Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed called it an "odd approach" to ask whether he condemns Iran's regime, even as he accused Israel of genocide and apartheid.
In an ABC News interview released Monday, host Linsey Davis pressed the candidate on a basic foreign-policy question. She asked if he condemns the current Iranian regime. El-Sayed would not give a clean yes.
He admitted Tehran has engaged in horrific acts. Then he shifted the ground. The real issue, he said, is not condemnation. It is how America gets to peace, and whether past deals like the JCPOA should have been kept.
The exchange lands in a tight Michigan Senate race already drawing national money, cross-party pushback, and scrutiny of El-Sayed's record and allies. Voters who want clarity on Iran got process language and a lecture on diplomacy instead.
Davis put the question in plain terms for viewers who wanted a direct answer.
"[F]or those who do want to hear, do you condemn the current Iranian regime? What do you say?"
El-Sayed started with a partial concession, then steered hard into history and process.
"They've engaged in horrific acts. There's no question about that. I am for democracy. I'm for human rights. It's what I want for our people. It's what I want for all people, right? And there's no question that that regime has engaged in acts that are terrible. Like, that's not an open question, right? But the big picture question is not, like, for us is, what's in our best interest? Go back to the Obama administration. They had negotiated a JCPOA that had created a space within which we had contained the nuclear threat and we are on a pathway to more peace. That is a good thing. We want that, right? And now, we find ourselves in a situation where, after two Trump terms, we have torn apart the JCPOA, and now we're fighting a war. So, yes, are we in active war against Iran? Yes. Are they an enemy combatant in this war? Yes. Should we be here, is that actually where we want our public policy to go? And now you want me to, like, answer a question within the context of this current war, but the bigger, better question we should have asked is, what should we have done here? We should not have torn up the JCPOA. We were in a position for nuclear containment, and we were in a position of peace. We should not have gone to war in the first place. We didn't have clear war aims. They told us that this was about regime change, then they told us that this was about securing the nuclear threat, then they told us that this was about protecting the Strait of Hormuz. We have accomplished nothing."
Davis tried again, narrowing it to yes or no.
"But, in fairness, just to the question, if it's yes or no, you do condemn the current Iranian regime?"
El-Sayed still would not close the door with a simple condemnation of the regime itself. He condemned "a lot of their action," then compared Iran to other governments and argued the condemn-or-not frame is the wrong one.
"I condemn a lot of their action. But if you want a pathway to peace with folks, you're going to have to figure out how to get to a position of peace. I condemn, like, the Saudi human rights abuses, too. But that's not a question you're asking me. So, I'm just saying that, like, there are a lot of condemnable things that a lot of foreign governments have done. But the question for us has to be, how do we promote our values, and how do we do that in a way, while we're also promoting peace? And I just think this idea of like, condemn or not condemn, right? Is kind of an odd approach. I condemned the genocide that Israel has done. I condemned the apartheid, too. I condemned the attack on democracy that Iran has done. But we engage with actors in a world where you kind of have to figure out how to make peace with people you disagree with. That's what diplomacy's about. And so, the question of condemning and not condemning is actually secondary to the question of how should we get to a pathway to peace? I would like us to make peace with Iran, like President Obama did. I would like us to figure out how to stop subsidizing genocide and apartheid in other places. I would like us to figure out how to stop, maybe, making deals with countries like Saudi Arabia, right? Or the UAE, who are doing genocide in Sudan. I would like us to actually promote our values. So, I would like us to get past the conversation of, like, do you condemn, do you not condemn? Can we actually, objectively ask what our values are? We want to promote democracy all over the world."
Listen to the hierarchy in his own phrasing. Iran's rulers get "horrific acts," "terrible" conduct, and an "attack on democracy." Israel gets "genocide" and "apartheid" as settled labels in his mouth. Saudi Arabia and the UAE get lumped in on Sudan. The regime in Tehran is treated as one more difficult counterpart for diplomacy. The Jewish state is cast as a moral offender America should stop "subsidizing."
That is not a neutral ledger. It is a ranking of outrage. A Senate nominee who finds the Iran question "odd" had no trouble issuing sweeping condemnations of Israel in the same breath. He also said he wants peace with Iran "like President Obama did," while blaming the collapse of the nuclear deal and the current conflict on the period after two Trump terms. Those are his claims, offered as the reason a straight answer on the regime should take a back seat.
The JCPOA was the Obama-era nuclear arrangement with Iran. El-Sayed described it as containment and a path to peace. He said it was torn apart and that shifting war aims, regime change, the nuclear threat, the Strait of Hormuz, have produced nothing. He called Iran an enemy combatant in an active war and still resisted the simple regime condemnation Davis sought.
El-Sayed is not a fringe protest candidate. He is the Democratic nominee after edging past Haley Stevens in a primary that left the party bracing for a hard general election. National handicappers have already treated the Michigan Senate contest as competitive terrain.
Money is moving too. Progressive energy has flowed into the race, including a major transfer highlighted when AOC shifted $1 million toward the Michigan progressive lane. That kind of backing raises the stakes on what the nominee actually believes about Iran, Israel, and American power.
So does distrust from parts of the Democratic coalition itself. More than 400 Jewish Democrats backed Republican Mike Rogers, citing fears over El-Sayed's allies. When a candidate soft-pedals Iran while freely applying "genocide" and "apartheid" to Israel, those fears draft themselves into the race.
The contest has also pulled older controversies back into view, including coverage of how El-Sayed's animal control record resurfaced as the campaign heated up. Fox rating moves have likewise put Michigan in toss-up conversation as the map tightens. Foreign policy answers this evasive do not calm a toss-up. They feed it.
Davis asked a yes-or-no question about a regime El-Sayed himself called an enemy combatant engaged in terrible acts. He answered with a theory of diplomacy, a defense of the Obama nuclear deal, a critique of later policy, and a string of condemnations aimed elsewhere. He said the condemn-or-not frame is "kind of an odd approach."
It is not odd to ask a would-be senator whether he condemns the Iranian regime. It is odd to treat that question as secondary while treating charges against Israel as ready-made. Peace through diplomacy is a policy argument. Refusing moral clarity about Tehran while unloading on Jerusalem is a tell.
Michigan will decide whether that posture belongs in the Senate. Clear enemies still require clear words.