Consider all this to be an analytic opinion.
1. The roll out of the Republican insurgent operation for objection to the Electoral College vote on the 6th is indicative of where the party is going.
Mitch McConnell and the party apparatchiks in congress may think that they will be able to do business with Biden/Harris and their handlers but the the 74 million citizens who voted against the Democrats do not agree.
In this context the 5 January runoffs in Georgia are largely irrelevant. The Republicans and those who vote with them will be in Opposition no matter who runs the US Senate.
The objecting members of congress know that they cannot succeed in obtaining supporting majorities in both houses of congress in support of their objections. When pressed they said this on the Sunday morning TeeVee newsies today. No. What they are doing is establishing a baseline of political opposition to the results of the 2020 election. Along this baseline they will insist that Biden/Harris are not legitimately elected and are in fact usurpers against whom any means of resistance is justified. This closely mirrors Democrat propaganda and tactics throughout the Trump presidency.
People who think that resistance by the Smellies (Deplorables) to Democrat/Marxist rule will disappear as a result of Trump's defeat are deceiving themselves. It will not. In this move we see consolidation of Smelly resistance.
2. When the 6 January rebellion in the congress fails, Trump will be faced by a personal need to maintain himself as party (and Smelly) leader. One possible course of action would be to start a war against a country so demonized by the media and his own administration that the most recent verbal threats by that country can be said to be a causus belli. The most obvious target would be Iran, closely followed in order of probability by Syria.
The president/CinC has broad and legal effective powers to wage war against an imminent national threat on a short term basis as opposed to limitations on those powers under the War Powers Act. He/she has the ability to wage war for 30 days before congress can effectively stop a war.
Under the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, the military chain of command runs from POTUS to SECDEF to the Combatant Commanders. Under the same law, the JCS (including the Chairman) and the whole Joint Staff in the Pentagon are merely advisers and planners operating in support of POTUS and SECDEF. Trump now has the SECDEF he wants and nothing stands between him and the ability to legally launch an air and naval war in the ME. The small US forces in Iraq and Syria would be greatly endangered by such a move, but … In the context of possible action against Iran, the withdrawal of the Nimitz battle group from the Gulf should not be seen as necessarily being a signal of declining US-Iranian tensions. Perhaps the withdrawal has been long scheduled but elbow room in the Arabian Sea would be needed in a shooting war.
Biden/Harris would be left to deal with the situation. Trump might face civil or criminal action in the aftermath, but a long, drawn out legal battle with all the opportunity this would present for publicity might suit him well.
Would the Combatant Commanders refuse legal orders to attack? I doubt that would happen. pl