By Emad Kiyaei
Following Israel’s recent strike on Iran, Tehran finds itself in a unique position to curb the cycle of violence. The question is whether Iran and the U.S. can leverage this moment to strike an immediate freeze-for-freeze deal to steer the region towards stability.
Tehran faces a pivotal decision: to view Israel’s recent response as a closed chapter, to react proportionally, or to engage in direct dialogue with Washington to address bilateral and regional security questions. Iran’s response, whether to add fuel to the fire or douse the flames, will have global repercussions. This decision could also influence the outcome of the knife-edge U.S. presidential election between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
As they say, “it’s the economy, stupid!” that decides the U.S. election outcome. This is where Iran holds a trump card: its power to drastically impact global oil prices, with direct implications (real or perceived) to the U.S. economy.
Iran could deliver on its threat to disrupt global energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz—through which up to 30 percent of global oil passes—and back continued Houthi attacks on Israeli-affiliated vessels in the Red Sea. Such a move would hike oil and gas prices; plunge the global economy into recession; and burst into a regional war with deep U.S. involvement. This sequence would sway voters as they prepare to cast their ballot in battleground states that will determine the election outcome.
Washington and Tehran can move towards the opposite scenario by urgently reviving diplomatic channels to resolve bilateral and regional disputes. While a comprehensive agreement would require prolonged–and nuanced–diplomacy, Tehran and Washington could opt for immediate de-escalatory moves through a “freeze-for-freeze” agreement. In such a time-bound deal, Iran would agree not to respond to Israeli airstrikes, to maintain maritime security, and to leverage its influence on regional non-state actors (Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis) in support of diplomatic efforts in Doha to reach a ceasefire deal. In parallel, the Biden Administration would cease providing its strategic backing to Israel’s actions against Iran, release $8 billion of (previously unfrozen) Iranian funds based in Doha, and put direct pressure on Israel’s government to reach a ceasefire deal with Hamas and Hezbollah. This would facilitate the exchange of hostages and prisoners, ensure humanitarian relief into Gaza, and reinforce UN Security Council Resolution 1701 to stabilize the Israeli-Lebanese border.
Washington and Tehran would enjoy global support for such a freeze-for-freeze agreement. Regional countries, along with almost the entire international community, would back an agreement that secures a ceasefire. Needless to say, global civil society—including most of the U.S. and Israeli public—longs for an end to this gruesome war.
The U.S. has unparalleled levers to compel Prime Minister Netanyahu to reach a ceasefire. Yet the Biden Administration has failed to apply these levers effectively. Since October 7, Washington has spent over $22.5 billion in military backing and supplies in support of Israel’s war. It seems that only one circumstance could propel Biden to apply the pressure needed to force Netanyahu’s hand: imminent risk of losing the election to Donald Trump.
Voices in Iran’s Supreme National Security Council are urging caution against another round of direct confrontation. They recognize that retaliation would provoke further escalation including from the U.S., which has increased its military presence in the region. An Iranian official expressed that Iran’s preferred approach is of restrained, calculated responses rather than provocation. “Further escalation would only lead to more destruction,” he noted. “Our goal is to protect our interests without being drawn into an unnecessary conflict.”
Iran’s stance of restraint should enhance its diplomatic leverage for a freeze-for-freeze deal. Tehran has shown willingness to include allies and adversaries in backchannel communications to resolve regional security challenges, aiming at longer-term peace.
Can Iran and the U.S. Turn a Crisis into a Ceasefire?
The current administration can deliver a shot in the arm to the flagging Harris campaign by showing it can defuse conflicts in the Middle East, stabilize energy markets, and address economic concerns. This would be potent given the final weeks of the Presidential campaign, in which the Trump team has focused on the Democrats’ failures to contain global conflict, warning that electing Kamala Harris as Biden’s successor will continue the forever wars. American households have been sensitive to the oil shocks resulting from spiraling warfare.
Nurturing its hostile stance towards Iran will pull the U.S. deeper into Netanyahu’s regional strategies with grave consequences. Such a policy enjoys low public support in the U.S., where it alienates moderate voters. An agreement that obtains Iran’s cooperation in regional security efforts—tied to specific measures to reverse financial sanctions—would allow Biden to boast a diplomatic win that resonates with broad swathes of voters favoring stability and peace.
Should Iran retaliate against the Israeli strikes, whether directly or via proxies, the resulting instability would drive oil prices to record levels, deepen economic challenges and weaken Harris’s election prospects. An Iranian policymaker, who wishes to remain anonymous, cautioned about the fragile situation: “If Israel persists in its onslaught and killing of Palestinians and Lebanese civilians, we have no choice but to respond. But we wish to avoid a wider war that benefits no one.”
Biden must weigh the costs of inaction against the probable gains of diplomacy. A strategic deal with Iran would help shore up his legacy, highlighting his commitment to diplomacy over military engagement and appeal to voters wary of costly prolonged foreign wars.
All major parties—the U.S., Iran, regional states and civilians caught in the crossfire—stand to benefit from a diplomatic resolution. For Biden, securing an agreement would position him as a leader dedicated to peace in a volatile region while addressing critical domestic issues, such as energy costs and inflation. For Iran, the economic relief and recognition as a stabilizing regional power would be substantial gains. Most importantly, a diplomatic breakthrough would bring sorely-needed relief in reducing violence on affected populations.
The Iranian official involved in diplomatic channels remarked, “We understand the U.S. is facing its own pressures, especially with an election around the corner. This is a moment to find common ground. If we reach even a limited agreement, it could open doors to better relations and less hostilities in the future.”
A freeze-for-freeze agreement could kick off a broader U.S.-Iran engagement. The next phase could revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Subsequent stages could involve all regional stakeholders negotiating a comprehensive agreement on regional peace and security.
By prioritizing diplomacy over confrontation, Biden has a rare opportunity to halt the spiraling warfare and recalibrate the power dynamics in the Middle East. Here is a chance to craft a framework that brings security through regional cooperation, rather than military dominance. Seizing this moment to foster peace and stability will be the most important and lasting decision of Biden’s career.
Emad Kiyaei works at the intersection of international security, diplomacy and existential risk. Emad is a director at the Middle East Treaty Organization (METO), which seeks to advance peace, security and stability through innovative policy, advocacy and educational programs. He is also the co-founder and director at AiXist, the consortium for artificial intelligence (AI) and existential risk. The consortium unites a broad spectrum of experts, organizations, and stakeholders to collectively tackle the existential risks posed by AI development and convergence with advanced weapon systems, specifically nuclear, biological and autonomous weapons. He is the co-author of Weapons of Mass Destruction: A new approach to non-proliferation, published by Routledge. He is also a senior advisor to the Berkeley-based innovation lab, Goodly Labs, where he provides strategic advice in policy formulation, fusing technology and social science research to identify and mitigate the spread of misinformation.
He lectures on security and disarmament issues at various academic and policy institutions. Formerly, he was a researcher for Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public & International Affairs and an associate at Columbia University’s Center for International Conflict Resolution (CICR). Emad served as executive director of the American Iranian Council (AIC), an educational organization that focuses on US-Iran relations. Emad holds a Masters of International Affairs from Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs.
