The Iran Dilemma: How the U.S. Election Could Shape the Nuclear Question
The 2024 U.S. presidential election poses a critical moment for U.S.-Iran relations, with Israel’s security concerns at the forefront. Trump’s recent comment urging Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear program has reinvigorated debate on American support. A Harris presidency would likely return to diplomatic channels, reflecting the U.S.’s historical containment strategies, but the stakes remain high for Israel and regional allies.
Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal was a significant pivot in Middle Eastern diplomacy, escalating fears of nuclear conflict. Israel, facing threats from Iran-backed Hezbollah, has openly favored Trump’s direct approach. Harris, by contrast, signals a more calculated policy, which some analysts believe could offer a cautious pathway for Middle Eastern stability.
Iranian officials view both candidates warily, with Trump’s hardline stance perceived as overly confrontational. Harris’s approach is expected to balance Iran’s nuclear containment while avoiding full-scale intervention. Former Israeli ambassador Danny Ayalon suggests that Harris would first focus on regional ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon before addressing Iran directly.
In Israel, support for Trump remains robust due to his no-compromise policies on Iran and militant groups. Conversely, Harris’s calls for humanitarian support in Gaza indicate a possible shift in U.S.-Israel relations. Many Israelis fear that Harris could increase diplomatic pressure on Netanyahu’s administration, especially regarding humanitarian issues and settlements.
Regional leaders like those in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who entered normalization deals under Trump, may approach Harris with cautious optimism. The Abraham Accords marked a significant shift, but Saudi Arabia’s future moves could hinge on Harris’s diplomatic, rather than transactional, approach to normalization.
Ultimately, the election offers starkly different paths for addressing Iran, with Trump’s confrontational stance and Harris’s diplomacy each carrying distinct risks and potential rewards for U.S.-Middle East relations.
