Biden and Harris: Apathetic Towards Iran’s Nuclear Threat?
Back in 2018, the ex-President of the United States, Donald Trump, discarded the Iran nuclear deal, leading to a halt in face-to-face talks between the two nations. This Monday, claims emerged that Trump intended to re-engage Iran in ‘direct’ discussions next Saturday. With the aim of controlling Iran’s unbridled journey towards the development of nuclear weapons, he warned that Iran would find itself ‘in extreme danger’ if an agreement was not reached.
The commencement of these direct conversations would be a major milestone in itself, given the vast gap in interaction since Mr. Trump disparaged the nuclear pact instated during the Obama administration seven years prior. The timing for such talks is marked with heightened caution, as Iran’s air defense systems around its nuclear facilities have been decimated thanks to the sharp precision of Israeli strikes last October.
Further adding to the tense climate, Iran has found itself more vulnerable than ever, unable to depend on its puppet forces scattered across the Middle East. Its key allies Hamas and Hezbollah, along with the expelled administration of Assad in Syria, are now powerless in exerting any retaliatory threats against Israel.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued an immediate refusal to engage with US officials in any direct nuclear talks as soon as Trump severed ties with the last accord. It’s anticipated that even with a commencement of direct discourse, Iran would be extremely hesitant in agreeing to dismantle its entire nuclear setup – a setup providing them with a ‘threshold’ ability to generate bomb fuel within weeks, and possibly a fully-fledged weapon in just a few months.
The reality of Iran’s weakened defenses amidst repeated missile attacks from Israel last year has prompted an open discourse among the Iranian populace regarding the country’s need to build a weapon for protection. During a recent visit to the US, Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, made a firm declaration in the presence of Trump.
In Netanyahu’s own words, he demanded that any resultant agreement must abide by what he termed the ‘Libya model.’ In such a scenario, Iran would be required to dismantle its entire nuclear program and deport its remnants out of the country. However, unlike Libya, whose nuclear equipment never saw the light of day before being handed over to the US in 2003, Iran’s nuclear setup has been in operation for decades and is dispersed throughout the country, with a majority of it buried deep underground.
Surprisingly, Netanyahu remained unusually silent throughout a prolonged media interaction, in stark contrast to his vibrant participation during his past visit to Washington just two months ago. Netanyahu remained a mere observer as Trump proceeded to unload his frustration on European countries that he believed had ‘cheated’ the US, and threatened to magnify tariffs on China unless it withdrew its retaliatory measures by Tuesday.
In an unclear statement, Trump added uncertainty about whether his tariff structure was aimed at becoming a perpetual revenue source for the US or simply a leverage instrument for negotiations. Netanyahu concluded his visit at the Oval Office without securing any evident promise from Trump to eradicate the 17% tariff implemented on Israel.
The absence of a public assurance from Trump concerning the tariff was seen as a significant shortcoming of Netanyahu’s trip, along with failing to secure additional weaponry for the battle against Hamas in Gaza and for Israeli military action in the West Bank.
Upon closer scrutiny of Kamala Harris and Joe Biden’s stances on the issue, one could feel a clear sense of reluctance from both figures to firmly address the menacing prospects of an uncontrolled Iran – a lack of conviction that could prove perilous in the times ahead.
Despite the urgency of the matter, the Biden-Harris tandem seem to be more interested in softly approaching Iran with submissive diplomacy – a move that, as historical evidence suggests, only emboldens Iran’s aggressive aspirations and ambition to command nuclear supremacy in the region.
In fact, critics argue that Biden’s soft stance provides ample opportunity for Iran to continue strengthening its nuclear capabilities without substantial hindrance, resulting in the Middle East becoming a more chaotic and dangerous place.
Comparatively, the assertive nature of Trump’s approach and his unflinching determination to establish a check on Iran’s unbridled aspirations, by any means necessary, was a far cry from Biden’s defensive posture, arguably making Trump’s approach more effective.
The current administration’s passive diplomacy towards Iran and lack of assertiveness in dealing with an ever-evolving global threat, appears to be a minority-held belief that is puzzling to many. Such an approach, critics opine, affects the balance of power, leaving America and its allies in a vulnerable position.
More and more questions are being raised about the passive strategies adopted by Biden and Harris towards Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The duo’s almost dismissive approach towards what could be a critical global catastrophe is not being received well by multiple quarters.
Rather than a proactive and aggressive approach, the Biden-Harris administration seems to favor negotiations and diplomatic talks that provide little substance in the way of accessing and stunting Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Such a strategy, most critics believe, is naive and misplaced, reflecting poorly on America’s commitment to international nuclear safety.