What Harris and Trump should say about Iran

The Biden administration entered office in 2021 with a clear mandate on Iran: Joe Biden had run in opposition to the Trump administration’s scuttling of the 2015 nuclear deal struck under Barack Obama, and vowed to restore the agreement.

While President Biden made good on other campaign pledges to reverse harmful Trump policies, including to repeal the Muslim ban and rejoin the Paris Climate Accord, on Iran, Biden’s pledge fell flat. By failing to move decisively to rejoin the deal, the political space for a restoration of the accord evaporated, all while Iran’s nuclear program advanced, Iran’s government grew even more repressive and regional tensions accelerated.

This failure to break from Trump’s Iran policy and instead act as its steward has allowed Trump to attack Biden, and now Kamala Harris, as too soft on Iran. Under Trump’s false portrayal of events, his exit from the nuclear deal and the snapback of sanctions made Iran go “broke,” depriving it of funds that it could have instead used for terrorism. He suggests Biden then eased the sanctions, allowing groups like Hamas to plan and then execute the October 7 attacks and risking a broader war. It might be a compelling tale, but it is total fiction.

Harris shouldn't try to out-hawk Trump on Iran. Unfortunately, there have been some worrying signs that this could be the plan. Recently, a Harris campaign social media account criticized Trump for suggesting hemight lift sanctions on Iran, even though Harris — along with Biden, Walz and a majority of Democrats — rightly opposed his decision to exit the nuclear deal and impose maximum pressure sanctions on Iran in 2018.

Moreover, while theplatform of the Democratic National Committee in 2020 declared “Democrats will call off the Trump Administration's race to war with Iran and prioritize nuclear diplomacy, de-escalation, and regional dialogue,” including a return to the nuclear deal, the 2024 platform strikes a far more militaristic tone. It emphasizes military action against “Iranian-linked targets” under Biden and warns that Trump had supposedly engaged in “fecklessness and weakness in the face of Iranian aggression.”

Shifting from an accurate portrayal of Trump’s Iran policies to instead attacking him for not being hawkish enough risks further alienating the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party and independents who want to vote for a pro-peace candidate. Instead, Harris should go after Trump’s terrible approach toward Iran which sowed the seeds of the conflict the Biden-Harris administration is still dealing with today. There are plenty of indisputable facts that she can utilize to point out Trump’s failure on Iran.

Critically, Trump ended restraints on Iran’s nuclear program that would still be in place today, and for years to come. Instead of a small stockpile of uranium enriched to the lowest levels, Iran has a growing stockpile of uranium enriched just below weapons grade that could be enough for multiple nuclear weapons with further enrichment. Instead of intrusive inspections, the IAEA has seen its access diminished.

Moreover, the authoritarians in Iran’s government never went broke — but plenty of ordinary Iranians did. While millions of families fell out of the ranks of the middle class and into poverty and had to give up critical staples including meat amid hyperinflation, the rulers of Iran never felt the squeeze. During Trump’s final year in office, the World Bank notes that Iran managed 3.3% economic growth, even under the supposedly crushing sanctions.

Moreover, Iranian oil began its rebound, as Iran found workarounds to the sanctions and began to find buyers for its exports even under the direct threats of Trump officials.

Critically, contrary to Trump’s narrative, Hamas and the Iranian government even managed to reconcile under his administration. In prior years, Iran had largely halted its funding to Hamas over the group siding with rebels in the Syrian civil war against the Assad government. Far from being cut off, Iran doubled down on its axis of resistance amid the maximum pressure sanctions.

Iran also greatly accelerated its missile capabilities under the Trump administration and demonstrated their growing efficacy. This includes the daring cruise missile strike on Saudi Arabian oil facilities at Abqaiq, which the Trump administration largely ignored, and the serious overnight missile onslaught targeted at U.S. bases in Iraq following the reckless decision to assassinate Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.

Iran proxies had halted attacks on U.S. service members during Obama's engagement — but that all changed under Trump. As the State Department noted, there were no significant attacks on U.S. troops from Iran or its proxies from 2012 to 2018 during the negotiations that produced the Iran nuclear agreement and while the agreement was being implemented. However, attacks resumed after Trump abrogated the nuclear deal, including a rise of 400% between 2019 and 2020 when Trump designated the IRGC as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and assassinated Soleimani.

On point after point, Trump delivered a legacy of failure via maximum pressure, which needs to be called out. But Harris can’t fall back on a legacy of success given the Biden administration’s failure to chart a new course and restore the 2015 nuclear deal. So what should a new administration do?

First, greater efforts to end the war in Gaza and prevent a broader regional war are urgently needed. A ceasefire is just and necessary in its own right, but doubly necessary when considering how close the U.S. and Iran have come to entering a broader war over the past year. And, as long as the Gaza war continues, it is highly unlikely that there would be political space in Washington or Tehran for negotiations on the many serious issues that need to be negotiated.

Second, a serious presidential candidate should reiterate that challenges with Iran need to be resolved through serious negotiations, not endless sanctions and saber rattling that have brought us to the brink of disaster. Harris should embrace the success of Obama’s diplomatic approach and contrast that with the failure of Trump’s reckless diplomatic sabotage.

There is a real opportunity for new engagement, given the surprise election of Masoud Pezeshkian in Iran and the return of many of the key figures involved in the striking of the 2015 nuclear deal from the political wilderness to positions of authority. But so long as Democrats frame their Iran approach as “Trump light” and make it a question of who can be more belligerent rather than who can actually be most effective, they will be fighting a losing rhetorical battle.

The vast majority of Americans do not want to go to war with Iran, and want their president to be smart about using leverage to address security threats. For all of Trump’s failings, his political instincts suggest that he understands this and hence frequently talks about how he does not want war and will secure a deal — despite his track record to the contrary.

Rather than going on defense to appear tough and focusing only on the “lethality” of military options, Harris must articulate how her administration would be different from both Trump and Biden, and more effective at actually resolving the challenges rather than exacerbating them further like her would-be predecessors.