Despite its harsh rhetoric against the US over the past five decades, the regime in Tehran is astute in doing what it can to influence the outcome of US presidential elections. Iran remains focused on who is in the White House, as this dictates its actions in the region. This has been true since the regime took power and played a role in the Jimmy Carter-Ronald Reagan presidential race leading up to the 1980 election. The Iranian hostage crisis began in November 1979 when Iranian militants seized the US Embassy in Tehran, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. This crisis had a significant impact on the 1980 US presidential election, contributing to Carter’s defeat. As a result of the prolonged hostage situation, Carter was seen as ineffective in handling international crises, which eroded public confidence in his leadership. This perception, combined with economic issues, helped Reagan win. The hostages were freed on Jan. 20, 1981, just minutes after Reagan was inaugurated as the 40th president of the US. The regime chose to delay the release until after the election results, but before Reagan’s presidency effectively started. The question of Iranian retaliation is a daily fixture of the news cycle Khaled Abou Zahr Since then, and more consistently, the Iranian regime has preferred having a Democrat in the White House. Tehran’s actions convey this preference, especially during election years. In some cases, when the economy is the main topic, the impact is limited. This year it is a different story, with the war in Gaza having taken center stage not only on the US political scene but precisely within the Democratic Party. And the question of any Iranian retaliation to Israel’s strikes is a daily fixture of the news cycle. As Tehran considers implementing its promised revenge for the assassination of Hamas’ political leader Ismail Haniyeh, it is clear the regime is also calculating how a response will affect US election results. This time it is quite evident that the regime is siding with Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee, for various reasons. What effect would a strong attack have on the election results? First, any retaliation from Iran that ignores the rules of engagement with Israel risks expanding the conflict. And, as Harris is already in the White House, any escalation will dampen her chances since it would suggest that the situation was handled ineffectively and would also have a negative impact on the economy. At the same time, the Iranian regime is seeing how critical the Democratic Party has become to Israel’s war policies. As White House envoys travel to the Middle East in a bid to avoid escalation, one can imagine the smiles on the faces in Tehran. Israel is looking to extract the maximum it can from Iran’s patience Khaled Abou Zahr Israel’s current warnings are also making Tehran pause its retaliation to try to find a creative way that would avoid escalation. Israel also understands this situation and is looking to extract the maximum it can from this calculated Iranian patience. That is why it is pushing ahead without listening to the pressure from the US and others. Tel Aviv also knows that the window of opportunity might close with the next elections. During a rally in Michigan, Vice President Kamala Harris addressed pro-Palestinian protestors by saying, "If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking." This is also the same thinking by the Iranian regime; they can either disrupt or wait for the November elections. This is why unless an accident happens or Israel strikes another hard symbolic target, the regime and its proxies will avoid an escalation. Iran will expect to extract value for this silence from a possible Harris administration. Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of the investment platform SpaceQuest Ventures, CEO of EurabiaMedia and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.