Consider the situation at hand: an isolationist president engages in warfare. It begs observation and analysis. The roots of the current scenario can be traced back to Joe Biden’s tenure. Donald Trump, who recently began his second term, benefited from the strategic environment crafted during Biden’s tenure. The groundwork laid by Biden unintentionally set the stage for Trump’s recent controversial military activities.
Under Biden’s leadership, America’s strategic partners, namely Israel and Ukraine, significantly undermined the potential threats, particularly those posed by Iran and Russia. Consequently, Trump managed to execute airstrikes on nuclear development sites in these countries without severe immediate military repercussions. Trump’s decision to carry out this audacious act was indirectly made possible by Biden’s flawed foreign policy.
Trump, an unconventional leader, had an inclination towards treaty-compliance instead of initiating hostilities. The nadir of his first term was the termination of the deal initiated by the Obama administration, where Iran consented to limit its nuclear fuel development and halt its nuclear weapons activities. Biden’s lackluster policy created these issues that Trump had to navigate later on.
However, the concern now lies not what led to the present, but what the future holds. Considering Trump’s track record, it seems likely that the period of disorder and confusion will persist. The ephemeral tranquility foisted upon Trump thanks to Biden’s ill-conceived foreign policies is now threatened, leading to a precarious geopolitical landscape.
Although Biden might have unintentionally established an environment that permitted Trump’s assault on Iran, one might argue that he or Kamala Harris, given the authority, might not have authorized such aggressive actions. Their ostensibly prudent nature could have prevented the unleashing of unpredictable consequences. Trump’s decisions have inevitably opened up a Pandora’s box.
Past leaders, including George W. Bush, resisted pressures to engage Iran, instead choosing Iraq as a relatively easier military target in 2003. It appears that Biden and Harris could have succumbed to the same cautious tendencies. Yet, Trump seized this opportunity, primarily driven by personal motives and urged on by those in the military still harboring resentment against Iran dating back to the Iraq War.
For Trump, the incentives to succeed were strong. Eager to secure a legacy as an influential leader and to overcome a period of perceived weakness, he moved towards this drastic course of action. The critical question now is, where does Trump go from here?
The path before Trump is challenging. His advisors in the high ranks of the military, notorious for their assertiveness and aggressive strategies, would probably encourage escalation. Their eagerness for conflict has been highlighted by recent limited strikes by Iranian proxies and their American retaliation.
If the Iranian regime chooses to act with caution, it would likely avoid an escalating conflict with the United States, which holds a more significant retaliatory advantage. However, Iranian aggressions in the Strait of Hormuz or persistent attacks on American ships could increase tensions exponentially, pushing the administration and the Pentagon towards a more aggressive response.
If Iran’s retaliatory actions continue to escalate, the U.S. administration, fueled by its military’s aggressive instincts, might feel compelled to utterly destroy the Iranian Navy. This would be a serious escalation that could plunge us into outright war, a prospect that should worry us all.
The Congress’s reaction to this precarious situation is another crucial piece of the puzzle. A couple of uncertainties need to be considered: one being the legality of the strike, given that the power to declare war lies with Congress, and secondly, the moral implications of the strike, irrespective of its legality.
A number of senators had previously asserted the necessity for Trump to attain congressional approval before such actions. However, certain others believe Trump acted within his rights. If this conflict persists, the central issue may become the economic impact, predominantly in the form of gas prices.
Should the conflict persist, oil prices skyrocketing above the $100 mark could lead to significant domestic discord. Such a scenario may provide a launching pad for the Democrats, who could allege that the currently governing party has failed to protect American interests due to their ill-considered provocations.
In the end, it’s troubling to think about how the Biden-era policies inadvertently laid the groundwork for the current military aggression. However, it is, unfortunately, the reality we find ourselves facing. Though the future is uncertain, these actions have undeniably influenced global politics and have set the stage for what’s to come.
The post The Downfall of Biden’s Foreign Policies appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
