Can the U.S. Mid-Term Elections Change Policy Towards Iran?

The presidency of Donald Trump has been tumultuous. He has faced serious challenges, from the fierce opposition of Democrats and the investigation into Russian interference in the elections to his own inflammatory remarks, best reflected in his repeated tweets. However, Trump's problems do not end there. He has been unable to fulfill some of his major campaign promises, including building a wall on the Mexican border (which he claimed Mexico would pay for) and repealing and replacing Barack Obama's public insurance plan. But he has managed to fulfill one of his promises: tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. Many critics believe that the reason for Trump's hardline policies against Iran is his unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA. Others argue that Trump's main foreign policy officials, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, and National Security Advisor John Bolton, are clearly supporters of a hardline policy towards Iran. While critics rightly point out that the weight of hardline politicians against Iran in Trump's administration is very high, they fail to recognize that Iran's problems with the United States, or more accurately, Iran's problems in the United States, are deeply institutionalized, shared by both parties, and far beyond Trump's administration's policies. The overwhelming majority of the Republican Party supported Trump's decision to withdraw from the nuclear agreement with Iran. Support for a hardline policy towards Iran has been prevalent in the Republican Party for years, except for a few members like Rand Paul and Justin Amash, who advocate for non-interventionism in global affairs. Even Senator Rand Paul has shown a tendency towards adopting hardline policies against Iran in some cases. Even Mike Pence, the Vice President, who usually has a softer tone, supports a more aggressive policy towards Iran, one that would destroy the country's resources through severe sanctions and actively support forces inside and outside Iran with the aim of regime change. The number of Democrats in Congress who favor a more moderate policy towards Iran is increasing, but the general position of the Democratic Party and its main decision-makers has been and remains that the Islamic Republic of Iran is America's enemy and cannot be trusted. This is why Barack Obama was unable to garner support from some Democratic senators for legislation to solidify the nuclear agreement with Iran in the Senate. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, is one of the staunchest critics of the Iranian regime and its policies in the region. Ben Cardin, a senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has consistently expressed concern about the Iranian government's policies and has voted for sanctions against the country. This list is very long. However, there are also individuals in the Democratic Party who advocate for non-interventionism and a softer policy towards Iran, including independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who usually votes with the Democrats, and Tulsi Gabbard, who has criticized the U.S. government for aiding forces opposing the Syrian government. The opposition and distrust of both political parties in the U.S. towards the Iranian government is not new, and no member of Congress has lost their seat due to having hardline positions in dealing with Iran. Iran has a serious image problem. Following the Islamic Revolution, which overthrew Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, one of America's main and reliable allies, relations between the two countries soured. Anti-Americanism was one of the main pillars of the Iranian revolution, and during the hostage crisis of diplomats at the U.S. embassy, which lasted 444 days, this anti-American sentiment was solidified by leftist Marxists and right-wing Islamists. The hostage crisis received extensive media coverage in the U.S. One of the most important aspects was the nightly reports by Ted Koppel on the daily events related to this incident and the reminder of the number of days Americans were held captive in another country. The hostage crisis severely damaged Iran's image in the U.S. The name Iran evokes radical Islam, hostage-taking, Middle Eastern terrorist groups, and a bloody war. Iran has lost the public relations war, and its enemies, particularly Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, spend significant amounts to influence American public opinion, highlighting Iran's detrimental actions in the region and promoting U.S. actions against the Islamic Republic. Organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) invest significant energy and time lobbying in Congress to remind members of Congress about the threats posed by the Iranian clerical regime. The Islamic Republic of Iran also provides plenty of propaganda fodder for its enemies: right after the signing of the nuclear agreement, it tested ballistic missiles and wrote slogans in Hebrew about the destruction of Israel on the missiles. Iran's regional ambitions also conflict with U.S. interests. The presence of the Revolutionary Guards in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon has increased, and in many cases, they have played a decisive role in the politics of these countries. For this reason, the U.S. is extremely concerned about Iran's role in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. The U.S. position towards Iran will not change significantly. Regardless of what happens in the U.S. mid-term elections (even if we assume that Democrats achieve a significant victory in both houses) or the impact of Robert Mueller's investigation into Donald Trump's presidency, the U.S. position towards Iran will not change rapidly or dramatically. As long as the Islamic Republic of Iran remains a serious threat to U.S. national interests and security, this situation will continue.