Trump has officially abdicated his role as "leader of the free world"

[Cassandra LeMay]

Though the EU is still involved with the deal, no?

Yes but without a major player itl be a decreased position. Plus there is also Russia sticking its fingers in everything and they might see Iran as an ally in the region and support it in turn for their interests.

One thing to add here is that - at least to me - it seems unclear how it would play out if the Americans impose new sanctions, but the other signatories of the JCPOA don't want to play along. If the U.S. imposes new sanctions and European companies still do business with Iran, the U.S. might take steps to prevent those companies from doing business with/in the U.S. on those grounds. It's been quite a few years now since I had any (very peripheral) involvement with such matters, but I think it would not be completely unheard of.

[gaggedLouise]

One thing to add here is that - at least to me - it seems unclear how it would play out if the Americans impose new sanctions, but the other signatories of the JCPOA don't want to play along. If the U.S. imposes new sanctions and European companies still do business with Iran, the U.S. might take steps to prevent those companies from doing business with/in the U.S. on those grounds. It's been quite a few years now since I had any (very peripheral) involvement with such matters, but I think it would not be completely unheard of.

Yes, right. Trump and the US could go really far and sanction all European companies doing business with Iran _ in so far as they're also doing business with American corporations, or the US state. Or even further - most of these Europan-side corporations manage much of their loans and international assets in dollars, and often through U.S. banks and financial operators. So if Trump decides to punish anyone and everyone who is trading with Iran, and who also manage anything through U.S. banks and the like, then it could block most of Iran's trade with Europe all over again. Question is, is he really going to challenge his NATO allies in that head-on way, and would he risk a two-front trade war with Europe and China?

[Cassandra LeMay]

Question is, is he really going to challenge his NATO allies in that head-on way, and would he risk a two-front trade war with Europe and China?

Before we can even try to answer this question we would have to define what his objectives are, and that might be difficult. But Trump did call NATO obsolete, so I would not count too much on him giving a flying [fill in the blank] about NATO allies.

But what I think we can say about Trump with some confidence is that he likes to look good in public. Backpedalling under pressure does not make him look good, therefore he wont.

My best guess is that - should pressure mount - he will kick this over to Congress and wait for them to do nothing, just like he did with DACA. That way he can paint himself as having taken decisive action while "the swamp" did nothing.

[gaggedLouise]

Trump says the Iran nuclear deal was no good and gave Tehran a fat chance to continue the march towards nuclear weapons and missiles, so he's scrapping it - yet officials around him at the White House are clearly saying inspections should continue and that Iran is obliged to open its doors for them, at all its sites - including to teams with American inspectors, I presume. Even Trump himself said this in a speech on Thursday. So Trump is openly rejecting Iran's offer of cooperation, yet he still wants inspections to go on.

I figure the Iranians are likely to see this as a further insult.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/US_says_Iran_nuclear_inspections_must_continue_999.html

Days after the US president walked away from a three-year-old deal that mandated rigorous scrutiny of Iranian facilities, senior administration officials said monitoring should continue regardless.

Known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the deal between Tehran and major world powers forces Iran to open any site to inspectors within 24 days at most and introduced 24-hour remote surveillance at some sites. Supporters of the Obama-era accord argue it provided "the world's most robust" monitoring regime, allowing access to the Islamic republic's most sensitive nuclear sites.

Speaking at a rally in Indiana on Thursday Trump said tough inspections were still needed.

"We must be able to go to a site and check that site. We have to be able to go into their military bases to see whether or not they're cheating," he said.

The White House is demanding the existing inspection regime, however imperfect, continue under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog.

"We expect Iran will continue to implement the Additional Protocol and cooperate with the IAEA whether or not the JCPOA remains in place," one senior administration official said.

isn't this a plain case of "wanting to eat the cake but still keeping it in the fridge"?

[Lustful Bride]

Iran's reactions to this really aren't winning them any points. Their sudden rush to build Nuclear Fuel on a high scale ironically makes turmp's actions look somewhat justified.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-preps-industrial-scale-nuke-production-after-us-leaves-nuclear-deal/ar-AAx8ieq?ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz

[gaggedLouise]

Iran's reactions to this really aren't winning them any points. Their sudden rush to build Nuclear Fuel on a high scale ironically makes turmp's actions look somewhat justified.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-preps-industrial-scale-nuke-production-after-us-leaves-nuclear-deal/ar-AAx8ieq?ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz

Nuclear fuel could well mean civilian reactor fuel, rather than bomb fuel (high-enriched plutonium, etc).  If the deal is in danger of breaking down there's nothing strange or irrational about Iran wanting to secure a good supply of their own of ordinary reactor fuel. The kind of fuel used in civilian energy reactors and atomic bombs has some overlap, but they're not the same.

I think it's partly a war of words at this point. The Iranian leadership would feel that Trump is trying to kick them out of what was at least a decently fair deal, reached after years of economic warfare and suspicions by the US, and that he's also threatening to bully everyone else to join his side. Of course they don't want to be seen as just standing by a deal if Trump poisons the well and makes sure the deal would give them nothing but more poverty.

[Lustful Bride]

Nuclear fuel could well mean civilian reactor fuel, rather than bomb fuel (high-enriched plutonium, etc).  If the deal is in danger of breaking down there's nothing strange or irrational about Iran wanting to secure a good supply of their own of ordinary reactor fuel. The kind of fuel used in civilian energy reactors and atomic bombs has some overlap, but they're not the same.

I think it's partly a war of words at this point. The Iranian leadership would feel that Trump is trying to kick them out of what was at least a decently fair deal, reached after years of economic warfare and suspicions by the US, and that he's also threatening to bully everyone else to join his side. Of course they don't want to be seen as just standing by a deal if Trump poisons the well and makes sure the deal would give them nothing but more poverty.

The way I look at it, is a person who is suspected of doing narcotics suddenly buying a large amount of medication and a chemistry set. It could be used for innocent purposes, but it could not. By buying all of that though they are giving police probable cause to suspect they are up to something nefarious.

If I'm suspected of murder I'm not gonna buy a gun. :/

[gaggedLouise]

The way I look at it, is a person who is suspected of doing narcotics suddenly buying a large amount of medication and a chemistry set. It could be used for innocent purposes, but it could not. By buying all of that though they are giving police probable cause to suspect they are up to something nefarious.

If I'm suspected of murder I'm not gonna buy a gun. :/

Yes, but IIRC the idea with the Iran deal was that Iran would get much of its supply of *enriched* fuel (uranium) for ordinary, civilian reactors from Europe and Russia and place a hard limit on their own enrichment of uranium - in exchange for steady inspections of its own nuclear facilities, reactors and research labs. We're talking about civilian fuel here: nuclear fuel has to be enriched to be used in an energy reactor too, it's just that weapons-grade nuke fuel is often further enriched (and some other elements, like plutonium and so on). If the deal would break down and this "loop of enrichment" is cut after a while (or severely diminished) there's nothing strange in them deciding to up their own enrichment instead. That in itself doesn't mean they'd have to be planning for a bomb.

Iran has lots of oil, but it makes sense for them from an economic point of view to want to cut down on using oil for energy and switch to nuclear energy instead. It would improve both their economy and their technology, so in that sense I don't see anything strange in Iran wanting civilian atomic energy.

Also, every country that has atomic research going is careful to treat it with some secrecy. It's a bit of a state secret everywhere, no matter if they're aiming for civilian energy or nuclear arms. You just don't let foreigners, journalists or watchdogs in everywhere. The US would probably never accept unlimited UN inspections at some of its nuclear research sites even if these sites had nothing to do with producing weapons-grade plutonium. It's like, you keep your cards very close to your chest in this game. So if Iran (or Iraq before 2003) refuses access to some sites it can't be taken as proof that those sites have to be about nuclear weapons research or production of weapons-grade plutonium.

[Lustful Bride]

Yes, but IIRC the idea with the Iran deal was that Iran would get much of its supply of *enriched* fuel (uranium) for ordinary, civilian reactors from Europe and Russia and place a hard limit on their own enrichment of uranium - in exchange for steady inspections of its own nuclear facilities, reactors and research labs. We're talking about civilian fuel here: nuclear fuel has to be enriched to be used in an energy reactor too, it's just that weapons-grade nuke fuel is often further enriched (and some other elements, like plutonium and so on). If the deal would break down and this "loop of enrichment" is cut after a while (or severely diminished) there's nothing strange in them deciding to up their own enrichment instead. That in itself doesn't mean they'd have to be planning for a bomb.

Iran has lots of oil, but it makes sense for them from an economic point of view to want to cut down on using oil for energy and switch to nuclear energy instead. It would improve both their economy and their technology, so in that sense I don't see anything strange in Iran wanting civilian atomic energy.

Also, every country that has atomic research going is careful to treat it with some secrecy. It's a bit of a state secret everywhere, no matter if they're aiming for civilian energy or nuclear arms. You just don't let foreigners, journalists or watchdogs in everywhere. The US would probably never accept unlimited UN inspections at some of its nuclear research sites even if these sites had nothing to do with producing weapons-grade plutonium. It's like, you keep your cards very close to your chest in this game. So if Iran (or Iraq before 2003) refuses access to some sites it can't be taken as proof that those sites have to be about nuclear weapons research or production of weapons-grade plutonium.

I suppose, but still, if they have so much oil they could just switch to that until hostilities and tensions pass, to show they are not aggressors.

[Sara Nilsson]

Possible they also want to show the world.. look without the agreement this is what we can do and are prepared to do. Wouldn't it be better to keep the old agreement?

[Lustful Bride]

Possible they also want to show the world.. look without the agreement this is what we can do and are prepared to do. Wouldn't it be better to keep the old agreement?

Again making them look untrustworthy. "Give us what we want or else we will keep building nuclear fuel, and who knows what else we might make?"

[gaggedLouise]

I suppose, but still, if they have so much oil they could just switch to that until hostilities and tensions pass, to show they are not aggressors.

They want to sell it abroad instead, they're no more keen on wrapping their country in an oil smog than any country in Europe, or California. Frankly I think using oil to produce electricity is a waste, it doesn't make sense at all in the long run (and it helps aggravate the climate crisis, too!). Though I agree the Iranian leadership probably don't put climate change at the top of their priorities...  ;)

Their population has been growing massively over the last thirty years, I don't think they feel they can just sit around burning oil indefinitely, being blocked from exporting it in most places and waiting for sanctions to be lifted.

Possible they also want to show the world.. look without the agreement this is what we can do and are prepared to do. Wouldn't it be better to keep the old agreement?

Precisely - they are a proud nation and they don't want to look like they're sinking to their knees in the face of Trump and others.

[Sara Nilsson]

Again making them look untrustworthy. "Give us what we want or else we will keep building nuclear fuel, and who knows what else we might make?"

I disagree. The one that looks untrustworthy in all of this is Trump and USA. Doesn't bode well for any agreement with North Korea with a track record of pissing on any agreements at the drop of a hat.

[gaggedLouise]

I disagree. The one that looks untrustworthy in all of this is Trump and USA. Doesn't bode well for any agreement with North Korea with a track record of pissing on any agreements at the drop of a hat.

Yes, I agree. Trump and Kim are both of them unreliable, but Trump is even feckless - and still determined to negotiate only when it seems to be from a position of strength.

[Lustful Bride]

I disagree. The one that looks untrustworthy in all of this is Trump and USA. Doesn't bode well for any agreement with North Korea with a track record of pissing on any agreements at the drop of a hat.

Meh, I suppose.

[elone]

Again making them look untrustworthy. "Give us what we want or else we will keep building nuclear fuel, and who knows what else we might make?"

Iran has totally dismantled all of their nuclear activities. The entire world with the exception of Israel and the US is fine with the agreement and sees Iran as living up to the treaty. It is interesting to note that Iran has signed onto the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty and vowed to never make a nuclear devices. Israel has never done so, refused to do so, built untold nuclear weapons, and on top of that they have never signed up to curtail chemical or biological weapons as well.
Both of which they have produced. So why are we picking on Iran?

Iran has never attacked or invaded their neighbors for hundreds of years. Their only war in recent times was against Iraq, who invaded them. Can the US say the same?

[Hades]

Iran may not have attacked another country directly since the 80s, when Iraq was the aggressor, but they have acted hostile in the region since the revolutions in the 70s to overthrow the US and UK-backed Shah.  Both they and Saudi Arabia have used proxies across the region for decades as old grudges of Sunni vs Shia and Arab vs Persian continue to play out.

I think the driving force behind Trump pulling out of the agreement is ultimately the sense that it was Obama's highest profile foreign policy act, and so it had to be undone.  Just as he did with the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), the Paris climate accord, with almost every environmental policy change or LGBT protection that Obama put in place, Trump and his most ardent supporters are trying to make it seem as if there was no other present between George W. Bush and the Mango Manchild. 

Trump had it in his mind to scrap the deal on the campaign trail, when he lied about how the US gave Iran billions of dollars.  The implication being that the US paid a bribe to Iran to get their cooperation, rather than the truth of the matter which is that the US had seized that money in a prior round of sanctions and was returning money essentially stolen from the Iranian coffers.   Some of the analysts I've read on this suggests that it was only the moderating influence of Defense Secretary Matthis and former National Security Advisor H.R. McMasters that persuaded Trump not to tear it up the first opportunity he had.  Now that McMasters has been replaced by John "Never Met a War I Won't Approve" Bolton....It was a bit troubling to hear how similar the rhetoric leading up to the US invasion of Iraq was to what we're hearing now.   I mean, Herr Cheeto even said that Iran was supporting al-Qaeda.  Keep in mind that al-Qaeda is a sunni terrorist group (like Saudi Arabia), while Iran is shia.  Iran would have as much incentive to work with them as they would Isis.

[elone]

The democratically elected premier of Iran, Mossadegh had sought to audit the documents of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now part of BP) and to limit the company's control over Iranian oil reserves. Upon the refusal of the AIOC to co-operate with the Iranian government, the parliament (Majlis) voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry and to expel foreign corporate representatives from the country.(Wikipedia)

The CIA backed and probably caused the revolution that put the Shah in power in the 1950's. It was all about oil. After the Shah took power, backed by the US, 40% of Iranian oil reserves were signed over to mostly US and British companies.

Now Trump has backed out of an agreement. Is it any wonder that Iran does not trust the West and seeks to have more control in the region?

[TheHighwayHitman]

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is.

A country that literally seeks the destruction of all of Israel, whose "moderates" burn the American flag and chant for the destruction of America, who other Arabic nations don't even like, wants to build a nuclear arsenal, and uses American dollars to build up a military is not a good thing!

By backing out of the deal, Trump isn't saying "Death to Iran!" He's saying, "We're not doing business with you. It isn't in our best interests."

If a shop owner announces, "I hate liberals! Death to you and all your Jew friends!" You're not going to do business with them. You're going to go to the next place that is friendly.

The best thing Obama's deal did was put Saudi Arabia, Israel, the UAE, and Egypt together in a defector, quasi-stable alliance against Iran, whose intelligence network is very capable of filtering out Russian (or Chinese) involvement, as well as solidify cooperation with the United States. Putting Iran against the ropes by withdrawing from a deal that isn't (And wasnt) incredibly popular to begin with (in America) for anyone who wasn't sipping the Obama/CNN soda is a good thing!

It's amazingly mind boggling to see the amount of venom people who have no better solution, who wouldn't leave America if they could, have for a president who *gasp* isn't doing that bad of a job.

I mean, Trump is no Obama.

I withdraw from so many of these arguments because bashing my brain into my steering wheel has more sense to it. I had to stop with the gun debate because the writing was literally on the wall. "No. You can't stop all gun violence unless you remove all guns and even that isn't likely to work. No. Don't waste your time trying. No. You can't classify some guns as good or some guns as bad. If You're okay with someone being shot by a shotgun but not an AR-15, your stance on firearms leaves something to be desired anyway. Contrary to what some want to believe, the United States is one of the few (if not only) countries in the whole world that was founded with the right for the civilian population to be armed. That right is what defends all others. If you say that is no longer valid then you're suggesting others may also be invalid."

I glanced at this thread because of the topic. I was wondering what the 45th president did wrong now. I assumed he strangled puppies or something.

Nope. He defended Israel by way of withdrawing from a bad deal where Iran predictably revealed It's true colors and feelings. Somehow this translates to a margin of, "He's not my president! I'm ashamed of being American and a part of the free world!" Or "What a terrible, stupid, Russian backed thing to do!"

Am I really the only one here who can throw up the metaphoric stop sign and say, "Hold on a minute. Explain how funding Iran (and giving it access to uranium/plutonium) so it can build nuclear devices and a conventional military whose primary purpose is the destruction of Israel, followed by the subjugation of other Islamic nations was ever a good idea!"

"But Palestine!"

"But Palestine was a British territory, and before that, part of the Ottoman Empire, and had long been a cultural place where Jews existed!"

"But Israel attacked!"

"Defended itself. And gave back what it took, time and again. And even if it didn't, you know which Palestinians are the most well off and the happiest? The ones living in Israel. The income of Israeli Palestinians vs those not in Israel speak for themselves."

"But Underdog!"

"Nobody in the middle East is a bigger underdog than Israel! If Israel were to lay down all arms, retire all military, and never fight again, what would happen? The extermination of Jewish people, rape, torture, murder, etc. If the Islamic countries were to lay down all arms, retire their military, and never fight again, what would happen? Within weeks there would be peace in the middle east."

I'm challenging the narrative that Trump did something awful here. I want to know. Should the United States really be doing business with Iran? Is supporting an enemy of an ally by assisting their nuclear program really a good idea? Does Israel not have the right to exist? Is unifying Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Israel into the very least, a temporary alliance not a good thing for the middle east?

I want to know why this is a reason to hate on Trump instead of saying, "You know what? He actually got one right."

[Lustful Bride]

Because this is trump trying to get brownie points at the cost of throwing a tantrum and alienating us from our allies and inflaming an already unstable region with more violence and anti American sentiment.

[Oniya]

I think the issue is that, under the agreement, we had the opportunity to inspect the Iranian facilities to see what they were doing, with the option to impose sanctions if they didn't let us do so.  By backing out of the agreement, that puts that particular bit of oversight in quite a bit of jeopardy.  Since we're no longer part of the agreement, Iran can say 'STFU, Great Satan - we don't have to let you into our facilities!'  (They still call us that, right?  They used to, back in the 80's...)

At which point, they could be setting up weapons-grade enrichment without any oversight whatsoever.

[TheHighwayHitman]

I don't buy trying to earn brownie points by alienating us. Who exactly are we alienated from? I'm not even sure that pushing Iran between a rock and a hard place is destabilizing the area. It's already unstable. The stability comes from Israel, Egypt, UAE, and Saudi Arabia all functioning on the same page for a change. I might be more open to the idea except that the first two things Iran did was burn the American flag calling for the destruction and sic Syrian terrorists on Israel with a very open and blunt threat of war. The ones throwing the temper tantrum are the Iranians because Trump basically said, "This agreement made with Obama? It sucked so bad that he couldn't get the Congress or Senate to actually make it a treaty. That's how terrible of an idea giving you nuclear material is. No."

Oni, while I can respect the desire to deal with Iranian weapons inspections civilly, I don't believe it actually matters. These are a) the same people trying to find WMDs in Iraq and b) not actually going to stop Iran from developing the technology or weapons. Look at it like this. Best case scenario is they don't. So they didn't need the America dollar or nuclear materials anyway. Worst case is that they do develop weapons. Then what? War? War with a hostile Islamic faction that not only wants to destroy the US, but Israel too?

[Oniya]

Oni, while I can respect the desire to deal with Iranian weapons inspections civilly, I don't believe it actually matters. These are a) the same people trying to find WMDs in Iraq and b) not actually going to stop Iran from developing the technology or weapons. Look at it like this. Best case scenario is they don't. So they didn't need the America dollar or nuclear materials anyway. Worst case is that they do develop weapons. Then what? War? War with a hostile Islamic faction that not only wants to destroy the US, but Israel too?

Actually, my point is that while we had the inspections, we had some idea of what was going on.  Yeah, there was the carrot/stick of economic sanctions (or removal of such), but the important part was the 'eyes on the ground', as it were.

[Lustful Bride]

Actually, my point is that while we had the inspections, we had some idea of what was going on.  Yeah, there was the carrot/stick of economic sanctions (or removal of such), but the important part was the 'eyes on the ground', as it were.

And at least a united front with out Euro allies, instead of Trump's current attitude of "Allies? We don't need no allies! Let me alienate them as much as possible and burn down bridges that took literal centuries of work to build!"

[elone]

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is.

A country that literally seeks the destruction of all of Israel, whose "moderates" burn the American flag and chant for the destruction of America, who other Arabic nations don't even like, wants to build a nuclear arsenal, and uses American dollars to build up a military is not a good thing!

By backing out of the deal, Trump isn't saying "Death to Iran!" He's saying, "We're not doing business with you. It isn't in our best interests."

If a shop owner announces, "I hate liberals! Death to you and all your Jew friends!" You're not going to do business with them. You're going to go to the next place that is friendly.

The best thing Obama's deal did was put Saudi Arabia, Israel, the UAE, and Egypt together in a defector, quasi-stable alliance against Iran, whose intelligence network is very capable of filtering out Russian (or Chinese) involvement, as well as solidify cooperation with the United States. Putting Iran against the ropes by withdrawing from a deal that isn't (And wasnt) incredibly popular to begin with (in America) for anyone who wasn't sipping the Obama/CNN soda is a good thing!

It's amazingly mind boggling to see the amount of venom people who have no better solution, who wouldn't leave America if they could, have for a president who *gasp* isn't doing that bad of a job.

I mean, Trump is no Obama.

I withdraw from so many of these arguments because bashing my brain into my steering wheel has more sense to it. I had to stop with the gun debate because the writing was literally on the wall. "No. You can't stop all gun violence unless you remove all guns and even that isn't likely to work. No. Don't waste your time trying. No. You can't classify some guns as good or some guns as bad. If You're okay with someone being shot by a shotgun but not an AR-15, your stance on firearms leaves something to be desired anyway. Contrary to what some want to believe, the United States is one of the few (if not only) countries in the whole world that was founded with the right for the civilian population to be armed. That right is what defends all others. If you say that is no longer valid then you're suggesting others may also be invalid."

I glanced at this thread because of the topic. I was wondering what the 45th president did wrong now. I assumed he strangled puppies or something.

Nope. He defended Israel by way of withdrawing from a bad deal where Iran predictably revealed It's true colors and feelings. Somehow this translates to a margin of, "He's not my president! I'm ashamed of being American and a part of the free world!" Or "What a terrible, stupid, Russian backed thing to do!"

Am I really the only one here who can throw up the metaphoric stop sign and say, "Hold on a minute. Explain how funding Iran (and giving it access to uranium/plutonium) so it can build nuclear devices and a conventional military whose primary purpose is the destruction of Israel, followed by the subjugation of other Islamic nations was ever a good idea!"

"But Palestine!"

"But Palestine was a British territory, and before that, part of the Ottoman Empire, and had long been a cultural place where Jews existed!"

"But Israel attacked!"

"Defended itself. And gave back what it took, time and again. And even if it didn't, you know which Palestinians are the most well off and the happiest? The ones living in Israel. The income of Israeli Palestinians vs those not in Israel speak for themselves."

"But Underdog!"

"Nobody in the middle East is a bigger underdog than Israel! If Israel were to lay down all arms, retire all military, and never fight again, what would happen? The extermination of Jewish people, rape, torture, murder, etc. If the Islamic countries were to lay down all arms, retire their military, and never fight again, what would happen? Within weeks there would be peace in the middle east."

I'm challenging the narrative that Trump did something awful here. I want to know. Should the United States really be doing business with Iran? Is supporting an enemy of an ally by assisting their nuclear program really a good idea? Does Israel not have the right to exist? Is unifying Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Israel into the very least, a temporary alliance not a good thing for the middle east?

I want to know why this is a reason to hate on Trump instead of saying, "You know what? He actually got one right."

The problem is that Iran is a country that is just trying to remain in the region without directly attacking its neighbors and remain a country that is relevant the middle east.. Americans have overthrown the elected government of Iran. So why would you think that they would not be against America. Are they supposed to be our friends?  Who but the US and Israel has forcibly attacked nations in the Middle East?

The only countries that see the Iran deal as bad are the US and Israel. Europe and the rest of the world are all for the agreement because it allows inspections of facilities and deters Iran from pursuing nuclear arms.

Israel has pursued nuclear weapons and never signed any agreement to not do so

Trump is a joke. The man has no clue of how to run a nation or anything else. He surrounds himself with those that support his little mind and fires those that don’t.

As for Israel and Palestine. In 1948 Israel was given a territory by the UN. It became such through terrorism against the British who washed their hands of the entire problem. The Israeli’s immediately set forth to expel the Palestinians, some 750,000, to Syria, Jordan, and Gaza. The Jews at the time were a minority of the region. They terrorized the native people to leave and never allowed them to return to their villages. Thus we have today, the people of Gaza demonstrating for the right to return, which was guaranteed by the United Nations shortly after the Nakba.

What exactly has Israel returned? Some of the Sinai to Egypt, but what about  the rest of Palestine,  the West Bank, the Jordan Valley, the Golan Heights, all of the land given to the Palestinians in the partition plan of the UN? Israel has taken it all.

Israel is no underdog. They have nuclear weapons. Never signed the Non Proliferation Treaty. Never signed any agreement to ban chemical or biological weapons, all of which they have in their arsenal. So why has the US not attacked them as they did Iraq, who had nothing.

Israel has never declared their borders, they have no constitution. So how are they an underdog? They get billions a year for the US for weapons systems, they get submarines from Germany, and have the most advanced armies in the Middle East.

So you believe that the Israelis would be subject to rape, torture, murder, etc? How about the Palestinians, who since 1948 were raped, killed, tortured, been disposed of their land, and even today are murdered, have no rights, have their land stolen and are subject to different laws than Israelis.

Israel is a racist regime that sees Palestinians as some inferior Arab race which they would prefer to exile from all the lands between the sea and Jordan or further. Just listen to Netanyahu, who is beyond even Trump for lies and deception.

If the Islamic countries laid down their arms, Israel would take their countries and declare it all as Ersatz Israel. Just as they have done with Palestine, who by the way, they say never existed. Just as there is no evidence of an Exodus from Egypt or a King David, for that matter.

So, yes, Trump did everything wrong and continues to do so.