The US was part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) from 2015 with the EU, Russia, China and others. That was the place to start if Trump thought it wasn’t working – which by most accounts it was, Iran was complying – but the malignant narcissist in him said drop out of the agreement and start a war on your own ignoring the other parties to the agreement, that’s how to “negotiate.” Bullying is better. He also had the nerve to criticize NATO for not supporting his actions.
Now every adversary in the region who hates America, every terrorist group, can say we told you, you can never trust the United States, all they want to do is destroy Islam and take the oil from our countries.
The process also gave leverage to Russia and China to enhance their position around the world – they didn’t break an agreement, they didn’t start a war and they have military goods to sell anyone who wants to buy.
This is why Mr Trump is so dangerous. He reacts on his own, he bullies, he does not think strategically, his personality is deeply flawed – he claims to be a great negotiator, but the truth is he doesn’t understand what true negotiating is because he is a malignant narcissist playing in another TV reality show, except now he is playing with the United States of America and everyone in it.
In the world of the 21st century, “Make America Great Again” and “America First” are not worthy goals, they are propaganda traps, leading not to greatness, but to the situations in which America finds itself, war and international animosity among them.
Everything you cited here is a result of Trump withdrawing from the JCPOA on May 8, 2018. He withdrew with no plan for preventing Iran’s experiments with producing nuclear material. Yes, now Iran is at 80% enriched uranium. They are firmly on the path the JCPOA was designed to prevent. Do you think Trump learned anything from his previous decision? Iran has learned now that they don’t even need nuclear weapons.
LikeLike
this is a response to Benefit Jack’s comment.
LikeLike
No, I don’t agree with most Trump actions, including the recent Iran war. As I have mentioned many times, I never voted for Trump and I never would, even should he run someday for the position of dog catcher. He is an idiot and an ass.
With respect to MAGA, I am an economic conservative and a social libertarian. I criticize all who can’t responsibly manage our entitlements and annual budget. That includes Obama, Trump 1, Biden, and Trump 2.
I also believe the constitution says what it does, and should be enforced. Further, if the language adopted by the Founders no longer meets our needs, that is what Amendments are for. Yes, you need two thirds of the House and Senate to agree and three fourths of the states. That was intentional, as a means to constrain our federal government to one limited, enumerated powers. If you want to change that, the Constitution also provides for a national convention where two-thirds (34 of 50) of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.
I don’t fit in MAGA or the DSA, not as a true conservative, nor as a liberal or progressive. None of those groups would accept me given the diversity of my beliefs.
I don’t believe it is my role to criticize others who have different beliefs, with a few exceptions surrounding the care of those who are minors or incapable of self care. I believe the states (not the federal government) have responsibilities for those who are minors and those who are incapable of self care and that many states have failed to protect those who are vulnerable.
As the son of a lawful immigrant, I am 100% opposed to any form of amnesty to those who broke our laws – including those brought here as minors. At the same time, I would prefer to see America update its immigration policies to increase lawful immigration from a historical average of 1 million to 2 million a year, and to limit immigrants to the best and the brightest and only if they want to become American citizens. Lawful immigration should also includes requirements for sponsorship, self-sustaining (not a burden on anyone), lawful presence without criminal violations for at least five years, and passing the citizenship test in English.
As the cousin of an individual who came to America 25+ years ago to go to school, who lived with my mom for a short period of time, who overstayed her student visa, got married to a green card holder, had two American children, and wanted to become an American citizen. I feel bad that she was deported, taking her two children and husband back to Europe. That said, she knew the risks. The only law she broke was overstaying her visa. She would still want to become an American today.
However, I’ve yet to see any valid argument for letting 10 – 20 MM illegal aliens remain, those who never applied nor were every approved to come to America, including those who haven’t broken any of our laws other than, perhaps identify fraud in securing employment by violating our employment and tax laws.
That makes me as MAGA as President Obama, President Biden, Secretary Clinton, President Clinton and a whole bunch of other folks, who may have changed their former opinions on immigration, even though I haven’t. Consider:
President Bill Clinton: During his administration, border enforcement grew significantly. In his 1995 State of the Union address, he stated that undocumented workers broke immigration laws and must be held accountable, highlighting aggressive border security and the deportation of criminal aliens. He also launched Operation Gatekeeper in 1994 to increase fencing, personnel, and resources at the southern border.
Senator/President Barack Obama: As president, his administration carried out large-scale deportations—removing over three million unauthorized immigrants, which led critics to dub him the “Deporter-in-Chief”. In 2014, he explicitly stated that undocumented immigrants broke the law and that enforcement mechanisms must hold them accountable. Earlier, as a U.S. Senator from Illinois, he also voted in favor of the 2006 Secure Fence Act.
Senator Joe Biden: As a U.S. Senator representing Delaware, Joe Biden voted in favor of the 2006 Secure Fence Act, which authorized hundreds of miles of fencing and reinforced infrastructure along the U.S.–Mexico border.
Senator Hillary Clinton: As a U.S. Senator representing New York, Hillary Clinton also voted for the 2006 Secure Fence Act. In October 2006, during an appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, she stated that she supported building physical barriers and enhancing border enforcement to secure the nation.
LikeLike
Demographics have changed we need a younger population base. What I read says U.S. birth rates (and fertility rates) have been declining for nearly two decades and recently hit record lows.
Ideally no one should be here illegally, but as long as there are 14,000,000 or so here, let’s leverage that population to our advantage. Weed out the bad apples, deport the criminals and potential threats, but create a path to legal status, legal working for the rest and for some citizenship. To take the position of deporting all may let us wave the enforce the law banner and it will make some people feel good, but it is not logically in our best interest IMO. Plenty of criminals have been pardoned based on who they know.
LikeLike
I agree: “… Demographics have changed we need a younger population base. …”
However, we don’t need more unskilled individuals who come to America to escape poverty – so that they can be dependent on American taxpayers, adding to our annual deficits and national debt while sucking at the federal teat.
“Ideally no one should be here illegally, but as long as there are 14,000,000 or so here, let’s leverage that population to our advantage.”
OK with me. Here is how I would leverage that population, including all who are here as illegal aliens, regardless of age and regardless of when they entered illegally.
Draft all into public service for the next 20 years – public service required to cure the violations of our immigration laws, employment laws, tax laws and identify fraud laws. Three hots and a cot are provided, as well as English language instruction. Children of illegal aliens born here are required to successfully complete citizenship lessons and learn English. Those who have no skills, or whose skills are not needed for public service roles will provide domestic, agricultural and other unskilled services.
All must present themselves to INS/ICE within the first 60 days after these changes are approved and announced. Anyone who doesn’t present themself within 60 days will be deported, no exceptions. All must pledge allegiance to the United States. All must renounce citizenship from the country of their birth/citizenship.
All of these rules are to be applied without regard to the age of the illegal alien, and withour regard to when they entered illegally in the past.
After 20 years, anyone who was an illegal alien, regardless of age at birth, can move into the general population with a green card (assuming no more violations of any kind of any law) – but are NEVER allowed to become citizens.
Those illegal aliens with other criminal records are to be removed without due process and deported to their country of origin, and where the country of origin does not accept them, a third country.
Concurrently, limit legal immigration for the next 20 years only to those highly skilled individuals and students who we can leverage – and especially recruit from China and Russia and Iran and North Korea, to weaken them by stealing their best talent, if and only if they want to become Americans.
After taking the pledge, any spies and traitors among those already here and those who come over the next 20 years will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, including trial as a traitor where appropriate. 18 U.S.C. § 2381, the punishment for treason is death, or a prison sentence of at least five years and a fine of at least $10,000, alongside a permanent ban on holding any federal office.
Let’s see how many want to come here or stay here on those terms. Anything short of that is the definition of amnesty for violating our laws. Any grant of citizenship is also amnesty. You can’t allow that outcome because of the tsunami of individuals who will continue to come. Enforce the borders aggressively.
Adjust and enforce asylum laws such that the individual must request protection in the first country they arrive in – no exceptions. Enforce that rule retroactively – to all who came here to claim asylum, regardless of whether they have been granted asylum in the past. The 1951 Refugee Convention provides individuals with the right to seek protection and does not restrict asylum eligibility based on the route taken. However, while global international law does not impose a “first country” rule, many nations utilize regional treaties, bilateral agreements, and domestic laws to enforce this exact limitation in practice. For example, Canada and the US have a “Safe Third Country Agreement” – where we agree to return asylum seekers to the country they entered first, where individuals traveling across the land border must request protection in the first country they arrive in. We need the same agreement with Mexico, and enforce the same rule where individuals approach America by sea or by aircraft (from the originating country).
Any country that doesn’t agree to these terms on asylum will be penalized 100% of the cost to America plus a 100% surcharge to process and maintain those seeking asylum.
LikeLike
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R40094
The JCPOA continues in effect, but without the US.
An 8/7/2025 Report to Congress:
“… Beginning in July 2019, the IAEA verified that some of Iran’s nuclear activities were exceeding JCPOA-mandated limits; Iran has since increased the number of activities that violate JCOPA restrictions (see Appendix A).
According to IAEA reports, Iran’s number of installed centrifuges, enriched uranium stockpile, enriched uranium u-235 concentration, and number of enrichment locations exceed JCPOA-mandated limits.
Tehran is also conducting JCPOA-prohibited research and development (R&D) activities, as well as centrifuge installation.
In a May 8, 2019, speech, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani cited JCPOA Paragraph 26 as grounds for reducing Iran’s performance of some Iranian commitments pursuant to the agreement. According to that paragraph, Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions specified in Annex II, or such an imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.
Iran has also cited JCPOA Paragraph 36 as grounds for ending all JCPOA-mandated transparency measures beyond the government’s comprehensive safeguards agreement. Paragraph 36 states that “[i]f Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution.” Iran could treat a commission failure to resolve the issue as “grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.”
However, the foreign ministers of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, collectively known as the “E3,” stated on January 14, 2020, that “Iran is not meeting its [JCPOA] commitments” and announced that the three governments were referring the matter to the JCPOA dispute resolution mechanism (DRM).
A January 14, 2020, E3 letter to EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, who oversees the mechanism’s process, referred “a matter concerning the implementation of Iran’s [JCPOA] commitments … to the Joint Commission for resolution through” the DRM. There is no public evidence that any government has taken action under the mechanism. A September 13, 2023, E3 statement explains that, since invoking the DRM, the governments have “strived in good faith to resolve the issues arising from Iran’s non-compliance” both via the DRM and “beyond.” …”
(Iran acting in good faith? Is that a poor attempt at a joke?)
“… A February 2021 report from IAEA Director General Raphael Grossi states that the IAEA had continued verification and monitoring of the restrictions which apply to certain nuclear weapons-related activities and are described in Section T of the JCPOA. A May 31, 2025, report from Grossi, however, states that the agency has not been able to undertake these verification and monitoring activities since his February 2021 report. …”
Actually, America has at least a 50 year long history of leaving stuff unfinished – Vietnam, Beiruit, Iraq/ISIS the 2011 unilateral withdrawal, Afghanistan, etc.
Compare those with Japan, Germany, South Korea.
And, America has a very long history of short aggressive military activities:
Invasion of Grenada (1983)
Invasion of Panama (1989–1990)
The Gulf War (1990–1991)
Balkans Interventions (1995, 1999)
Global War on Terror & Airstrikes (2010s–Present)
Unsurprisingly, you have not been posting criticism on all of those, no mention of them as best as I can recall, at least not until the idiot ass Trump was involved.
Do you really think Trump acted spontaneously, without prompting by military and civilian advisors? It is Tuesday, so I will attack Iran because I wanna? Do you think he acted alone? Do you think he decided which ships to deploy, what weapons to use, etc.? Do you think he was a Hitler wannabe, who was often photographed looking at a map of the war front and making tactical decisions?
How did you feel about George W. Bush? Did you differentiate between the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? Was he a war criminal too? Remember, unlike the Gulf War, only a handful of our allies participated there.
How about John McCain, who every Democrat asserted in 2008 that he too was a war mongerer?
And, if you do think Trump is a Hitler wannabe with the most recent action in Iran, how do you distinguish others who acted in much the same manner over the past 40+ years as there was no attack on America (other than perhaps, if you consider the immediate response in Afghanistan – such as the ten years 2011 – 2021, after bin Laden was killed)?
LikeLike
Maybe it’s time you dropped your whataboutism and also admitted you are a closet MAGA sympathizer.
The recourse for fixing whatever was not working was not one country among all involved starting a war on its own. If attacking Iran was justified, it would and should have been a unified effort.
And do you think the end result of Trump’s action will have a positive long term result in any case?
LikeLike