Tehran, February 18,�The Iran Project�� As�the US presidential election is approaching, it matters to Iran that which of the candidates or parties is better for it and why?

In fact, waiting for the election's result by the completion of two terms of a US president is of especial importance for any US friend or foe.

Iran historically has been interested in the shift of power in the US. The Pahlavi's government financial aid to one of the American presidential candidates who was defeated later and the following outcomes for Iran- US relations is an example of this reality.

Democrats or Republicans?

Republicans now control both the congress and the Senate, while the democrats have won presidency. But the president still will be allowed to make change in implementation of the bills approved by them, if two institutions pass legislation despite the president's objection,

In fact, this is due to the US president's powerful role in the legislative process that the bill needs the president's signature to become a law. It was just the case in the recently visa waver reform which finally underwent change by the US government.

In case the republicans recapture the control of presidential office, the resulted consistency in American politics may not be in favor of Iran for the party's pro-war approach. The latter vision sounds arguable with�the existing state of affairs�not many would be keen to war against Iran.

And this potentiality can be helpful since Iran could be debated less in the US domestic politics.

The future of JCPOA implementation is expected to be much more guaranteed under a democrat president since he would be more loyal to Obama's tradition and more likely to vow to stay committed to JCPOA. This argument gains weight particularly when the nuclear deal, which is deemed to spend honeymoon, is thought to go through serious challenges in long-term.

More scrutiny here reveals number of other benefits behind the election of a democrat president, but "who" is an issue here.

Would Hilary Clinton become the second Thatcher?

We all remember iron lady! Margaret Thatcher, the British stateswoman and prime minister, whose stubborn and inflexible approach and bellicosity surpassed many other male politicians, was given the nickname "iron lady". Now Hilary Clinton seems to be following her, desiring to be the first US female president probably with the "lady of war" nickname.

She recently highlighted her role in escalating the tensions in Syria. Moreover, her tough positions toward Iran�is seen as a threat to the future of the already controversial ties between Iran and US.

Thus, Iran is disposed toward a democrat nominee, but Berny Sanders might be more persuasive than Clinton, particularly given his recent remarks over the US mistake in ousting the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953.

Republicans re-activating channels with Iran

There has been evidence proving some contacts between Iran and US republicans particularly during the hostage crisis in 1980s.

Apparently this was what the republicans intended to happen for the second time in past months. As Iran�s top security official Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani disclosed recently, the US republicans called Tehran to delay the decision to prisoners' swap until the upcoming US presidential election.

In sum, Iran expects to see a rational president, seeking stability not conflict in the United States. This is how Iran sees the US 2016 election.