Trump rescinding the so-called “Iran deal” will improve his position with other nations, North Korea only being one of them. Actually, it wasn’t a “deal” because Iran never signed anything.
Any “reputation” lost would be on Iran’s side for entering into a “deal” that even they didn’t commit to. Now the non-committal “deal” is off. Iran shouldn’t have expected anything. Now, at the bargaining table, Trump will be in a better position because nations know that he will actually follow through and only make deals that are real and binding.
This goes back to Obama’s great failure of his own base: He didn’t make laws that would last, he only made policies that depend on him being president in order to last, in this he exploited his voters by giving them high hopes and letting them get angry—the whole time Obama never told his own supporters the truth that everything he accomplished after Obamacare was designed to be blown away with the wind.
Iranians weren’t the only party with “gullible” written their foreheads; Obama voters were too, and Obama conned all of them.
The disturbing thing about the Iran “deal” is the reaction. Russia is very protective of that “deal”. That should be enough to call the “deal” off—and to prove that there was no substance in the Russianewsgategate “collusion” myth. But, where are all the stories in the press about how the “deal” was bad for the US? Having given $1.7B in cash to Iran should at least receive mention from a supposed “non-biased” media.
Terrorist talk didn’t wait as the New Year arrived. Protests in Tehran have drawn two kinds of buzz: the first is that “keeping quiet” is the best way to respond, the second is that “economics” is the reason for the protests.
Taking the obvious first, people don’t protest and riot merely over economics. This is a clear attempt by de facto pro- status quo pundits and media personalities to diminish the matter. Iranian people object to their government for the same reason everyone else does: it’s a tyrant and terrorist-sponsoring regime. Reporting that the cause and headline-worthy DNA of the protests in Iran are merely about the “economy” is an insult to both the protesters and the protest victims.
The more complex buzz—claiming that the best response is to “keep quiet”—has several levels of “irony”. Keeping quiet didn’t work with getting Otto Warmbier back from North Korea—a friend of Iran—when Obama instructed the same tactic with Otto’s family. So, “keeping quiet” has already proven to not work. Supporting protests discredits the protests and therefore gives more power to the current regime?—people in the press actually expect Americans to believe that? But, the largest of all contradictions coming from the Left relates to Trump himself. If “keeping quiet” is the way to win, why doesn’t the Left try “keeping quiet” about Trump, since they don’t seem to be stopping him with their constant heckling?
Reactions and spin aside, the US is in “tyranny-crackdown” mode. Perhaps the Iranian people are taking to the streets because they finally believe that when America speaks something will actually happen. That has been the evidence of the last year, anyway.