Interview by Masoud Golsorkhi

Yousof Azizi is a PhD student in Public Administration/Public Affairs at Virginia Tech’s School of Public & International Affairs, working on a dissertation about US foreign policy decision-making, presidential studies, and Iran’s nuclear program. He was previously a research assistant at the Belfer Center at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Azizi is a frequent commentator on US-Iran relations, the Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA), and Iran’s regional and domestic politics on both English and Persian-speaking media, such as BBC Persian. He spoke to TANK shortly before the 2024 US election.

Masoud Golsorkhi In conventional wisdom, foreign policy has had little impact on electoral politics in most countries around the world. Instead, political campaigns place emphasis on domestic economic conditions. Is this moment – and the situation in Gaza – different? And if so, how?

Yousof Azizi In the US, particularly since it became a superpower in the second half of the 20th century and a hegemon after the Cold War, domestic issues like taxes, healthcare, immigration and the economy have taken centre stage in elections. Polls consistently show that voters prioritise the president’s domestic agenda. Presidents understand this and often focus on these issues for political advantage. For example, James Baker, George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of State, mentioned that Bush lost the 1992 election partly because he didn’t present a strong domestic economic plan. Foreign policy only rises to the forefront of voters’ concerns during significant crises, over matters of war and peace. US history also shows that public debates around foreign policy can intensify when Americans face questions about their country’s role
in the international order. The US’s global role has historically changed through wars, with turning points at the end of the 19th century and during major moments like the First and Second World Wars, which provoked hot debates over whether or how to enter. Similarly, we’re now witnessing a shift in global power dynamics, making Americans more uncertain about how the US fits into the evolving world order in the 21st century. With the US’s global hegemony declining and China emerging as a competitor, Americans have engaged in new debates which are reflected in recent presidential elections. Voters from different ideological backgrounds are now paying more attention to how candidates handle international crises, such as the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, especially when the US is directly or indirectly involved and significant humanitarian concerns are at stake. The situation in Gaza, where Israel has already killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people with American weapons, is definitely making foreign policy a bigger issue in the upcoming November election. First, many voters, especially younger people, Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, and the progressive and liberal wings of the Democratic Party, feel betrayed by the Biden administration’s failure or unwillingness to push for a ceasefire early in the war on Gaza, which has now been ongoing for more than a year. These groups largely supported Biden in 2020 but are now frustrated with how his administration has handled this crisis. It’s also worth noting that in March 2023, for the first time, a Gallup poll showed that more Democrats sympathised with Palestinians than with Israelis. This shift has been growing within the grassroots of the Democratic Party, although it hasn’t reached the party establishment, which still holds tradi- tional views on the US–Israel relationship. As a result, many dissatisfied groups within the Democratic Party have announced that they might stay home or support a third party in the upcoming election. Second, polls have consistently shown that Gen Z and millennials tend to sympathise more with Palestine than with Israel, in sharp contrast to older American generations. This shift has been evident in the protests and expressions of solidarity with Palestine on major American college and university campuses since the Gaza war began. Younger Americans struggle to reconcile the double standards and contradictions in US foreign policy. They question how the values they’ve been taught, such as protecting human rights and the right to self-determination, seem to fall short in the Israel–Palestine conflict. Many are frustrated by the US’s unconditional support for Israel, despite Israel’s long-standing violations of Palestinian rights over the past eight decades. These younger generations represent the future of America, and it seems that many politicians are now finding themselves having to address foreign policy issues they might have otherwise avoided or downplayed.

MG How do you see Gaza impacting each candidate in the US elections?

YA First of all, we have to understand that in domestic US politics there’s a range of viewpoints from the far left to the far right, but when it comes to foreign policy, particularly regarding Israel, the spectrum narrows considerably. Both political parties tend to align on the idea that the US must maintain its unique relationship with Israel. This bond is even stronger than the US’s ties with historic allies like the UK or France. As a result, we shouldn’t expect much difference in Israel–Palestine policy whether it’s Donald Trump or Kamala Harris in power, as both would uphold this established stance. Vice President Kamala Harris’s stance on the war in Gaza closely aligns with the Biden administration’s, which has been consistently supportive of Israel – economically, militarily, and diplomatically – while also calling for humanitarian aid for Palestinians and outwardly advocating for a ceasefire. This approach may resonate with voters who back the US’s strong ties with Israel but are concerned about its humanitarian violations. However, Harris, like Biden, faces criticism from progressive and younger voters who feel the response to Palestinian genocide and the push for a ceasefire have been inadequate. As you probably know, the recent Democratic National Convention in Chicago, where delegates supporting Palestinians were blocked from speaking due to pressure from Harris’s campaign, has only heightened this frustration. The hypocrisy of this approach is so evident that even Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign policy chief, criticised the Biden administration in February, stating that if you support a ceasefire, you must limit the sending of lethal weapons to Israel. Therefore, Harris faces the challenge of balancing the party’s long-standing pro-Israel stance, shaped by the influence of the Israel lobby, with the growing discontent among progressive and younger voters, who may turn to third-party options or decide not to vote in the next election. Former President Donald Trump’s foreign policy strongly favoured Israel, marked by his administration’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and his unfinished “deal of the century,” which Palestinians argue will end their goal of establishing a free, sovereign state. Trump faces a similar challenge to Harris, though in a different area. Since 2016, Trump has built his campaign on putting “America First,” promising to end “endless wars” in the Middle East, bring troops back home, and focus on China as the main US rival. At the same time, he has close family ties to Israel and has based his foreign policy on strong cooperation between far-right movements, Christian Zionists, and neoconservatives in the US with their counterparts in Israel’s far-right Zionist movement. Trump often claims that his policies have uniquely strengthened Israel’s security. The challenge for Trump is balancing the expectations of conservative voters who want a solid US– Israel alliance, while also reassuring his base that he won’t lead the US into more Middle Eastern conflicts.

MG How is increasing diversity within Western countries changing this?

YA There is no question that increasing diversity within Western countries is reshaping how foreign policy issues, like the Israel–Palestine conflict, are viewed by voters and political parties. As more people from diverse backgrounds – including immigrants and second-generation citizens from the Middle East, South Asia, and other regions – become politically active, their perspectives are beginning to influence the broader political landscape. Additionally, minority groups and marginalised communities in the US, such as African Americans, see parallels between the struggles of Palestinians and their own history. They view Israel and the Zionist movement as
a colonial settler state, supported by Western powers, that has displaced the indigenous people of Palestine from their homeland. This mirrors the way Europeans treated native peoples across the globe, taking their land and rights during the long colonial era. These shifting perspectives are particularly noticeable among younger generations, who are generally more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause compared to older generations. Activism and protests supporting Palestinian rights on college campuses and within progressive movements demonstrate that these changing views are already influencing political discussions. However, it’s important to acknowledge that these changes are gradual. While there are visible shifts among grassroots movements and younger generations, altering US foreign policy is a complex and slow process. Though more progressive and independent politicians have emerged over the last decade advocating for a more balanced US policy toward the Israel–Palestine conflict, their numbers remain limited. Many of these candidates prioritise domestic issues, given their limited energy and time, and often face pressure from within their own parties. This was evident in the 2024 primaries, where two prominent progressive House members, Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, lost their seats after facing massive opposition from pro-Israel groups within the Democratic Party.

MG In recent years, the rules, systems, and institutions that underpin the “international order” have been undermined and ignored in a return to great power politics. How has this process evolved, and where does it stand now?

YA The international order today is marked by fragmentation and selec- tive adherence to norms. While some nations still advocate for cooperation and rules-based governance, rising nationalism, unilateralism, and great power competition have destabilised the global system. Cooperation, especially among the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), has weakened, leaving the United Nations struggling to manage tensions. This has led to a shift toward a multipolar world where power is more widely distributed. Several key developments have driven this shift. First, the UN was built after the Second World War to promote cooperation among the great powers in order to prevent conflicts and uphold international norms. However, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – US, UK, France, Russia, and China – have frequently exempted themselves from the enforcement of international law by using their veto power to block resolutions that conflict with their interests. Some of them also avoid certain international legal institutions, like the International Criminal Court (ICC), citing concerns over national sovereignty and restrictions on their ability to act unilaterally in international matters. Additionally, the US, with EU backing, has shielded Israel – viewed as an exception in international law – from accountability for human rights violations and UNSC resolutions. Second, since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has established itself as the hegemon of the international order, believing that the balance of power was no longer necessary. This newfound dominance led the US to engage in military commitments worldwide, particularly in the Persian Gulf and the Balkans, and expand NATO eastward. A pivotal moment was the 2003 Iraq invasion, based on deceptive claims about Iraq’s WMDs and ties to Al-Qaeda, which also occurred without UNSC approval and faced opposition from US allies like France and Germany. Frequent US unilateral actions, such as withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal, have also strained global alliances and multilateral agreements, raising doubts about the commitment of the US, historically the chief architect and defender of the international order, to upholding global norms. Third, and perhaps most importantly, China is the only rising global power currently posing a serious challenge to the United States across economic, financial, technological, military, and security dimensions, and is projected to become a “peer competitor” in the coming decades. While the US spends heavily on its military and ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, China’s rapid economic growth has led many analysts to predict it will become the world’s leading economic power within the next decade. Consequently, the US faces a choice: either accommodate China’s demand for a greater voice in international organisations like the World Trade Organization and recognise its expanding influence around the globe through soft and hard power, or confront the alternative world order China is creating through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Additionally, China and Russia are leading international organisations like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which further challenge US dominance in global governance. Lastly, Russia has consistently voiced its security concerns over NATO’s eastward expansion, particularly regarding Ukraine and Georgia. Russian officials have urged the US to uphold previous promises that Ukraine would remain a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia, especially given Ukraine’s post-Soviet disarmament. But NATO’s persistent efforts to include Georgia and Ukraine contributed to Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing war in Ukraine since February 2022.

MG How do the two political parties relate to this change? To what extent is there a connection between domestic politics and a desire to override international institutions and norms?

YA During the Cold War, both parties largely supported the four pillars of US foreign policy: containing communism, fostering transatlantic partnerships, promoting global trade and backing international institutions. However, after the Soviet Union’s collapse, public and party priorities in international affairs began to diverge. This divergence is evident in recent events like the Ukraine-Russia conflict, climate change, the US–Mexico border and competition with China. Traditionally, the Democratic Party favours multilateralism, emphasising the importance of alliances, global cooperation and adherence to international law. In contrast, the Republican Party tends to support a more unilateral approach, stressing American military superiority and distinguishing between national interests and international commitments. This is reflected in the “America First” rhetoric, which views certain international agreements as potentially harmful to immediate domestic economic interests. While many Republicans prefer a foreign policy of restraint – focusing on containing China and staying out of global affairs that don’t offer immediate economic benefits – the Democrats continue to support spreading the liberal international order, maintaining the US security umbrella for allies, and intervening globally. A key question often raised is whether US foreign policy truly benefits all Americans, especially the middle class, or primarily serves the elite. There is a growing perception that while US engagement in global markets has helped corporations and the wealthy, it has left ordinary citizens facing economic challenges without enough tangible benefits. In conclusion, the ideological battles within American politics, along with prioritising short-term partisan interests over long-term national interests, the influence of lobbyists and interest groups, including foreign-registered agents and the military-industrial complex, and maintaining a special relationship with Israel – often exempt from international law – contribute to perceptions of the US as an unreliable and untrustworthy power. These factors erode US credibility and its leadership in international commitments, particularly in a world increasingly shaped by great power competition and evolving multipolar dynamics. .