US Presidential Election and Iran strategic calculation in responding to Ismail Haniyeh Assasination

US Presidential Election and Iran strategic calculation in responding to Ismail Haniyeh Assasination

In the aftermath of significant geopolitical events, states often exercise caution in crafting their responses, especially when the stakes could influence broader international dynamics. The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, on July 31, 2024, in Tehran, reportedly by an Israeli attack, is one such event that has the potential to spark conflict. Despite its gravity, Iran has yet to issue an official response. This calculated inaction can be viewed as a strategic postponement, a “waiting game” shaped by Iran’s keen understanding of international power balances, particularly as they relate to domestic U.S. politics.

Iran’s Long History with the U.S. Democratic Party

Iran’s awareness of U.S. electoral dynamics is not a recent phenomenon. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran’s approach to U.S. administrations has reflected a deep understanding of the domestic political landscape in Washington, particularly the ideological divide between Republicans and Democrats. Historically, Iran has been more inclined to engage diplomatically with Democratic administrations, as exemplified by the Obama-era negotiations that led to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal.

During Democratic administrations, particularly under President Barack Obama, Iran saw more engagement and the possibility of diplomatic negotiations. The 2015 nuclear deal was a product of such engagement, marking a significant moment in U.S.-Iran relations, albeit temporary. In contrast, the Republican-led Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the deal and escalate sanctions under the “maximum pressure” campaign revealed the stark difference between Republican and Democratic approaches. Tehran is well aware that the outcome of the 2024 election could either reopen avenues for diplomacy (under a Democratic president) or escalate tensions further (if a Republican wins).

Strategic Timing and the U.S. Election

Iran’s decision to delay its response until after the U.S. election can be seen as a means of avoiding a high-profile, immediate confrontation that could bolster Republican narratives ahead of the 2024 election. Historically, the Republican Party has favored a more aggressive foreign policy toward Iran, emphasizing military strength and sanctions. Any immediate retaliation by Iran could offer the Republicans a national security crisis to rally their electorate, reinforcing the hardline stance on foreign policy that has often characterized Republican administrations.

Tehran’s patience is likely a calculated strategy, designed to avoid shifting the U.S. electorate in favor of Republicans who would potentially continue or even escalate the “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran. By waiting, Iran is ensuring that its actions do not inadvertently provide a rallying point for a Republican candidate, who could capitalize on national security fears to secure electoral victory.

The Lichtman Model and Iran’s Calculations

Iran’s strategic restraint can be understood through the predictive lens developed by American historian Allan Lichtman. In 1981, Lichtman and Russian geophysicist Vladimir Keilis-Borok adapted a predictive model originally used for earthquake forecasting and applied it to U.S. presidential elections. Keilis-Borok’s seismic prediction model analyzed stress patterns in the earth to anticipate potential quakes. Lichtman adopted this methodology, applying it to political “stresses” and patterns to predict election outcomes.

Lichtman’s model relies on a set of “keys” to determine whether the incumbent party will retain power. These keys include factors such as the state of the economy, foreign policy successes or failures, and social unrest. One of the most relevant keys for the 2024 election is the management of foreign crises. If an Iranian response to Haniyeh’s assassination were to escalate into a broader international conflict, it could trigger a rally-around-the-flag effect, where the electorate unites behind the Republican candidate as the one best suited to defend U.S. interests.

In the past, such crises have had significant electoral consequences. For instance, the 1980 U.S. election saw Jimmy Carter lose to Ronald Reagan in part due to the ongoing Iran hostage crisis, which tarnished the image of Democratic leadership on foreign policy. Iran’s leadership, drawing from its historical understanding of U.S. politics, likely recognizes the potential for a similar situation in 2024 if they were to retaliate aggressively before the election. This insight aligns with the strategic delay in responding, ensuring that their actions don’t unintentionally benefit the Republican Party.

Keilis-Borok’s Seismic Prediction Model in Political Strategy

Vladimir Keilis-Borok’s contributions to seismic prediction through pattern recognition hold interesting parallels in the political realm. Much like how scientists can identify stress points leading to earthquakes, political actors can recognize moments of potential upheaval and assess when to act or remain still. The anticipation of fault lines in politics can be just as crucial as in geophysics.

In this case, the U.S. political landscape serves as a metaphorical fault line, with the 2024 presidential election as a potential earthquake. Keilis-Borok’s method of identifying patterns before major seismic events provides a blueprint for political strategy: avoid acting prematurely and triggering destabilization that could play into the hands of adversaries. Iran, in this analogy, is identifying political fault lines in U.S. domestic politics, calculating the right moment to act. Premature retaliation could shift political momentum, creating a seismic “release” that bolsters the Republicans. Iran’s leadership is choosing to hold back, waiting for the landscape to stabilize before making a move.

Geopolitical Calculations and Long-Term Strategy

Iran’s decision to delay action reflects broader geopolitical calculations. Beyond the U.S. election, Iran must consider its relationships with other global powers like Russia and China, and its role in the broader Middle East. By waiting, Iran avoids immediate retaliation, allowing for more diplomatic flexibility depending on the election outcome. A Democratic victory may open the door for renewed talks and diplomatic engagement, as seen under the Obama administration. Conversely, a Republican win could necessitate a more assertive approach, but that response would be crafted with a clearer understanding of the post-election environment.

Moreover, Iran’s decision reflects an acute awareness of how it is perceived internationally. An early, aggressive response could alienate potential allies or escalate tensions with the West. By framing their inaction as calculated patience, Iran positions itself not as weak but as strategically astute, ready to act in a manner that maximizes long-term gains.

Conclusion

The decision by Iran to delay its response to Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination until after the U.S. election is deeply rooted in both historical precedent and a sophisticated understanding of predictive models. Drawing on the insights of Allan Lichtman and Vladimir Keilis-Borok, Iran’s leaders are engaging in a calculated waiting game. By avoiding an escalation that could inadvertently benefit Republicans in the 2024 election, Iran is signaling that its strategic interests extend beyond immediate retaliation. Instead, it is prioritizing long-term geopolitical positioning, knowing that its actions could shape not only the regional landscape but also the outcome of the U.S. election itself. This approach underscores Iran’s sophisticated grasp of U.S. political dynamics and its ability to adapt its foreign policy in response to broader global shifts.

A short history of Baloch Resistance and the Recent Surge in Armed Conflict in Balochistan Province of Pakistan