Here's What Happens to Trump if He Refuses to Strike Iran

For anyone closely following developments from the White House on Iran over the past two weeks, it's hard not to feel dizzy from the whirlwind of U-turns and 180-degree shifts in President Trump's approach to military action. But behind the scenes, even in the White House, they know: Trump must strike Iran. The alternative would exact a dramatic price from him personally, from the United States, and from the world at large.

Many compare the current period to 2009, at the start of President Barack Obama's first term. A new wind of hope blew then. Obama promised support for democracy, human rights, and freedom, and his rise was accompanied by an unprecedented wave of protests by the Iranian people against the ayatollah regime. The hope tied to the young, liberal president strengthened the demonstrators, and the streets showed the first signs of a real rebellion.

Like today, back then the Revolutionary Guards arrived with guns and Shia mercenaries and massacred civilians. Obama responded by setting a "red line": mass killing would be met with American action. "All options are on the table," he repeatedly warned. The regime tested the line, the killing continued, and the red line proved to be a bluff.

From that moment, Obama lost nearly all international authority. During his tenure, Putin seized the Crimean Peninsula, hinting at an invasion of Ukraine that Obama failed to stop. Assad slaughtered tens of thousands with chemical weapons in both cases, trampling similar "red lines."

In the end, the only ones Obama managed to pressure were allies. He dragged Egypt's president to resign within days of protests against him, pressured Israel for years in an attempt to force the establishment of a Palestinian state, and pressed Europe to open its gates to refugees.This may sound bad, but Trump's situation is far worse, and the implications of inaction are far more severe.

The open geopolitical questions facing us in the coming years are much larger and more significant than the Crimean Peninsula. China is eyeing Taiwan, ramping up preparations for an invasion day by day, with most experts pointing to 2027-2028 as the Chinese target date. Russia is weighing its steps: whether to abandon the Ukrainian campaign or continue to the end. Europe is calculating if its most important ally will abandon it in a day of reckoning amid the Greenland dispute.

All these questions are directly influenced by President Trump's standing and credibility. If Trump indeed folds against the Iranian regime, the blood of the protesters will be on his hands far more than on President Obama's. While Obama set red lines for the regime but didn't enforce them, Trump called on protesters to take to the streets, urged and perhaps even pushed them. He announced time and again that the United States is on its way to help.

Tens and hundreds of thousands took to the streets every night after the president's firm statements, bolstered by the promise that the global superpower is warming up its engines and will come to their rescue if they just hold on a little longer.

If in the end, the Iranians are massacred in their thousands or tens of thousands because of words that turn out to be empty, the bombastic president's hot air, not only is it hard to see how they will rise up again in the future, but even if they do and topple the ayatollah regime, it's hard to envision a world where the regime that follows will be particularly friendly to the United States that promised so much but ultimately abandoned the Iranian people so many times.

Trump's actions in the coming weeks will determine the fate of the remainder of his second term. If Trump's red lines have no meaning outside the president's home field, there's no reason for countries like Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran to go for any framework of deal or compromise.