But probably not. Look what the results were when he flew off to North Korea in an attempt to get a Nobel peace prize.
Originally Posted by VitaMan
I believe Trump's treatment of Kim Jong Un was inspired. Perhaps in his second term he'll get the Nobel Peace Prize for helping bring North Korea or Russia or Iran back into the mainstream.
North Korea had only one long or medium range ballistic missile test from the date of the announcement of the Singapore meeting until the end of Trump's term. I posted on this in another forum,
http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2943491
Trump had an entire 4 year term to work with Iran and others in the region. No idea why some keep binging up the Obama administration. Trump served after that. To say the Obama administration is causing this is saying it can never be fixed. Trump had 4 years after Obama to fix it....and he didn't.
To be fair the Biden administration did not fix it either. But at least they are not saying things Trumps normally says, such ax "Israel would never have acted unilaterally under the Biden administration".
Originally Posted by VitaMan
Generally, I share your skepticism when it comes to sanctions. But trump's renewal of the "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran in 2018 did help to choke off the flow of funds to the mullahs and thereby inhibit their ability to stir up trouble using their proxies i.e. Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, Shia allies in Iraq etc.
Then Biden came in and lifted the sanctions in 2021. The results were a disaster. They show why it's impossible to trust the Iranian mullahs. Instead of saying ok thanks, we'll tone it down, they funneled the billions they received from Biden's sanctions relief right back into the hands of their terrorist proxies.
If you really want to assign proximate blame for the Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023 you might consider how much additional funding and other support did Hamas receive from Iran after Biden loosened the screws.
Originally Posted by lustylad
I don't know a lot about Trump's or Biden's sanctions or lack thereof on Iran. And it's not something I'm particularly passionate about.
Given that Trump tried to implement a new agreement with Iran in his second term, you'd figure he screwed up by withdrawing from the first agreement. My impression is that it would be like replacing NAFTA by the USMCA. Because he didn't negotiate it, Trump didn't like it. But the replacement wasn't all that different from what was there in the first place. Again though, I don't know this subject well enough to really argue with you.
Trump's call might have been like choosing to go for it on 4th and 8 when you're on your own 40 yard line in the first quarter. It's a bad call, it doesn't really make sense. But you get a first down and score. And you end up winning the game by 3 points. We're in the 3rd quarter, and at this point it looks like the Trump/Netanyahu good cop/bad cop schtick may result in Iran not developing nuclear weapons. Or in the best of all possible worlds, maybe Khamenei and other hawks get axed. Iran makes peace with its neighbors and develops its economy so that Iranians are much better off materially. Hell if I know. This is above my paygrade.