By Noah Rothman
Wednesday, September 25, 2024
The Justice Department has been dancing around it. The Pakistani national “with close ties to Iran” arrested
in August had allegedly been dispatched to the U.S. “to assassinate a
politician or U.S. government official on U.S. soil,” according to the DOJ. But
in truth, not just any politician would do. Law enforcement had long warned
that Iran-backed agents were determined to mete out revenge for the strike that
neutralized Qasem Soleimani in 2020. Only a ranking Trump administration
official — Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Donald Trump himself — would satisfy
Tehran’s desire for payback.
Following the first attempt on Trump’s life, reporters got wind of active Iranian assassination plots
being tracked by U.S. intelligence, but only to dismiss the rumors that the
assassin in Butler, Pa., had been directed by Iran. And yet, that threat has
not abated. Rather, it seems to be maturing.
The Trump campaign revealed on Tuesday that it had been
briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence regarding the
nature of the plots against Trump. “Intelligence officials have identified that
these continued and coordinated attacks have heightened in the past few
months,” a campaign statement read, “and law enforcement officials
across all agencies are working to ensure President Trump is protected and the
election is free from interference.” The Islamic Republic’s goal is to “to
assassinate” Trump “in an effort to destabilize and sow chaos in the United
States.”
The briefing was a long time coming. Indeed, Trump had complained last month that he and his allies should be
privy to a more granular breakdown of the intelligence around Iran’s desire to
decapitate the Republican Party ahead of November’s vote. But whatever Trump
officials heard in this briefing, it was sobering enough to induce in them a
level of solemnity rarely seen from Trump or his subordinates. Stripped of the
bombast and hyperbole that typically accompanies Trump campaign pronouncements
(save a jab thrown at the campaign’s Democratic opponent near the end), the
statement suggested that the candidate and his allies may actually be
attempting reserved circumspection in the face of a foreign-directed effort to
murder him. This must be serious.
But the Trump campaign had not behaved soberly enough for
the Washington Post. Reporters Isaac Arnsdorf and Shane
Harris took exception to Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung’s “effort to
disparage his opponent” when he wrote that “the terror regime in Iran loves the
weakness of Kamala Harris” and “is terrified of the strength and resolve of
President Trump.” That is a claim “without evidence,” the Post’s
reporters note. It goes “beyond U.S. intelligence assessments.”
Yes, well, we can reasonably infer that Tehran has a
horse in this race insofar as it is trying to kill one of the candidates. And
no one, including the Post’s reporters, disputes Western intelligence
and security agencies’ assessment that Iran’s motive is vengeance for the 2020
strike on its IRGC commander. Moreover, the report makes note of the
corroborating evidence that Iran is implicated in multiple hacks of Trump
campaign email accounts, in which its agents absconded with campaign secrets
and retailed them to both U.S. media outlets and the Biden campaign itself. A
rather lopsided pattern has emerged.
Still, the Post’s reporters hammered their
grievance with the Trump campaign’s failure to stop behaving like a campaign.
“Deprecating Harris as ‘weak’ has been a core message of Trump’s campaign since
she replaced Biden as the presumptive Democratic nominee in July,” the dispatch
continued. Thus, it is implied, the Trump camp is leveraging the threat to the
candidate’s life for political gain.
Kamala Harris and her allies in the media are
self-conscious about the target on Trump’s back. They fear that it will
generate sympathy for him and induce reflexive support for his candidacy from
persuadable voters who understandably resent foreign interference in American
elections. This trigger-happy sniping at the way the Trump camp “overstates
intelligence to accuse Iran of favoring Harris,” as the headline read, is
evidence of that insecurity. But the flourish at the end of Trump’s statement
isn’t the headline here. It’s a tertiary detail in an otherwise epochal
revelation: Iran is trying to kill an American president on U.S. soil.
Whether or not it is in the Democratic Party’s immediate
political interest, Americans are obliged to internalize the gravity of that
discovery. Even if the plot never fully flowers, its very existence represents
an attack by a hostile foreign power on the United States. The American
reaction to it should be severe.
The Biden administration should recommit to enforcing
sanctions targeting Iranian oil exports that it recently relaxed and crack down on illicit sales to
countries like India and China. It should withdraw the privileges it extends to
Iran’s tacit allies in the Middle East like Qatar. It should redouble its support for Israel’s
kinetic campaign against Iran’s vassals in Gaza and Lebanon, and it should take
the gloves off in the Red Sea. If Iran is undeterred to the point that it would
green-light an operation as brazen as this, it’s incumbent on this
administration to restore deterrence by raising the costs of Tehran’s
provocations beyond the point at which they seem worth the risk.
If that sounds fanciful, it’s only because the Biden
administration has established for itself a record that suggests its paralyzing
fear of escalation anywhere will prevent it from doing what it must to ensure
that Iran and its agents pay a due price for harming (or plotting to harm) U.S.
citizens. To draw too much attention to Iran’s designs on Trump wouldn’t
advance the Democratic Party’s political interests anyway, so we can expect
that the party and its confederates in the press will soft-sell this assault on
American sovereignty. But then, who in this equation is contemptibly deferring
to their own parochial political incentives?
The Biden-Harris administration should be compelled not
only by propriety and civic decency but by patriotism to form a united front
with the GOP in aggrieved opposition to the Iranian threat. There is a
bipartisan history in this country of presidents defending their predecessors from
foreign-directed attacks via the application of overwhelming force. The
prospect of a similar response to Iranian aggression should at least be held
out as a live possibility — if only to focus the minds of the Islamic
Republic’s theocrats who do not believe their regime would survive a direct
conflict with the United States.
Some things transcend domestic politics. A foreign threat
like this is one of those things. Whoever wins this election will have to
contend with the Iranian menace. We can deduce from recent developments that a
Trump presidency would take seriously the need to contain Iranian aggression.
If the Biden White House’s response to the threat against Trump is any
indication, we have no such assurances about Kamala Harris.
No comments:
Post a Comment