She said on Nov. 6 that while serving as secretary of state, she had spent 18 months “putting together the sanctions against Iran so that we could force them to the negotiating table.” In this regard, Raisdana has concluded that Clinton is similar to Trump, because both candidates believe in the “absolute domination” of the United States over other countries. Another prominent Iranian economist, however, disputes this argument.
“Though she’s been more hawkish than Obama, Clinton eventually endorsed the JCPOA,” noted Hossein Abdoh Tabrizi, an adviser to the minister of roads and urban development, arguing that Clinton and Trump could act very differently when it comes to actual policy toward Iran.
Trump has been critical of the nuclear deal, calling for an expansion of sanctions as a way to force the Islamic Republic to make more concessions, adopting “America First” and a “stay unpredictable” approach toward Iran. Yet, Raisdana believes that Trump could be more reliable as far as the nuclear deal is concerned given the GOP’s record on major foreign policy decisions.
In this vein, Raisdana points out that the Republican President Richard Nixon ended America’s involvement in the war in Vietnam and opened diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Trump comes from the same party as Nixon, a party that can easily change its hostile approach toward Iran if need be, Raisdana said.
Abdoh Tabrizi disagrees. He told Al-Monitor that Trump is “too risky” to deal with, whereas Clinton is more predictable. In this vein, he acknowledged that Barack Obama has been an “exception” among US presidents. “We have to take advantage of the several months of his remaining term to hammer out agreements in favor of our country and economy,” Abdoh Tabrizi emphasized, implicitly agreeing with Raisdana that Clinton would not be as favorable to Iran.