Is Space Force the Next Homeland Security?

 As Celeste Ward Gventer notes, the prospect of a United Spaces Space Force was met with, among other reactions, befuddlement and even derision in some quarters. Part of this is due to the fact that it seems to invoke the concept of a war fought in space, for which there is not only zero precedent but of which there is likely minimal threat. To this end, Gventer makes the point that the operations Space Force is likely to be tasked with are fundamentally efforts to support American strategic goals, most of which would fall under the purview of other branches of the military; to create a new and equal branch of the military, then, which is the Trump administration’s stated ambition, would seem superfluous. 

With the 2003 founding of the Department of Homeland Security came a reconceptualization of what policies and tasks fell under the “homeland security” umbrella. Notably, three immigration-related agencies (Customs and Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Citizenship and Immigration Services) were founded under the DHS umbrella; the Federal Emergency Management Agency, founded during the Carter administration, was also moved into DHS. This represents not only an architectural shift, but a conceptual one, as it implicitly designated immigration and disaster preparedness as homeland security issues. Far fewer issues have been moved out of the realm of national security. This has led to significant criticisms of DHS, with the Cato Institute calling it a "bureaucratic superstructure."

The creation of an independent Space Force presents the risk of the same phenomenon occurring in relation to the domain of space–especially if the tasks assigned to the Space Force encompass everything having to do with satellites, as Gventer notes. Furthermore, there is a risk of the relationship between Space Force and Air Force (i.e. the semi-independence of Space Force) paralleling the relationship between the Marines and the Navy. Altering the architecture of the national security state requires careful planning, not simply a rushed implication of the desire to conquer new frontiers. Hopefully, the Space Force won’t provide too dire of a lesson in this domain. 

Biden's Credibility Problem

During the initial period of racial unrest after the police killing of George Floyd, the Soufan Center pointed out that global perceptions of America as racially oppressive may diminish our credibility abroad as a leader in human rights. If President Trump continues to sow doubt about the legitimacy of our election, the same thing may happen to our credibility as a democracy. 

Though most of the government seems to have accepted Joe Biden as the President-elect and is preparing accordingly, President Trump has refused to accept his defeat or issue a formal concession, instead pursuing seemingly baseless allegations of voter fraud in multiple state courts. Though many predicted that Trump could refuse to accept defeat, what’s more surprising and concerning is the extent to which he has developed a sphere of influence willing to echo these allegations, in whole or in part: Congressional Republicans have insisted that the election is not over and some have even concurred outright with the assertion that voter fraud took place. Though some conservative media have pushed back on Trump’s claims, other prominent conservative media outlets–both mainstream and alternative–have begun to “investigate” (and provide dubious evidence for) their veracity. Finally, surveys show that only about 20% of Republicans believe that Biden won legitimately, and a YouGov survey found that 75% of respondents (across both parties) believe that some fraud occurred–though only 3% of Biden voters (as opposed to 81% of Trump voters) claimed that it was sufficient to alter the outcome.

While all of this is relatively established news, far less established is its implications for the U.S.’s credibility as a promoter of global democracy. Though any damage in this vein can be attributed to Trump, it is still very much Biden’s problem: the success of his administration’s global policy endeavors, particularly at the Department of State, will arguably depend on the extent to which he can restore the United States’ image. Though U.S. defense resources are still highly sought-after, no emerging democracy worth its weight in ballots would look to the U.S. as a moral leader at this moment. By no fault of his own, Biden will take the helm of a country that can hobble its own democracy from within based on the dying gasps of a would-be autocrat. (While it's rare to see metaphorical dying gasps come in the form of 3am tweets, these are, after all, "unprecedented times.") America’s treatment of minorities has had a clear impact on our credibility as a bastion of human rights, and our credibility as a beacon of democracy is quickly following suit. While there is reasonable debate about the merits and ethics of promoting democracy abroad, all of our leaders have a stake in maintaining the functionality of our own elections–and that means loudly condemning and correcting the lies that hurt our democracy here at home.

Trump's Tehran Tirade

As the incoming Biden administration transitions over the coming months one thing has been made entirely clear, President Trump intends to force Washington and Tehran onto a collision course. As President Trump’s time in office dwindles he has made Iran the primary target of his capricious temper. In early November - just days after the presidential election - Trump announced his plan for a new “flood” of sanctions on Iran.




The first wave of this flood of sanctions went into effect on November 16th. These sanctions were imposed on Bonyad Mostafazan, an organization that the U.S. Treasury Department described as being a patronage network for Ayatollah Khamenei. Sanctions were imposed upon the Iranian Intelligence Minister as well in response to his alleged role in humans rights violations. As these sanctions come just two months before Biden comes into office, it seems clear that these new sanctions are intended to make Biden’s renewal of relations with Iran more difficult.




Trump’s tirade against Iran post-election has not stopped there. His intention to explode the possibility of Biden’s recovery for U.S.-Iran relations reportedly almost became literal. Just one day after these new sanctions went into effect, reports indicated that President Trump had pursued his options of striking Iran’s primary nuclear facility following a report of a large increase in Iran’s nuclear stockpile.




Just one week later on November 25th came the latest and perhaps heaviest blow to Iran as its top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, was killed in a roadside ambush. In response, Iran has enacted a law requiring an immediate increase in the enrichment of uranium. Given the drastic responses considered by President Trump to the prior increase in Iran’s nuclear stockpile, the concern now is what course of action the president may choose next.




The actions taken against Iran are eroding what possibility remained for Biden to revive the JCPOA. The assassinations of Qasem Soleimani and Moshen Fakhrizadeh, Trump's push for his maximum pressure sanctions campaign and its economic costs, and the instability exposed by Trump in dealing with American presidents has made the possibility for renewed diplomacy with the U.S. a hard sell. It will be exceedingly difficult for Biden to convince Iran that it should re-enter a deal and drawdown its nuclear program whilst its top level officials are being assassinated, its people continue to suffer from a strangled economy, and any deal made with the U.S. could be scuttled when the next president comes into office.