November 20th, 2020
toggle author

If Trump bombs Iran, it may make Biden’s job more challenging

On Thursday, President Trump discussed with his advisers about potential military options on an Iranian nuclear site after a UN agency revealed that Tehran had expanded its supply of low enriched uranium, says a report from the WSJ citing officials familiar with the meeting.According to NBC News, it took a joint effort of persuasion by Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley and acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller before President Trump would back down from the idea of bombing Irans top nuclear facility.
Further, the report said that many senior advisers talked against military action, arguing that such an action could increase tensions in the region, especially when the US is working on withdrawing its forces from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Indeed, many reasons may abound for not pursuing options, and it may be irresponsible if the President chooses unwisely, but to not have all options on the table is more irresponsible. This story only confirms Trump is wisely considering every possible option along with counsel from advisors, in light of hostile actions taken by a regime whose state motto is "Death to America."
However, if Trump does go ahead with a military action, it may increase challenges for president-elect Joe Biden when he joins office.
In 2015, Americans elected a presidential candidate who decried Obama's deal with Iran, exposing the disadvantageous nature of it for America's interests and vowing to discard it if elected, even if it meant considering military options. Military options have been discussed all throughout the past four years-- this is nothing new. In fact, Iran instigated the conversation, not President Trump, by expanding its uranium supply. 
Many believe that military action could also put the remaining forces in Iraq more vulnerable.
The problems could aggravate because defence secretary, Christopher Miller recently confirmed that the U.S. would bring down its military presence to 2,500 troops in each Afghanistan and Iraq.Allowing the President, who just negotiated unprecedented peace treaties between Israel and both Bahrain and the UAE that have earned him Nobel Peace Prize nominations, the ability to weigh all options in response to Iran's belligerent actions toward nuclear capabilities seems to be more than reasonable. He has certainly earned credibility for peace in the Middle East beyond any President before him.
Also, any U.S. military action may encourage Iran to be more reluctant to the nuclear weapon development restraints in the Obama-era under the pact, known as the JCPOA.
On the contrary, no US action may embolden Iran further. Even if Trump purposely brought these options up and leaked them to serve as a deterrent to Iran, (i.e. just so it could be reported that military options are being considered), it may have been well-played. Again, the issue here is that the options were introduced and discussed, not selected.
Trump withdrew from the multinational agreement, but Biden has hinted to rejoining it.

Even if Trump decides for military action, it could be hard to actually implement it as a lame duck president.
Trump may likely face resistance from the armed services.To suggest the armed services would disobey orders from their commander-in-chief insults the military more than President Trump, especially considering his commitment to extricating troops from foreign wars, increasing defense spending and veterans' benefits, and overhauling the inept VA bureaucracy.


Left Analyst
Jess Mohr
Right Analyst