Global nuclear fears demand that Democrats make a decision - and quickly

People take part in a US presidential election campaign event in Madison, Wisconsin on Friday. While the American public will focus on domestic bread-and-butter issues, foreign policy has already inseShow more

The chaos within the Democratic Party after US President Joe Biden’s frailties came to light during his debate with former president Donald Trump has been alarming. The absence of a Plan B, given Mr Biden’s age and declining physical and cognitive abilities, is baffling and worrisome – especially with the US being the only truly global superpower.

However, even as Mr Biden doubles down on his candidacy, there are a number of alternatives in the field, such as Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. The figure who tops the list of contenders, however, is Vice President Kamala Harris.

But Ms Harris has certain limitations. Traditionally, except for a few exceptions, the US vice president does not engage in direct governance. Ms Harris, in particular, has been on the outside looking in. Indeed, she has few friends in Mr Biden’s inner circle and has been sidelined.

She has been publicly mocked for having little administrative experience; for being ignorant of global politics; and for not having enough leadership skills. But those who are more sympathetic towards her have accused the Biden team of not adequately preparing her for the top job.

Popular support for Ms Harris has increased in recent days. But if the disarray among Democrats continues, it will no doubt benefit the Republican Party. And while the American public will focus on domestic bread-and-butter issues, foreign policy has already inserted itself into the dynamics of the presidential election, particularly the war in Ukraine, Israel’s war on Gaza and a looming war in Lebanon.

It’s frightening that discussions about nuclear weapons no longer invoke the same sense of dread and terror.

If Russia, for example, were to use tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine, there will no doubt be outcry and anger, but it won’t instil fear in millions worldwide. However, if Moscow were to resort to tactical nuclear weapons against targets within Nato member countries, it could escalate into a terrifying thermonuclear war, possibly transitioning from tactical to strategic nuclear warfare.

This week, there has been increased talk about a change in Iran’s nuclear doctrine by officials testing the seriousness of the threat if a major war between Israel and Hezbollah breaks out in Lebanon. But Iranian leaders appear not to be concerned about Israel destroying Lebanese infrastructure. Their priority is Hezbollah and its weapons stockpile. Even this is secondary to their priority concern, that Israel’s war with Hezbollah doesn’t affect Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The Biden administration effectively saved Iran’s nuclear weapons programme two months ago, when the so-far only direct confrontation between Iran and Israel occurred. At the time, Washington warned Israel that it would be alone, without US support, if it ventured to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.

As to why the Biden administration did so, some theories suggest strategic collusion. Others claim that Mr Biden – like former president Barack Obama, under whom he served as vice president – believes that striking Iran’s nuclear reactors will only strengthen Tehran’s resolve to acquire nuclear weapons.

But the regime that came to power in Tehran in 1979 is a theocratic system, which combines clerical figures and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, that is willing to endure crippling sanctions for the sake of making their country a nuclear state and for the sake of developing regional militias to dominate and control Arab countries such as Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

All the rhetoric from Democratic Party leaders about not allowing Iran to become a nuclear state appears to be just hollow talk and equivocation. There appears to be a deal in place between Tehran and Washington that prevents the Americans from allowing Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear weapons programme and prevents serious opposition from Democrats against Iran’s regional militias, from Hezbollah to Hamas to the Popular Mobilisation Forces to the Houthis.

Yet a notable shift has occurred in the past two years, since China helped to mediate a reconciliation accord between Saudi Arabia and Iran, in part prompting the Biden administration to mend ties with Riyadh. Traditionally, there have been suspicions among Democrats towards key Arab powers. This has significantly changed over the past year.

And yet any surprises on this count from the Democratic Party during the presidential campaigns cannot be discounted.

If Mr Biden’s initiative to end the Gaza conflict and prevent an all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah succeeds, he or his successor will benefit from such an achievement. But if it fails, the Middle East should brace for a new kind of war and rules of engagement.

It is conceivable for Tehran’s leaders to want the Democratic Party to retain power, especially given their bitter experience dealing with the erstwhile Trump administration. So keen they might be on Mr Biden’s re-election, or the election of another Democratic leader, that they may even temporarily restrain their militias until after the US election.

Additionally, the Iranian regime will be preoccupied with internal political battles after the election of a moderate figure like Dr Masoud Pezeshkian as president over the weekend, as well as with the future of their nuclear weapons programme. These concerns are also likely to force the regime to de-escalate until further notice.