Following the two-week ceasefire agreement between Iran and the United States, it is only natural that the U.S. political landscape will witness a rise in criticism from Donald Trump’s political rivals. In competitive political systems, any major foreign policy decision is quickly transformed into an arena for domestic political contestation, and the government’s opponents seek to portray it as a sign of weakness or retreat. This dynamic is a normal part of U.S. domestic politics.
What is noteworthy in this regard is the extensive reflection of these very political attacks in Iran’s domestic media, as well as in the positions—and possibly the calculations—of the Islamic Republic’s policy-shaping and decision-making figures; a reflection that at times occurs without due regard for the strategic imperatives of national interest. The reality is that, under the current circumstances, Iran neither needs nor stands to benefit from becoming entangled in the domestic political rivalries of the United States. The primary focus should be on preserving the gains achieved through the nation’s proud resistance over the past forty days, with a view to advancing the negotiations and bringing the process of victory to fruition.
At present, the actor who, in practical terms, holds the authority to decide whether to grant concessions to Iran or intensify pressure against it is the sitting President of the United States—not his political rivals. For this reason, any media-driven narrative that provokes or undermines the position of the President of the United States within that country’s domestic arena does not necessarily serve Iran’s national interests. Indeed, some of Trump’s opponents, as well as the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, may in fact welcome an escalation of military confrontation between Iran and the United States, and even the realization of threats to strike Iran’s infrastructure. Such an action, apart from inflicting serious damage on Iran, would entangle Trump in the quagmire of an international crisis and further erode his political standing and historical image due to the commission of a war crime.
From this perspective, the pronounced reflection of attacks against Trump within the U.S. political arena in Iran’s media and in the positions taken by Iranian political figures—particularly at a juncture when the path toward a durable agreement has not yet been smoothed—may inadvertently serve the interests of actors seeking the failure of the diplomatic process.
At this juncture, Iran has succeeded in building significant capital in the realm of diplomacy and crisis management. Preserving this asset and translating it into a durable agreement—one that leads to de-escalation and the lifting of sanctions—requires a strategic outlook and restraint from short-term passions. Keeping clear of the United States’ domestic political conflicts and maintaining focus on the realization of national interests can help smooth the path toward making effective use of this opportunity.
*The views and opinions expressed in articles published in this section are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the official positions or views of PAIAB.
*Translated into English by Ghazaleh Ghafouri