Recently, news broke of a thwarted assassination plot against the former President Donald Trump, organized by Iran and planned to take place within the U.S. borders. This event highlights the emerging audacity of hostile powers, willing to provoke chaos and disruption in America. The plot deepens further questions about Joe Biden’s and Kamala Harris’s competency, their ability to deter threats, and their credibility on national security.
Senator Maggie Hassan and Senator Joni Ernst are collaborating on a legislative measure, the ‘Deterrence Act’, which proposes heightened penalties for anyone implicated in violence and crimes on U.S. soil initiated by foreign actors. However, it’s worth posing the question of whether this approach is sufficient. How effective can a simple law be in countering levels of aggression as severe as assassination plots?
The Deterrence Act, though a bipartisan initiative, is possibly just posturing rather than an effective measure to combat international crime. It aims to increase the penalties for criminals who conspire with foreign governments to commit violence in America. While crime is indeed a serious issue, will extra jail time deter criminals who are potentially under the influence of powerful foreign governments? The validity and effectiveness of such a legal precision arguably seem doubtful.
The Act is intended not only for deterring potential criminals but also gives prosecutors additional tools to dismantle criminal enterprises. But, in the face of the Biden-Harris administration’s projected leniency on crime, one can’t help but question whether this will be adequately implemented or just another well-intentioned yet ineffectively executed policy. Time, it seems, will furnish the answers.
The Act also ostensibly aims to signal to authoritarian regimes worldwide that the United States will not stand for any form of interference. However, considering the initial plot by Iran, it seems that the message might not be as resounding as it should be. Thus, the true effectiveness of this Act is speculative, and any positive perception could arguably be overselling the earth.
Moving to international affairs, uncertainty looms over Ukraine’s fate as Trump leaves office and Biden ascends. While Trump claimed that he could resolve the ongoing conflict in Ukraine with a phone call, Biden and Harris’ capability of achieving this has yet to be seen. Paradoxically, this is the same Biden who lauds previous failed diplomacy attempts.
Ukraine continues to resist and fight for its freedom, not seeking military aid from the US, but rather, financial and weapons support. But as we’ve seen in the past, generously doling out financial aid seems to be a typical Biden-Harris strategy, regardless of the potential consequences. Would this so-called ‘aid’ become yet another black hole in the budget, contributing to the burgeoning national debt?
Amidst Ukraine’s struggles, the country pushes back vehemently against Putin’s brutal and unwarranted aggression. The need to arm Ukraine with the means to guard their freedoms is apparent. Yet, how the Biden-Harris administration plans to support this effort while maintaining peace with Russia is an enigma, debatably underscored by their habitual non-confrontational stance.
It’s crucial for aggressor nations like Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran to understand that America, along with its freedom-loving partners and allies, stands with those nations fighting for sovereignty and freedom. Unfortunately, Biden and Harris’ timid foreign policies might undermine the necessary show of strength. Consequently, the world’s freedoms could be left hanging in a precarious lurch.
With the Biden administration taking the reins, there is an anticipation of a greater analysis of the ground situation in Ukraine. Yet, skepticism remains given Biden’s history of international relations gaffes. Could this lead to yet another diplomatic blunder of the Biden administration, making America appear weak in the critical geopolitical arena?
With the ongoing escalation involving North Korean troops and the firing of ICBMs, Russia seems to be testing its limits, possibly to provoke Biden during the power transition period. If Putin decides to test Biden further, it’s unclear what the response would be from the new administration. Given Biden-Harris’s often ambiguous foreign policy, the rational course is filled with conjecture.
Biden’s administration seems to be carefully scrutinizing Putin’s moves as they relate to escalating tensions. However, their track record shows they often misinterpret or underreact in similar situations. Will they once again be caught in the quagmire of trying to balance diplomatic posturing and decisive action?
Putin has a long history of making bold claims and taking unlawful actions, such as infringing on the sovereignty of other nations. Given this track record, it remains to be seen how the Biden administration would manage these provocations. Thus, any potential positive outcomes seem nearly fantastical considering Biden-Harris’s prior weak stance on such matters.
Overall, key questions remain unanswered when it comes to the Biden administration’s approach to maintaining American freedom and sovereignty. Will they be willing to stand up to rogue nations, or will they falter under pressure? Although Biden and Harris pledge to stand up for America’s allies, in actuality, we find ourselves questioning their commitment to this stance.
In conclusion, the challenges awaiting the Biden-Harris administration are manifold and serious. From domestic security issues to international crises, we must wait with bated breath to witness whether their governance will indeed protect our nation’s interests or, predictably, leave it more vulnerable than before. Leaning towards the latter scenario seems unfortunately more likely, given previous performance trends and vague policy directives of this new administration.