By Abdulsalam Khoja
QAMISHLI, Syria (North Press) – Analysts highlight stark contrasts between the U.S. Democratic and Republican presidential candidates’ approaches to Iran’s influence in the Middle East, particularly in Syria.
During his presidency, Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, opting for a hardline stance. He imposed crippling sanctions targeting Iran’s economy, entities, and key figures, weakening Iran’s ability to fund militias in Syria.
Notably, Trump’s administration also conducted the drone strike that killed Iranian Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani in January 2020, alongside the killing of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in October 2019.
In contrast, under Joe Biden’s administration in 2023-2024, U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq faced numerous attacks from Iranian-backed militias.
Since the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israeli settlements and military bases, Iranian-backed militias have launched 170 attacks on U.S. forces in the region.
The Biden administration has responded by striking Iranian-affiliated targets in Syria while continuing its support for Israel.
Peace through deterrence
Iraqi politician, Intifad Qanbar, now residing in Washington, emphasizes the differing views of Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and Republican candidate Donald Trump.
Qanbar notes that Democrats prioritize engagement with Iran, often at the expense of traditional U.S. allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia. This shift, he argues, strains relations with these allies.
Qanbar contrasts this with Trump’s policy of peace through deterrence.
Trump’s strategy relies on military strength to subdue adversaries, a tactic that Qanbar believes could bring severe consequences for Iran, including maximum sanctions that might bankrupt the country.
Stability and policy outlook
The U.S. administration announced on Oct. 11 the extension of the national emergency, initially declared five years ago in response to a Turkish military operation, for an additional year.
The Iraqi politician believes that the Republican Party views Iran’s economic collapse as a path to regional stability.
He explains that Trump’s approach maintains the possibility of negotiation and consultation, but through military force—citing the killing of Qassem Soleimani as an example.
Qanbar anticipates that a Harris presidency would maintain the status quo in Northeast Syria, with no significant policy changes.
In his view, Harris would lead a weak administration, unlikely to push for bold changes in the region. On the other hand, a Trump victory could shift U.S. priorities toward reducing Iranian influence.
Qanbar expects that Trump would focus on increasing opportunities for Syrians in regions like Deir ez-Zor, giving them greater representation and relief from Iranian threats.
Trump’s hardline approach
Jordanian military analyst Jalal al-Abadi supports the notion that Trump’s return would intensify U.S. pressure on Iran.
He believes that while both parties would maintain a firm stance against Iranian influence, Trump’s approach would be far more aggressive.
Al-Abadi predicts that a future Trump administration would target Iran’s missile and drone capabilities, using military force when necessary.
As the U.S. presidential election approaches on Nov. 5, the fate of American policy in Syria and Iran hangs in the balance.