
After shuttering USAID, Trump launches new foreign aid strategy
Top photo credit: Abuja, Nigeria, March 06, 2021: African Medical Doctor giving consultation and treatment in a rural clinic. (Shutterstock/Oni Abimbola)

After shuttering USAID, Trump launches new foreign aid strategy

Washington Politics

Almost exactly one year ago, the swift dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) got underway with a public statement issued by the State Department.

At the start of July 2025, the State Department officially absorbed what was left of the storied agency. A few short months later, to fill the USAID-shaped hole in America’s soft-power projection abroad, the Trump administration launched an $11 billion plan to provide foreign health assistance.

keep readingShow less
What happens when we give Europe first dibs on US missiles for war
Top photo credit: Volodymyr Selenskyj (l), President of Ukraine, and Boris Pistorius (SPD), Federal Minister of Defense, answer media questions after a visit to the training of soldiers on the "Patriot" air defence missile system at a military training area. The international reconstruction conference for Ukraine takes place on June 11 and 12. (Jens Büttner/dpa via Reuters Connect)

What happens when we give Europe first dibs on US missiles for war

Military Industrial Complex

For weeks the question animating the Washington D.C. commentariat has been this: When will President Donald Trump make good on his threat and launch a second round of airstrikes on Iran? So far at least, the answer is “not yet.”

Many explanations for Trump’s surprising (but very welcome) restraint have emerged. Among the most troubling, however, is that it is a lack of the necessary munitions, and in particular air defense interceptors, that is giving Trump second thoughts. “The missile defense cupboard is bare,” one report concludes based on interviews with current and former U.S. defense officials.

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.