By Emad Kiyaei and Sharon Dolev

Following the recent Israeli strike against Iran, Tehran finds itself in a unique position to curb the cycle of violence. The question is whether Iran and the United States can use this moment to strike an immediate freeze-for-freeze deal to steer the region toward stability.

Tehran faces a crucial decision: view Israel’s recent response as a closed chapter, respond proportionately, or engage in direct dialogue with Washington to resolve bilateral and regional security issues. Iran’s response, whether fueling the fire or dousing the flames, will have global repercussions. This decision could also influence the outcome of the US presidential election between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

As they say: “It’s the economy, stupid!” » which decides the outcome of the American elections. This is where Iran holds an advantage: its power to drastically influence global oil prices, with direct implications (real or perceived) on the US economy.

Iran could follow through on its threat to disrupt global energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz – through which up to 30% of the world’s oil passes – and support continued Houthi attacks on Israel-affiliated shipping in the Red Sea. Such a move would lead to higher oil and gas prices; plunge the global economy into recession; and erupted into a regional war with heavy American involvement. This sequence would influence voters as they prepare to cast ballots in battleground states that will determine the outcome of the election.

Washington and Tehran can move towards the opposite scenario by urgently relaunching diplomatic channels to resolve bilateral and regional disputes. Although a comprehensive agreement would require prolonged – and nuanced – diplomacy, Tehran and Washington could opt for immediate de-escalation measures via a “freeze for freeze” agreement. In such a time-bound deal, Iran would agree not to respond to Israeli airstrikes, maintain maritime security, and exploit its influence over regional non-state actors (Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis) to support diplomatic efforts. in Doha to reach an agreement. a ceasefire agreement. In parallelthe Biden administration would stop providing strategic support for Israel’s actions against Iran, release $8 billion in (previously thawed) Iranian funds based in Doha, and put direct pressure on the Israeli government to reach a ceasefire agreement with Hamas and Hezbollah. This would facilitate the exchange of hostages and prisoners, guarantee humanitarian aid to Gaza and reinforce UN Security Council Resolution 1701 aimed at stabilizing the Israeli-Lebanese border.

Washington and Tehran would have global support for such a freeze-for-freeze deal. Countries in the region, as well as almost the entire international community, would support an agreement guaranteeing a ceasefire. It goes without saying that global civil society – including most American and Israeli citizens – yearns for an end to this horrible war.

The United States has unprecedented leverage to force Prime Minister Netanyahu to reach a ceasefire. Yet the Biden administration has failed to use these levers effectively. Since October 7, Washington has spent more $22.5 billion in military support and supplies to support Israel’s war. It appears that only one circumstance could cause Biden to apply the pressure necessary to force Netanyahu’s hand: the imminent risk of losing the election to Donald Trump.

Voices within Iran’s Supreme National Security Council are calling for caution in the face of a new round of direct confrontation. They recognize that retaliation would provoke further escalation, particularly from the United States, which has increased its military presence in the region. An Iranian official said Iran’s preferred approach was restrained and calculated responses rather than provocation. “Further escalation would only lead to more destruction,” he stressed. “Our goal is to protect our interests without getting drawn into unnecessary conflict. »

Iran’s restraint should strengthen its diplomatic leverage in favor of a freeze-for-freeze deal. Tehran has shown its willingness to include its allies and adversaries in indirect communications to resolve regional security challenges, with the aim of establishing longer-term peace.

Can Iran and the United States turn a crisis into a ceasefire?

The current administration can give Harris’ flagging campaign a boost by demonstrating that it can defuse conflicts in the Middle East, stabilize energy markets and address economic concerns. That would be powerful given the final weeks of the presidential campaign, in which the Trump team focused on Democrats’ failure to contain the global conflict, warning that the election of Kamala Harris as Biden’s successor would continue the eternal wars. American households were sensitive to the oil shocks resulting from the spiral of war.

Maintaining its hostile stance toward Iran will draw the United States deeper into Netanyahu’s regional strategies, with serious consequences. Such a policy enjoys little public support in the United States, where it alienates moderate voters. A deal that would secure Iran’s cooperation in regional security efforts — linked to specific steps to lift financial sanctions — would allow Biden to boast a diplomatic victory that would resonate with broad swaths of voters favorable to stability and peace.

If Iran retaliates to Israeli strikes, whether directly or through proxies, the resulting instability would push oil prices to record highs, worsen economic challenges and weaken Harris’ electoral prospects. An Iranian politician, who wished to remain anonymous, warned of the fragile situation: “If Israel persists in its assaults and massacres of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, we have no choice but to respond. But we want to avoid a broader war that would benefit no one.”

Biden must weigh the costs of inaction against the likely gains of diplomacy. A strategic deal with Iran would help cement its legacy, emphasizing its commitment to diplomacy over military engagement and appealing to voters wary of prolonged and costly foreign wars.

All major parties – the United States, Iran, regional states and civilians caught in the crossfire – could benefit from a diplomatic resolution. For Biden, reaching a deal would position him as a leader dedicated to peace in a volatile region while tackling critical domestic issues, such as energy costs and inflation. For Iran, economic relief and recognition as a stabilizing regional power would constitute substantial gains. Most importantly, a diplomatic breakthrough would provide sorely needed relief in reducing violence against affected populations.

The Iranian official involved in diplomatic channels remarked: “We understand that the United States faces its own pressures, especially as the elections approach. Now is the time to find common ground. If we reach an agreement, even a limited one, it could open the door to better relations and less hostilities in the future.”

A freeze-for-freeze deal could kick off broader engagement between the United States and Iran. The next phase could revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Subsequent steps could involve all regional stakeholders in negotiating a comprehensive agreement on regional peace and security.

By prioritizing diplomacy over confrontation, Biden has a rare opportunity to end the spiral of war and recalibrate the power dynamics in the Middle East. Here is an opportunity to develop a framework that brings security through regional cooperation rather than military domination. 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 director of the Middle East Treaty Organization (WEATHER), which seeks to advance peace, security and stability through innovative policies, advocacy and educational programs. He is also co-founder and director of AiXistthe consortium for artificial intelligence (AI) and existential risk. The consortium brings together a broad range of experts, organizations and stakeholders to collectively address the existential risks posed by the development of AI and convergence with advanced weapons systems, particularly nuclear weapons, biological and autonomous. He is the co-author of Weapons of mass destruction: a new approach to non-proliferationpublished by Routledge. He is also a senior advisor to the Berkeley-based innovation lab Goodly Labs, where he provides strategic advice on policy formulation, merging technology and social science research to identify and mitigate the spread of misinformation.

He lectures on security and disarmament issues at various academic and political institutions. Previously, he was a research fellow at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public & International Affairs at Princeton University and an associate at the Center for International Conflict Resolution (ICRC) at Columbia University. Emad served as executive director of the American Iran Council (AIC), an educational organization that focuses on U.S.-Iran relations. Emad holds a master’s degree in international affairs from the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University.

Sharon Dolev is a peace and human rights activist focused on eradicating nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East and beyond through policy, education, advocacy and activism innovative. She is the founder and executive director of the Middle East Treaty Organization (METO), an organization dedicated to promoting disarmament and non-proliferation in the region. Sharon is also the founder of the Israeli Disarmament Movement (IDM), which works to involve Israel in international and regional peace and disarmament processes.

Sharon has over 35 years of experience as a social and political activist. She was leader of Young Meretz and head of operations within the left party. Additionally, she was actively involved in the anti-occupation movement with Women in Black, Combatants for Peace, the Geneva Initiative and was part of the Gaza team of the Association for Human Rights, where she contributed to their efforts to defend human rights in the region. In recent years, she has hosted a radio show called “According to Foreign Sources”, a program covering security and the state of democracy in Israel.