The US Midterm Elections and The Game of Free Iran

Faryar Hosseini

“Free Iran” Remarks Reminisce on Biden’s past
President Biden’s recent statement that “we will free Iran” made immediately before the US midterm elections in the state of California—the largest population center for Iranians in North America—comes across to many as a classic campaign promise. From the beginning of the Iran Revolution, the Biden administration has been accused of being tone deaf, as they have frequently taken soft positions and issued lukewarm condemnations of the brutal killing of the Iranian protesters. However, during the past few weeks some members of the Iranian opposition have visited the white house to meet with officials. Biden’s statement runs contrast to his hesitant agenda toward the Islamic Republic—which is good reason to not consider his words as more than a political stunt. This seems to be confirmed by the white house spokesperson, who stated that “He was expressing, again, our solidarity with them” (CNN). This comment was seized upon by Iran’s foreign minister, who stated that US officials recanted the impulsive statement and also informed the regime in Iran through “diplomatic channels” that the US is not seeking regime change (BBC). In direct opposition to the words of President Biden and other officials from this administration, the white house itself is indirectly assuring the regime that the US plans to take no action that would result in serious consequences to the regime.
President Biden, however, has a long history of addressing foreign policy issues which ultimately end in US involvement. In 1986, then Senator Biden grilled President Reagan’s Secretary of State in an empowered speech against the Apartheid state in South Africa (Joe Biden). Later, in the 1990s, Biden pushed for Democrats and Republicans alike to take action in Bosnia, calling out the genocide which was underway yet being ignored by the world at large. Ultimately, he called for direct intervention in Bosnia and was one of the leading voices behind the US involvement in Bosnia and the NATO campaign in Serbia (CSPAN).
This administration’s hesitancy to act calls for one to consider where present Iran falls in relation to these two countries. Considering the current situation in Iran—a human rights crisis where thousands of women, men, and a disproportionate number of children are being imprisoned, tortured, raped, or killed—how far is Iran from these nations which Biden ultimately felt warranted US action? Is Ayatollah Khamenei less of a butcher than Milosevic, or are the deaths of Iranian children less offensive than the deaths of Balkan children?
There can be no compelling argument that the Islamic Republic is a less genocidal or egregious violator of human rights than either South Africa or the belligerents of the Bosnian war, as the regime in Tehran has killed men, women, and children with such frequency at home that the world will likely never know how great the real death toll is. Abroad, the regime has sponsored terror and paramilitary campaigns which have killed tens of thousands throughout the Middle East. If this is the case, why is President Biden so lenient with the Islamic Republic, when he was so fiercely dedicated to the plights of other nations’ peoples? Ultimately, the question must consider if it is Iran that is different than these other examples, or if President Biden is no longer the man who believes the US should act against genocide and injustice. In 1986, when President Regan vetoed the Anti-Apartheid Act, he was criticized, with Desmond Tutu stating that he would be “judged harshly by history” (Sydney Morning Herald). Now, as President Biden fails to act to support the plight of the people of Iran in perhaps the greatest human rights movements of the 21st century, one must wonder how he will be judged by history.
Part 2: The US Midterm Elections: Sparks of Hope or Another Partisan Game?

After nearly seven consecutive weeks of protest driven by the killing of Mahsa Amini, international communities have witnessed the limitless brutality, destruction, and savagery of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is now beyond doubt that the Islamic Republic is beyond reason or negotiation. Despite the clear demonstration, however, many American politicians and government officials are still hesitant to declare a termination of negotiations with the regime. Rather, individuals such as Robert Malley—the US Special Representative to Iran and JCPOA negotiator—state of the regime: “We will see whether this is a government that is interested in reaching a deal” (Jerusalem Post).
Regarding the pro-negotiation agenda among the Democratic party, orthodox members of the Iranian opposition—who aim to overthrow the Islamic Regime—have been waiting for the midterm elections with bated breath. They hope that Republicans will take control of the capitol, due to the Republican Party’s history of opposing any deal with the Islamic Republic. Consequently, those protesters in Iran (chanting “Death to Khamenei”) have found the midterm elections a crucial moment to evaluate US foreign policy and its consequences on Iran.
First and foremost, the Republicans have been unanimously opposed to returning to the JCPOA, citing the Islamic Republic’s role in backing various terrorist organizations (Foreign Relations Committee). A Republican majority would almost certainly prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from accessing frozen finances abroad. With that said, even with a Democratic majority in the US, the regime’s actions in Iran have not made it easy for themselves; the left will be hesitant to negotiate with them openly. This will likely not be the case for long, however, as during the past few years the Democrats have included as part of their “anti-war” ideology a requirement to negotiate with Iran.
The Democratic Party’s soft tone and pro-negotiation rhetoric—which persisted openly until nearly a month after the killing of Amini—is driven by the constant effort of Islamic Republic apologists, who have been conditioning them for the past two decades. The Islamic Republic’s propaganda has not missed a single chance to utilize these apologists and the “anti-war” narrative of the Democratic party to legitimize its actions. Consequently, any willingness to negotiate reassures Tehran that their ongoing crimes against humanity will not be punished. In contrast, in a Republican capitol, all doors would be closed for the Islamic Republic.
This is a historical moment for the Iranian community in the US—we have a chance to make the most possible impact on the future of the Iran revolution. By now, there are many candidates who have endorsed the Iran Revolution and shown their willingness to go beyond “condemning violence” or postponing negotiations. The Iranian American community have unified to make demands on behalf of their people, who are brutally murdered two continents away. But is the issue of Iran another partisan game, or is it a bipartisan issue that will truly be addressed?
The interference of Iran in the Russian-Ukrainian war is a potential motivator for politicians in the US, something could create a unified agenda. Take note that in spite of their anti-war agenda, the Democratic Party has expressed nearly unanimous support of financial and military aid to Ukraine. State Department Spokesperson Ned Price stated “We won’t hesitate to act in defense of our interests and our partners in the region” during a briefing about the potential threat posed by the Islamic Republic to regional partners (State Department). These threats have potential to elevate the issue of the Islamic Republic from partisan leverage to a true policy crisis.
Nonetheless, November 8th will represent the juxtaposition of different ideologies in respect to Iran, at least until the formation of a bipartisan coalition on Iran. An official termination of the JCPOA and a motion urging the UN to recognize the Iran Revolution would perhaps be the final steps in bipartisan action. Yet this election has the potential to pave the way toward facilitating regime change, similar to how a shift in power in 1986 led to the Anti-Apartheid Act, a bipartisan achievement that targeted another oppressive regime.

About the Author:
Faryar Hosseini is an Iranian theater and movie writer/director, film critic, and scholar based in New York.
She holds a BFA in theater, MFA in Film Production, and currently studies Media Studies at the The New School, in NYC.

Related Posts