In a move typical of his tenure, ex-President Trump seized an opportunity to condemn Vice President Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, using Iran’s recent missile attack on Israel as the stage to voice his disdain. He criticized the duo’s handling of affairs with unmatched relentlessness, suggesting their incompetence was steering the nation towards a possible World War III. His narrative banked heavily on alleging their inability to control events or to demonstrate strong leadership.
Under the guise of analyzing the escalating Middle Eastern conflict, Trump laid the blame for succumbing to such international tension directly and solely to Biden and Harris. Insinuating a lack of respect towards America on part of its adversaries, Trump essentially questioned the authenticity of their leadership at the helm of the country.
With comments asserting that the country’s current leadership wasn’t truly in control, Trump sought to raise alarm, casting Biden and Harris as puppet leaders. He focused on casting doubt not on their intentions, but rather their actual ability to command. Any evidence to support his viewpoint, however, remain noises in the political spectrum.
Trump’s portrayal of Biden and Harris hinted at an imminent global conflict due to their strategic foreign policy failures. His narrative held Iran’s recent attack on Israel as a consequence of their inadequacy. ‘Enriched for no good reason’, was pretty much how he summed up the present state of Iran, thanks to this administration.
Trump further obfuscated the context surrounding a 2023 U.S.-Iran prisoner exchange. He twisted facts to make a case against Biden and Harris, ignoring the various contingencies that were in place. One being that $6 billion in Iranian assets unfrozen after the exchange were dedicated to humanitarian uses, such as the purchase of food and medicines.
Critics, mostly Republicans, rebutted the claim and said that money was essentially fungible. Their argument highlighted that the access to such resources could effectively increase Iran’s indirect support to associated entities. There was no discussion of Harris’ endorsement by Iran, but Trump’s stance was clear and unbending.
Moreover, evidence surfaced suggesting Iran’s intent to harm the ex-president, alongside the hacking of Trump campaign’s emails by Iranian military operatives. Such dangerous gambits, largely outside the realms of Harris’ control, were used by Trump to fuel distrust in his successors.
Describing a turbulent Middle East was important for Trump’s argument, with tensions growing between Israel and Iran through a series of intensified military activities. Lebanon, Syria, and the Gaza Strip are caught in the crossfire, as Israel targets Iran-backed groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
The Biden administration showed an unexpectedly docile response to an otherwise ‘serious escalation’. Promises of holding Iran accountable for its actions rang hollow. The Pentagon’s announcement that U.S. destroyers had assisted in repelling the attack did little to swing the narrative in Biden and Harris’ favor.
During a White House brief, national security adviser Jake Sullivan didn’t enlighten the public with specifics on potential U.S. actions. Dishonesty seemed to resonate in his approach, offering no clarity on future sanctions or other responses to Iran’s brazen attack. Investigations, he said, were still underway – a common excuse to evade responsibility.
Iran stood firm amidst the turmoil, justifying their attacks as a legitimate response to Israel’s transgressions. The Islamic Republic openly threatened further retaliation should Israel, or any of its allies, opt to respond with force. It appeared that Biden’s and Harris’ administration had enabled such audacity.
The Israeli perspective was one of defiance. Allowing another country to violate their national sovereignty was not something they stood for. Drawing from their response to Iran’s attack, it was evident that they didn’t share the row-back approach of the Biden-Harris administration.
Israel’s military spokesperson, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, conveyed the gravity of the situation clearly. After the attack, he emphasized there would indeed be repercussions. Yet, in a seeming agreement with Trump, his statement suggested that the consequences might have been avoided under different U.S. leadership.
Trump’s narrative was unkind to the current administration, attributing every international crisis to their missteps. Whether there was truth in his allegations or they were mere political maneuverings, the critique was corrosive. The alleged weakness of Biden and Harris, according to Trump, could be America’s undoing.
Global Incompetence: Biden, Harris and the Rise of Middle East Tensions appeared first on Real News Now.