Geopolitical complexities in the Middle East present unique challenges as Trump considers U.S. options
Opinion-editorial by Summer Lane
Amid rumblings of war across the globe, President Donald Trump’s two-week timeline to decide on whether to strike Iran has thrust the nation into a swirl of political debates and pontification.
This week, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt encouraged Americans to “trust in President Trump” amid global unrest, reminding the nation that the president “kept America and the world safe in his first term as president.”
While the situation between Israel and Iran may, at first glance, seem fairly cut-and-dried, the geopolitical complexities unfurling in the Middle East are mind-boggling. The ramifications of striking a target like Fordow – an Iranian uranium enrichment facility – are varied.
Turning Point USA President Charlie Kirk pondered this question on X, writing, “How many American troops might die in an Iranian retaliatory Strike? 0? 100? 1,000? What assurances can we have that bombing such a facility will result in no nukes for Iran? Will that end the program permanently? If not, what will?”
He also asked whether striking Iran would permanently end the potential nuclear threat building in the Middle Eastern country, and whether the motivation here was about removing nuclear weapons or simply facilitating a regime change.
“The complexity of this is enormous,” he wrote. “It is more than just bombing a mountain. This is why Trump is the man made for this historic moment. We must trust him.”
Regime change is rarely successful or executable
Regime change is often bloody and rarely results in success for the nation promoting it. One look at the checkered history of America’s efforts in Iraq and the Middle East proves how true this is.
Utilizing military force to facilitate such political shifts in foreign countries is dangerous, and there are always many risks involved.
The Cato Institute aptly puts it like this: “Instead of promoting more democracy and advancing American security, the overuse of regime change undermines the effectiveness of other foreign policy tools that are more successful at enhancing freedom and improving human rights around the world, and therefore ultimately harms America’s ability to achieve its policy goals.”
Whether regime change in Iran is the ultimate goal is unclear, but there are certainly plenty of voices calling for it – prominent commentators such as Mark Levin, for example, have openly called for the destruction of the current Iranian regime. “The Iranian terrorist regime must be destroyed,” he wrote on Thursday. “…It must be eliminated. If our country chooses otherwise, then so be it. I believe history will view it as a huge mistake. Then the Israelis must finish them off without restraints from us.”
On the other end of the argument are commentators like Tucker Carlson, who has openly opposed military involvement in the situation overseas, noting, “I don’t want my country to be further weakened or destroyed by another one of these wars.”
With such supercharged arguments on each side of the issue, the pressure is mounting on President Donald Trump to adhere to his policy of peace through strength without plunging America into another war, whilst maintaining American dominance by ensuring the peace can be backed up by military might if the situation calls for it.
The situation is incredibly delicate, and it will be up to Trump to walk the fine line between fiery warfare and restrained peace.
Considering China and Russia’s role
Retired Lieutenant General Mike Flynn presented a clear-eyed assessment on X of what advantages both China and Russia could theoretically gain if the United States waffles too long in its decision regarding Iran.
“This analysis is based on personal experience,” he wrote. “However, there is clear evidence of previous & long-term support by both nations for the Iranian regime. In war, delays usually advantage the defender & allow time to improve their position (tactical & strategic)[.].”
Flynn rose to national prominence during his time as the U.S. National Security Advisor during President Trump’s first term.
He noted that Russia could gain an advantage here by America’s distraction with Iran, thus providing them with more capability to continue its war against Ukraine, while consolidating their military resources and political capital.
Oddly enough, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered this week to help President Trump mediate a deal between Iran and Israel, although such a deal seems empty given the fact that Russia likely has much more to gain from the ongoing Middle Eastern conflict than without.
In China, General Flynn said they likely see this situation “as a major opportunity for them to gain vastly more regional influence.” He believes China could make power moves in the Middle East to expand its tentacles there, while falsely working to “position themselves as a neutral or mediating party (they are anything but).”
This comment is an interesting one, and it truly illustrates the strategic thinking of President Donald Trump, who just one month ago made a point of touring the Middle East and securing strategic economic alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates – effectively beating China to the punch as they look westward to expand their empire.
“Again, there is no direct evidence of Russia or China conducting any of the active measures I’m addressing, but trust, just as we have our situation room busy, Russia & China do as well,” Flynn concluded.
A situation calling for wisdom and prayer
The situation in Iran is a difficult one, and President Donald Trump has the equally difficult job of fielding countless opinions on the topic and assessing each one’s viability, its pros and cons, and its long-term ramifications for America.
“Our President needs wisdom and strength from God,” remarked Rev. Franklin Graham on Friday. “The decisions he is called upon to make will affect each one of us, our country, and the entire world. I pray that God will direct his steps as he leads our nation through the most turbulent times we have experienced in decades.”
Indeed, the complexities of the conflict are overwhelming, and the potential fallout of every possible decision is indescribably serious. As it is, the White House is continuing ongoing correspondence with Iran in the hopes of reaching a diplomatic solution, according to Karoline Leavitt.
Clearly, a peaceful solution would be the best path for everyone, but peace is never a guarantee. Regardless, the administration’s push for peace is admirable and just, bringing to mind a promise from Matthew 5:9:
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”
Photo: Adobe Stock
