Upon taking office in January 2021, President Joe Biden promised to reset U.S. foreign policy. As his administration reached its end, its performance on numerous fronts was scrutinized, including its handling of Iran and broader Middle Eastern affairs. Evaluating the Biden administration’s approach to Iran poses challenges, as methods like comparative analysis or policy impact studies can be prone to subjective interpretations.
However, Iran remains a critical issue in U.S. foreign policy debates, making it crucial to adopt an approach that is less susceptible to bias. Manifesto analysis offers a compelling framework for such an evaluation. By benchmarking Biden’s campaign promises and early policy declarations against his administration’s tangible achievements, this method sheds light on the gap – or alignment – between rhetoric and reality.
Diplomatic engagement
The Biden administration adopted a dual approach of sanctions and indirect diplomacy, reflecting a realist strategy that struggled to reconcile its manifesto-driven ideals with the geopolitical complexities of engaging with Tehran.
At the outset of Biden’s presidency, negotiations benefited from the more moderate government of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. However, the election of Ebrahim Raisi in 2021 shifted the dynamics, as Raisi’s administration took a more rigid stance, complicating progress. Diplomatic efforts, conducted indirectly through European intermediaries and mediators like Qatar and Oman, failed to produce a breakthrough.
The election of reformist Masoud Pezeshkian as Iran’s president in late 2023 briefly opened the door to potential engagement. However, the U.S. presidential election and the return of Donald Trump to the White House in 2024 quashed any remaining prospects for negotiations. The political shift in Washington, combined with ongoing regional instability, cemented a deadlock in U.S.-Iran relations, leaving the future of the nuclear deal (JCPOA) and broader diplomatic efforts in limbo.
Iran’s nuclear program
Biden strongly criticized his predecessor Trump’s withdrawal of the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), promising to reenter the agreement as a foundation for negotiating a “longer and stronger” deal. Antony Blinken, Biden’s nominee for secretary of state, echoed this stance during his Senate confirmation hearing on Jan. 19, 2021, affirming the JCPOA’s role in preventing Iran from acquiring fissile material for nuclear weapons. Blinken noted the limitations of the “maximum pressure” campaign employed by the Trump administration, highlighting its failure to prevent Iran’s nuclear acceleration or secure allied support.
The Biden administration initiated indirect talks in Vienna to restore the JCPOA. Yet, these negotiations repeatedly stalled due to disputes over sanctions relief, compliance verification and new demands from both sides. Criticism emerged over the administration’s perceived delay in addressing the issue, which allowed Iran to advance its nuclear enrichment. Notably, the administration of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi proved inflexible, coupled with the Hamas attack on Israel, further exacerbated tensions. Negotiations were ultimately derailed despite mediatory efforts from actors like Qatar.
Although Biden pledged to re-enter the JCPOA under the condition of Iran’s return to compliance, no agreement was reached. This failure did not result in a complete policy breakdown, as the administration maintained its commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Biden’s team collaborated with international partners to monitor and counter Iran’s nuclear activities, but Tehran significantly expanded its enrichment capabilities, presenting new challenges to U.S. foreign policy goals.
Mahsa Amini protests
The protests ignited by the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in Iranian police custody in 2022 marked a pivotal moment in the Biden administration’s approach to Iran. Amini’s death galvanized widespread demonstrations against the regime, drawing significant international attention. The Biden administration publicly condemned Iran’s crackdown on protesters, emphasizing human rights, women’s empowerment and democratic values. Targeted sanctions were imposed on Iran’s “morality police” and officials implicated in human rights abuses.
However, while the administration’s rhetoric strongly supported the protests, its actions revealed a pragmatic balancing act. Prioritizing strategic interests such as nuclear negotiations and regional stability, the administration refrained from overt intervention. This cautious approach reflected a calculated effort to avoid jeopardizing diplomatic efforts while maintaining public support for protesters.
Comparisons to the response of President Barrack Obama’s administration during Iran’s Green Revolution in 2009 are instructive. Like Biden, Obama faced criticism for a muted response to Iran’s protests, which many later attributed to his administration’s focus on securing the JCPOA.
Prisoners exchange
In a notable moment for U.S.-Iran relations during the Biden administration, the prisoner exchange deal emerged as a significant turning point. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s remarks during his Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Jan.19, 2021, highlighted the administration’s commitment to securing the release of unjustly detained Americans. He declared: “We will do everything to bring any American home who is being unjustly detained anywhere in the world who is a hostage, including in Iran. That has to be a priority.” This set the tone for a policy agenda that sought to address the plight of U.S. citizens held abroad.
In 2023, this commitment bore fruit as Biden’s administration brokered a deal with Tehran to secure the release of five Americans, some of whom had been imprisoned for nearly a decade. The agreement, however, required concessions. The U.S. unfroze $6 billion of Iran’s funds in South Korea, a contentious move that sparked both domestic criticism and international speculation. Reports indicated that Iran has faced significant challenges accessing the funds due to sanctions and restrictions, with the money reportedly funneled through Qatar under strict oversight.
Despite these complexities, the deal was a significant diplomatic achievement for Biden, who expressed relief and satisfaction in a statement: “Five innocent Americans who were imprisoned in Iran are finally coming home. They will soon be reunited with their loved ones – after enduring years of agony, uncertainty, and suffering.” Biden said in his statement.
Iran’s influence in South America
Iran’s growing influence in South America, particularly in Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua, has become a point of concern for U.S. foreign policy, highlighting Tehran’s efforts to expand its reach beyond the Middle East. Through economic, military and ideological cooperation, Iran has steadily strengthened its foothold in the region, challenging U.S. dominance in its traditional sphere of influence.
Blinken underscored these concerns during his Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in January 2021, warning about the geopolitical implications of Iran’s activities in Latin America. He noted, “In Peru, Brazil and Colombia, which ultimately impacts us, there is increased evidence of Iranian interest and activity, including the sale of oil or gasoline in exchange for gold that they are stealing from their reserve.”
A significant development occurred in July 2023 when Iran and Bolivia signed an agreement encompassing military cooperation, cybersecurity techniques and joint training exercises. This pact reportedly included the sale of reconnaissance drones and riverboats alongside personnel training programs. Iranian Defense Minister Mohammad Reza Ashtiani later acknowledged the deal’s military dimensions, further solidifying Iran’s role as a key partner for Bolivia’s leftist government. Tehran’s strategy has focused on forging alliances with countries led by left-wing parties, taking advantage of ideological alignments and shared resistance to U.S. policies.
The broader implications of Iran’s activities in Latin America cannot be ignored. Some analysts argue that the Biden administration, preoccupied with preventing an all-out war in the Middle East and managing other global crises, has paid insufficient attention to Tehran’s growing influence in its own backyard.
Over 600 sanctions
The Biden administration’s approach to sanctions against Iran reflected a blend of increasing targeted sanctions and a notable shift in focus compared to the “maximum pressure” strategy of the Trump administration. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Jan. 19, 2021, Blinken highlighted a major challenge: the lack of alignment with traditional allies, which had complicated efforts to counter Iran effectively, including renewing the arms embargo.
Under Biden, the administration imposed over 600 sanctions on individuals and entities tied to Iran’s human rights violations, military programs and proxies such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Despite these measures, Iran’s oil revenue surged significantly. According to the Energy Information Agency’s October 2024 report under the Stop Harboring Iranian Petroleum (SHIP) Act, Iran’s petroleum exports generated $144 billion in the first three years of Biden’s presidency. This marked a dramatic increase of $100 billion compared to the last two years of the Trump administration when strict oil sanctions were in place.
The Biden administration’s strategic shift seemingly allowed for increased Iranian oil exports, leveraging the oil revenue as a potential tool for diplomacy and regional influence management. However, this approach faced domestic criticism for enabling Tehran to bolster its economy, with Iranian gross domestic product (GDP) growth and oil exports reaching six-year highs.
Diminishing regional power
The aftermath of the Hamas-Israel war saw significant shifts in regional dynamics, with the U.S. seemingly authorizing Israel to intensify its efforts against Iran’s allies in the region. This included actions aimed at weakening Hezbollah in Lebanon, dismantling Hamas’s control over Gaza and destabilizing Iran’s influence in Syria. The prospect of targeting prominent leaders such as Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas and Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah signified a concerted effort to undermine the operational and symbolic power of these groups.
Despite these maneuvers, Iran demonstrated its capacity to disrupt the strategic calculus in the Middle East. Through coordinated attacks involving thousands of drones and missiles, Iran targeted Israeli positions, challenging the perception of Israel’s unassailable military dominance. These actions underscored Iran’s ability to project power beyond its borders, leveraging its proxy networks and advanced military capabilities.
The downfall of Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria, long considered a critical ally of Iran, would represent a major setback. Israel’s taking advantage of regime opponent groups’ taking Assad down in Syria and advancement within Syrian soil highlighted an effort to destabilize Iran’s foothold in the region. Losing Syria as a partner would diminish Iran’s capacity to support Hezbollah and project influence across the Levant.
Future: Trump’s 2nd term
Evaluating the Biden administration’s performance regarding Iran could serve as a lesson for shaping future policies, particularly under the anticipated second Trump presidency.
While Iran finds itself in a more precarious position compared to four years ago – largely due to economic hardships and regional developments – the U.S. is also not in the global leadership position it once held. America’s perceived decline in global influence has been compounded by its unwavering support for Israel, which has drawn widespread criticism for its actions in Gaza. Accusations of complicity in what some view as genocide and the killing of thousands of innocent civilians have further tarnished the U.S.’s reputation on the global stage.
President Biden’s strategy toward Iran primarily focused on containment, aiming to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons while avoiding the imposition of maximum pressure or advocating for regime change.
Trump’s approach toward Iran would likely differ significantly. While controlling Iran’s nuclear program would remain a priority, his strategy might emphasize more aggressive measures, such as reinstating maximum pressure campaigns and leveraging punitive sanctions to undermine Iran’s regional influence.