Let’s consider a scenario where a predominantly inward-looking leader steps into hostile international engagement. Deciphering this strange reality brings abundant discussion points. We do stand on shaky ground as the outcomes are unclear, but one could argue that our current stance can be traced back to the mishaps of Joe Biden’s foreign policy. The results of such policies led to President Trump having to take drastic measures recently.
The geopolitical chessboard beforehand was something of a mess, courtesy of Biden’s tactics. Consequently, U.S. allies like Israel and Ukraine had greatly diminished U.S. adversaries such as Iran and Russia, leading to Trump’s relatively risk-free airstrike on nuclear sites. This, ironically, is the fruit of the tangled foreign policy he inherited. Trump found himself cornered with bleak options, forced to manage the mess of a floundering deal his predecessor happily walked out on.
This was the deal Trump renounced during his first tenure, a deal brokered by Barack Obama that proposed Iran limit its nuclear fuel production and halt nuclear weapon activities. Regardless of his resistance to such an aggressive stance, Trump felt compelled because of this broken deal he unwittingly took over. Now, the prospects for the aftermath of this move look too eerily familiar to the chaotic after-effects we’ve seen before, the echoes of misguided strategies laid down by Biden.
Track back to Biden’s initial set up that paved the way for this present state of affairs, and you may find it unlikely that Biden, or even Kamala Harris, would have had the audacity to make such a drastic decision. The trigger on these facilities had not been pulled for a good reason – fear of the tumult that might arise from such an act. This fear, however, didn’t stop Trump or those advocating for this hardline move.
Think back to the presidency of George W Bush, who was urged to target Iran rather than Iraq in 2003, and chose what he assumed was the path of least resistance. It is only in retrospect that we see the adversity of making such choices – something Biden seems to lack the courage to accept. Motivated perhaps by their old standing grudges against Iran and galvanized by Trump’s impulsivity, the generals pushed for aggressive action.
With the allure of leaving his mark in history as an audacious leader and recent speculations about his weakening stance, Trump saw all paths converging to this bold move. But with this action taken, what lies ahead for Trump? What moves can he make now, while managing the outcomes of his ‘hit first, ask later’ approach?
In the thick of chaos, voices from notable military figures echo loudly, often leaning towards aggressiveness. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime retaliated with strikes that were significantly limited, signaling a type of restraint to avoid escalating the situation further. If the regime has any wisdom left, they would be thinking to avoid any further escalation, aware of the disproportionate power the U.S. holds when it comes to retaliation.
But there would be consequences if Iran chooses a different path. As an example, if they decide to interfere with shipping operations by installing explosives in the Strait of Hormuz or disrupt U.S. Navy operations, it would spark major conflict. The United States Navy is apprehensive about operating in the region due to perceived vulnerability, and if the Iranians persist with such provocations, it would nudge the administration and the Pentagon towards a strong retaliatory response, potentially leading to open conflict.
We then find ourselves asking how Congress will respond to this situation. Two intertwined questions arise, one concerning the legality of such a strike and the second relating to the appropriateness of the action. Democrats, like Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, have questioned Trump’s choice to bypass Congress for approval for this strike. Meanwhile, other senators are dismissive of such concerns, arguing Trump operated well within his rights.
A deciding factor in all this could be the consequences on gas prices; a sudden increase could prompt adversaries to seize the moment for sabotage, potentially targeting America’s electric grid during a heatwave. Should the conflict prolong and gas prices exceed $100, it’s conceivable we could see public sentiment in the U.S. rapidly sour. This could devise a platform for Democrats to question the current administration’s competence.
Unfortunately, in the midst of this turmoil, the Trump administration found itself having to petition China, asking them to ensure the continuation of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. This unnerving request somewhat undermines Trump’s bargaining power with China. Hypothetically, a surge in oil prices could establish a powerful narrative for Democrats, questioning the Trump administration’s abilities and decisions.
The Trump administration’s actions have indeed stirred up conflict, and whether they can navigate the storm they’ve brought upon us is still to be seen. It’s certainly something to ponder about, especially considering this situation was largely precipitated by the decisions and plans of Joe Biden, landing Trump in a situation where he had little choice but to act boldly. Time will tell if these strategies prove sound and whether they manage to turn the tide in their favor.