Is Kamala Harris's Potential Victory Good News for the Islamic Republic?

After four years as Vice President, Kamala Harris is now trying to make her way to the White House instead of Joe Biden. She faces a tough competitor; someone who has previously held this position for four years. Despite Harris's activity alongside Biden during this time, she has been less vocal on contentious foreign policy issues. However, since her candidacy was confirmed, she has been speaking more seriously about the international challenges facing the United States. But what would her potential victory mean for Iran? In an interview with CBS's '60 Minutes,' she identified Iran, not China, as the main enemy of the United States. What strategy will she adopt towards Tehran if Trump loses? Foreign Policy Against Regime Change To understand Harris's views on Iran, one should look at her foreign policy advisors, particularly Philip Gordon, the National Security Advisor to the Vice President. It is said that Gordon has a significant influence on Harris, and some American media speculate that if Trump loses, Gordon will be appointed as the National Security Advisor to the President instead of Jake Sullivan. Gordon's latest book, published in 2020, is titled 'Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East.' In it, he argues that the United States has not accurately assessed its efforts to overthrow autocratic leaders in the Middle East and has taken wrong steps without concern for costs, executing its intentions instead of pursuing a precise strategy. Will Trump's return mean the fall of the Islamic Republic? As a result, it can be imagined that with Harris's potential victory, the idea of supporting the overthrow of the Islamic Republic will be removed from the President's desk. Especially since Gordon concludes in another part of his book, referencing recent decades' experiences in the Middle East, that 'regime change is the worst possible solution.' Ali Vaez, head of the Iran section at the International Crisis Group from Washington, tells Radio Farda: 'Mr. Phil Gordon, who is likely to be appointed as Harris's National Security Advisor if she wins, was the director of the Middle East section of the White House during the secret negotiations between Iran and the U.S. in Oman that took place before the JCPOA. I believe Harris is certainly aware that Iran's issues cannot be neglected any longer, and an ideological approach towards Iran will not be observed. Her potential government, unlike Donald Trump's, will not seek a zero-sum game and knows that a win-win agreement is necessary.' Continuing Biden's Path or Creating a New One? Joe Biden promised before winning the 2020 election that he would return to the nuclear deal with Iran if he won, but after several years, this promise has not materialized during either Hassan Rouhani's or Ebrahim Raisi's administrations. Now, Biden is leaving power while Iran's nuclear program has made unprecedented progress, and the level of uranium enrichment and Iran's reserves have reached a level that the International Atomic Energy Agency calls 'concerning.' In such an atmosphere, and while Harris has been part of the Biden administration, should we expect the same path to be followed in her potential government regarding Iran? Vaez points out that Biden's administration's experience regarding Iran was not successful, adding: 'During Biden's presidency, the issue of Iran was rarely among the top ten foreign policy priorities of the U.S., and ultimately trends such as doubts about diplomacy and, in some cases, excessive demands worsened the situation regarding America's problems and concerns about Iran. However, I believe Harris's approach will be different, and based on the experiences gained over the past four years, I think the potential Harris administration's policy towards Iran will be more realistic, although I believe the U.S. will never return to the Obama era, which sought an agreement with Iran so generously. Nevertheless, with Harris's potential victory, the path for dialogue and agreement with Iran will be smoother.' Ukraine, Israel, and Deepening Iran-U.S. Disputes In recent years, traditionally, Democrats in the U.S. have been more welcoming to dialogue and negotiation with the Iranian government. However, since Ebrahim Raisi took office, tensions between Iran and the West have escalated to the point that some political observers doubt that even with a Democratic president in Washington and a dialogue-friendly figure in Tehran, it would be easy to discuss de-escalation and dialogue between the two sides. Tim Walz, Harris's deputy, who is a supporter of the JCPOA and an opponent of Hamas, has been mentioned. Since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, Western countries have accused Iran of supplying weapons to Russia. Following reports from the Ukrainian government about the presence of Iranian drones in Russian army attacks, there are now even discussions about sending Iranian ballistic missiles to Russia, prompting Europe and the U.S. to impose new sanctions on Iran. On the other hand, since the extremist group Hamas attacked Israel, tensions in the region have also increased between Iran and Israel's allies. The differing narratives from both sides have caused Iran and the West to stand on opposite sides, and at least until the end of the war in Gaza and Lebanon, expectations for dialogue between Tehran and Washington seem somewhat distant. Leslie Vinjamuri, a political science professor at SOAS University of London, discusses the outlook for Iran-U.S. relations under a Kamala Harris administration, stating: 'Every president in the U.S. has different worldviews and perspectives about various countries, but at the same time, there is significant continuity in certain cases that arises from the history of U.S. engagement with a country. Regarding Iran, it must be accepted that this country is recognized as a major source of threat among Americans, and this image, which has formed since the 1979 revolution, has been solidified among American voters and in Congress. As a result, whoever comes to power in the White House will continue a level of hostility between Tehran and Washington, and Kamala Harris is not exempt from this rule.' Vinjamuri, who is the head of the U.S. section at the Chatham House Foundation, notes that the developments that have occurred, especially in the past year, make the path to dialogue between Iran and the U.S. difficult. She states: 'Perhaps if we go back to 2016 or 2020, Kamala Harris's approach towards Iran would have been very similar to Barack Obama's. However, the reality is that many things have changed over these years; the relationship with Iran, the global landscape, and the regional conditions in the Middle East have all transformed. Therefore, even with the victory of a dialogue-friendly president in Iran, I think that if Harris comes to power, U.S. pressure on Tehran will still be high.' Vinjamuri adds that as long as the war in Gaza continues and its fate remains unclear, it will be very difficult for the U.S. to independently and bilaterally pursue its relations with Iran. It is natural that Kamala Harris will emphasize America's commitment to Israel's security, and Washington's relationship with Tehran will initially be viewed through the lens of regional developments and war. Moreover, the issue of Iran's nuclear program will also be a topic that raises deep concerns. Although the image ahead for Iran with Harris or Trump will be very different, the formation of extensive tensions in recent years, especially since October 7, 2023, leaves few analysts hopeful for the establishment of less hostile relations between Tehran and Washington, even if just a few months ago a president came to power in Iran who spoke of friendship and dialogue with the world, and on the first Tuesday of November, Kamala Harris might defeat Donald Trump.