Schoen & Mangel: The biggest election issue no one is talking about

Israel’s overnight airstrikes on Iran underscores a fundamental issue in this election, one that too few are talking about: The Biden-Harris administration has failed to contain Iran, and it is legitimate to ask whether a President Harris would be any better.

While presidential elections tend to turn on the economy rather than foreign policy, given the rising possibility of a nuclear armed Iran, how Kamala Harris or Donald Trump would approach Tehran is increasingly important to consider.

For his part, Donald Trump has shown that his approach towards Iran would likely resemble his first term: Maximum economic pressure on the regime coupled with a credible military threat. 

This was largely successful then, and Trump’s unpredictability – both a blessing and a curse in foreign policy – would force the mullahs to weigh the consequences of obtaining nuclear weapons and funding terrorist proxies versus the threat of crushing American-Israeli military action.

To her credit, Harris did name Iran as presenting the biggest threat to the United States. However, she has given no indication that her actual policies would be any different than President Biden’s, or those of President Obama, who began Democrats’ policy of appeasement towards Tehran.

Indeed, Harris has surrounded herself with the same Obama and Biden-era officials with disturbing connections to the Iranian regime, and some would likely play key roles in her administration.

It is worth remembering that one week before Israel’s strike – which came in response to Iran launching 200 ballistic missiles at Israel earlier this month – someone within the Biden-Harris administration leaked confidential intelligence on Israel’s military plans.

That leak is symptomatic of the much larger problem within this administration and a potential Harris White House: a willingness to cozy up to Iran, including putting known Iranian sympathizers in key government positions.

To be clear, no American with ties to Iranian government officials should be in high-ranking government positions. Iran is not only the world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism, but is also a key part of the ‘axis of evil’ alongside Russia and China. 

Yet on at least three occasions, the Biden-Harris administration has put people in positions with access to classified information, despite their well-known relationships with Iranian officials and pro-Iranian views.

In particular, three administration officials – Robert Malley, Ariane Tabatabai, and Philip Gordon – raise concerns, not just for their actions supporting Iran, but their potential roles in a future Harris administration. 

Malley, Biden’s former special envoy to Iran, was accused of helping to “fund, support, and direct an Iranian intelligence operation designed to influence the United States government” in a report in Tablet magazine in 2023. 

Prior to his suspension for mishandling of classified intelligence that ended up in Iranian possession, Malley knowingly hired and advanced multiple officials who have known ties to the Iranian government, putting them in key positions within the administration.

One of Malley’s protégés, Ariane Tabatabai, the newly-promoted Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Education and Training, has been accused of being the source of the leak on Israel’s attack by Sky News, citing unnamed Pentagon officials.

However, as of now, there is no conclusive proof that Tabatabai is responsible for the leak, something the Pentagon has denied as well. 

To be sure, it would be inappropriate to make assumptions about a matter of this magnitude based on unconfirmed reports.

That being said, Tabatabai’s role in what Semafor described as an “Iranian influence operation,” and her documented connections to Iranian intelligence and diplomatic officials probably should have disqualified her for a security clearance and high-ranking Pentagon position.

According to a 2023 Semafor investigation, on multiple occasions, Tabatabai sought permission from the Iranian government to attend conferences, published articles on Iran’s behalf in American media, and requested help from senior Iranian officials in crafting her own Congressional testimonies.

Despite the evidence linking Tabatabai to Iranian government officials and protests by Congress, she remains in her Pentagon position with access to sensitive intelligence.

As dangerous as Malley’s and Tabatabai’s ties to Iran are, Phillip Gordon may actually pose the biggest threat, given his likely role as National Security Advisor should Harris win.

Gordon and Tabatabai co-wrote multiple articles which, according to Rep. Elise Stefaniak, “blatantly promoted the Iranian regime’s perspective and interests.” 

Gordon’s association with the National Iranian American Council, an organization which has been called “the Iranian regime’s lobby” has raised questions if those articles were directed by the Iranian government.

Gordon’s views are so transparently pro-Iran and anti-Israel, that his possible appointment to National Security Advisor would have troubling consequences for our closest ally in the Middle East, and our own national security.

Under Gordon’s direction, Harris would formulate an Israel policy much more hostile even than Biden’s, per the Washington Post. As they note, it would include “challenging Israel more directly,” “putting conditions on aid,” and would “reshape U.S. – Israel policy” in a way that weakens U.S. support for our ally.

Taken together, voters must now consider how a Harris administration would approach Iran, Israel, and the Middle East, and the polls suggest voters do not like what they see.

Not only does Trump lead by 9 points (44% to 35%) on who voters prefer to handle the situation in the Middle East per Marquette polling, and the Biden-Harris Iran policies are a key reason just 39% of likely voters approve of the administration’s foreign policy.

Successive Democratic administrations, going back to President Obama – who in 2012 was suspected of leaking Israeli military plans for attack on Iran’s nuclear program – have failed to deal with Iran, which is now more powerful than ever and is on the verge of nuclear weapons.

Thus far, Harris has given voters little reason to think she’d be any different, or be able and willing to confront the emerging Russia-China-Iran axis. 

Ultimately, the next U.S. president will likely have to decide whether to use military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions, sparing the world the threat of the marriage between radical Islam and atomic weapons.

Yet it is now legitimate to ask whether Kamala Harris would take such a step given her top advisor’s pro-Iran views, or if Donald Trump’s willingness to take military action outweigh his unpredictable and often erratic foreign policy.