The Failed Crystal Ball of Kamala Harris: Iran Predictions Revisited

In recent events, the propensity of the Biden-Harris administration for dismal predictions has reared its head again. Surfacing from the past, a 2019 warning from Kamala Harris concerning former President Donald Trump’s dealings with Iran has set the internet abuzz. Some might argue that Harris appeared to have a ‘crystal ball,’ foreseeing the eventual US involvement in Iran’s affairs, but it is essential to see that this could be more of a flame-fanning rhetoric rather than a prediction.

The incident from the past that is causing the stir involves Trump’s surgical bombing operation on Iran’s nuclear sites during his tenure. It has come to a wider audience’s notice that Harris had cautioned against this decision, albeit in her own partisan manner. Her 2019 warning, however, strikes as offbeat political posturing given the tense geopolitical climate at the time.

While Harris’s remarks now appear eerily accurate, one cannot help but notice the persistent undercurrent of opposition that increasingly looks like an attempt to undermine the decisions of the then-president irrespective of its actual merit. In the wake of Trump’s decision to intercede politically in Iran’s nuclear affairs, warnings of an ‘all-out war’ were voiced by Iranian officials and, predictably, echoed by a select few in America, most notably Harris. These warnings, while ostensibly emphasizing diplomacy, appeared hyperbolic considering the ongoing conflict Iran already had with Israel.

Key to drawing out the full context was Trump’s prior announcement of a two-week deadline for whether or not to intervene in the escalating tensions. An intervention, at least according to an Iran driven narrative, would somehow kindle regional destabilization – a doomsday scenario perpetuated by Harris herself. However, these dramatic predications should be seen in light of an incendiary past and politicized agendas.

Harris had been vocal in her opposition against Trump’s move to withdraw America from the Iran Nuclear deal. This agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was born out of diplomacy between Iran and major world powers. Its primary intent was to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities in return for eased sanctions. The deal was signed in 2015, but the US withdrew from it under Trump’s administration, marking a significant shift in foreign policy approach.

The bulk of Harris’s 2019 warning centered around the supposed ‘real threat’ Iran posed to the US, citing its ‘nuclear capabilities.’ According to her, the JCPOA was an effective solution to this escalating threat. However, she conveniently overlooked the extensive criticism the JCPOA faced, including from Trump himself, about its effectiveness and compliance issues.

In her take on the matter, Harris even accused Trump of making military threats on social media – an ominous foreshadowing perhaps but more likely a manifestation of Harris’s persistent anti-Trump rhetoric. One could argue that her critique seems to lack a consistent understanding of the strategic complexities involved in international diplomacy.

She did not hold back in her critique of Trump, pointing out what she perceived as motivations stemming from personal insecurities rather than national security. Harris painted a grim picture of a potential US war with Iran, emphasizing the tragic consequences this would have for American soldiers. It seems she preferred wielding fear as a political weapon, pushing narratives that overlooked the nuanced realities on the ground.

Continuing her disdainful critique of Trump, Harris insinuated that under her administration, the US would not have found itself in the supposed ‘mess.’ In fact, she went ahead to claim that Trump might not have been working in the best interest of Americans. This assertion, while clearly a subjective viewpoint, seems to be presented as an objective truth, possibly to stoke fires of doubt and dissidence.

She based her suspicions on a presumed self-interest of Trump, a convenient narrative which evidently fed into her ongoing critique. The assertion though, interestingly, deflected from a larger conversation about the alternative ways to effectively manage the multi-faceted issue of Iran. The suspicious lens through which Harris viewed Trump’s decisions demonstrates how politicized the Iran topic has been.

Harris additionally highlighted the plight of families sending their children to war. A legitimate concern, no doubt, yet its presentation masked in her overarching anti-Trump stance takes away from its seriousness, rendering it just another brick in the wall of her critique.

She concluded with a demand for Trump to take any threat of war seriously. It seems out of touch to dictate seriousness to a president conducting one of the largest military forces in history. Moreover, the implication of this demand is that Trump’s strategic decisions were misguided or even frivolous, discounting the extensive analysis and risk assessments that are part of such critical decisions.