Iran’s leadership may be reflecting on whether their provocative actions have finally gone too far in regard to former President Donald Trump. Their orchestrated plot to assassinate Trump—a candidate for the U.S. presidency—has drawn President Joe Biden’s condemnation as an act of war. Iran’s persistent aggression, which has largely evaded consequences, may face a turning point if Trump decides to intervene.
Attorney General Merrick Garland recently highlighted the danger posed by Iran, labeling it one of the most serious threats to U.S. national security. The Justice Department charged an Iranian regime agent who, at the regime’s directive, managed a network aimed at executing assassination plans on key targets, including Trump.
FBI Director Christopher Wray expressed grave concern, noting that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—a designated foreign terrorist group—has colluded with organized criminals to plot attacks on American soil. This includes targeting Trump, an act that cannot go unchallenged. But what form should the response take?
Biden’s response to Iran’s aggression remains diplomatic as his term nears end
According to The Washington Post, Biden has instructed the National Security Council to deliver a clear warning to Iran: any attempt on Trump’s life would be treated as an act of war. Biden is not alone in voicing concerns; Senator Lindsey Graham criticized Iran’s actions last July, condemning both the assassination attempt and Iran’s infiltration of campaign data. “When a foreign adversary targets a major party candidate for assassination, decisive action is warranted,” he said.
However, a forceful response from Biden seems unlikely as he concludes his term, with minimal actions expected beyond possible sanctions. Biden has sought diplomacy with Iran over the past four years, by not enforcing all sanctions against Iranian oil exports.
Meanwhile, a U.S. Energy Information Administration report indicates that Iran amassed $144 billion in oil revenue over Biden’s initial years and $34 billion in 2024 alone—funds that support weapons and proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, including recent aggression against Israel.
If a robust U.S. stance emerges, it will likely come from Trump, who has warned that any attack on a former president would entail severe repercussions. Iran, meanwhile, finds itself constrained: Israel has undermined Iran’s capacity for military retaliation while targeting its armed proxies. Hamas and Hezbollah operatives aligned with Iran have also suffered huge losses.
Given Iran’s economic and military vulnerabilities, now may be an opportune moment for Trump and U.S. allies to insist on a regime change in Iran, underpinned by a credible, if unspecified, military deterrent.
Trump has adopted a similar approach concerning American hostages held by Hamas in Gaza, declaring that their safe return is expected by his inauguration, or Hamas will face severe consequences.
While Iran’s leaders are unlikely to cede power willingly, a more assertive approach from Trump could involve collaboration with Israel and other measures to curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions and broader threats. Such actions might face backlash from some nations or the United Nations, yet the Iranian public, weary of the regime, could welcome this shift.
Additionally, stronger U.S. action could produce broader effects. Russia and China have ramped up cyberattacks and election meddling, with Russia allegedly linked to a plan involving bombs on U.S.-bound cargo planes. Holding Iran accountable could discourage other aggressive states from pursuing similar tactics.
Long-term stability in the Middle East depends on confronting Iran’s destabilizing influence. Trump’s commitment to “draining the swamp” may extend beyond Washington, as he could spearhead an international coalition, possibly with Europe and Israel, to eliminate Iran’s entrenched threats.
