Iranian Nukes, Revisited, Part II

While support for Israel has come from both Republicans and Democrats, neither side is completely behind Israel.  Here are a few comments by Democrats who immediately jumped on Israel for daring to prevent another Holocaust against the Jewish people.  Here was Senator Andy Kim (D-NJ):  "This action ordered by Prime Minister Netanyahu appears to deliberately undermine ongoing American diplomatic negotiations about Iran's nuclear program."  Senator Kim is 42 years old.  So giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he just doesn't know that "diplomatic negotiations" with Iran have been ongoing for most of this century.  And where has that gotten us?  And no, Netanyahu did not undermine America; in fact he waited for the 60 days Trump gave to Iran to make a deal before attacking.

Here was Senator Jack Reed (D-RI):  "Israel's alarming decision to launch airstrikes on Iran is a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence."  Escalating regional violence?  Where have you been, Senator?  Since October 7, 2023, Israel has been at war with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen.  And even Iran, which sent missiles into Israel back in April, 2024.  How's that for regional violence?

And here was Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn):  "This is a disaster of Trump and Netanyahu's own making, and now the region risks spiraling toward a new, deadly conflict."  New conflict?  I'll say one thing about these Democratic Senators.  Like many, they were quick to blame Israel.  Don't dare blame Iran for failing to make a deal with president Trump.  No, blame the Jews.  Because make no mistake, when they blame Netanyahu, they are blaming Israel and the Jews.  Why do I say that?  Because the Jewish people in Israel, of all political stripes, support Netanyahu's decision to attack Iran.  

Yair Lapid is the head of one of the opposition parties to Netanyahu.  Lapid:  Israel "didn't declare war on Iran.  Iran declared war on Israel and the Jewish people decades ago."  Israeli President Isaac Hertzog, long with the opposition Labor Party, was also in full support of Netanyahu's decision.  What all Israelis understand is that Iran has repeatedly threatened to wipe their country off the map.  If Iran obtained nuclear weapons, what would it take to destroy Israel?  One nuke?  Two?  Certainly not more than three.  

But these Democrats apparently forgot that it was a single lifetime ago that the Nazis murdered 6 million of the world's 17 to 18 million Jews.  But since then, the Jewish people have their own state, with their own military.  And to Jews everywhere, the expression "Never Again" means never again will Jews go quietly to their deaths.  Who gives a damn what these Senators think?  As we Jews know, people like that tend to be sympathetic only to dead Jews.   

On the Republican side, there is also a split in opinion and support for Israel.  Some Republicans say let Israel do what it wants, as long as the U.S. is not involved.  These Republicans are what I refer to as the "MAGA isolationists."  Here is Senator Rand Paul (R-KY):  "I see more war and more carnage and it's not the U.S.'s job to be involved in this war.  Iraq was a mess.  Afghanistan was a mess."  I see no comparison with those two wars.  Because Trump has made it clear over and over again that he prefers peace.  He is proud that the U.S. got involved in no wars during his first term.  And even now, he is only considering whether or not to send in the B2 bombers with their 30,000 pound bunker busting bombs to take out the hardened nuclear facilities in Iran.

Yes, any conflict could take an unpredictable turn.  But with Trump as president, I see little likelihood of an intensified war ensuing.  No surprise that Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said "This is not our war."  He even joined others in supporting a resolution that would prevent Trump from taking action without authorization from Congress.  Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) is generally a strong supporter of Israel.  But in this case he said that "I don't want us fighting a war...I don't want another Mid-east war."  

Also no surprise was Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who said our focus should be on domestic issues, and "not going into another foreign war."  She expressed concern that war could "fracture" the MAGA movement.  I think that these MAGA isolationists are completely wrong.  The isolationists kept us out of WWII, until Japan decided they didn't care about that, and bombed Pearl Harbor.  These MAGA isolationists do not understand the concept of "peace through strength."  That does not mean that America must get involved in every war.  But it does mean that unless America does project its power when appropriate, then the only ones stepping up will be China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.  Anybody think if those countries feel empowered the world will be a safer place?  As mentioned earlier, the Europeans cannot be counted on.  

Iranian Nukes, Revisited - Part I

Curiously, I was at home on the evening Thursday, 6/12, when I received the following text message from my son at 6:12pm:  "Holy shit I can't believe this is happening."  Needless to say, that prompted me to immediately turn on the TV.  There it was.  Someone was finally trying to put an end to Iran getting nuclear weapons.  Not surprisingly, that someone was the tiny country of Israel.  Israel has approximately 10 million people and is the size of New Jersey.  Iran, on the other hand, has over 92 million people, and is more than twice the size of Texas.  A fair fight?  No.  Iran didn't stand a chance.

I say "finally" someone was trying to end Iran's nuclear program, because I started writing about the issue the very first year of the blog.  In a post of 11/26/09 (written on 09/26/09, and simply called "Iranian Nukes"), I pointed out that Obama had announced that Iran had built a secret, and undisclosed, nuclear facility deep into a mountainside.  At the UN General Assembly meeting in September, 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu accurately assessed the situation when he told the world that the struggle against Iran pits "civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death."  It could not be any more clear.

I ended that early blog post with this observation:  "We in the West are fools!  After six years (of negotiating with Iran) we still believe in more talking, more negotiating - even though those six years accomplished ABSOLUTELY NOTHING."  At the turn of this century the U.S. did not have any direct contact with Iran; not since the Iranians held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days - ending on the day Ronald Reagan took office.  But the Europeans, with the U.S. behind the scenes, were negotiating with Iran.  And it's been the same for the last 20 to 25 years.  Iran feigns interest in making a deal, all the while continuing to develop their nuclear enrichment.  

No one should waste their time telling me about the JCPOA (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), Obama's famous Iran nuke deal.  That agreement (Obama did not have a sufficient number of votes in the Senate to make it a binding treaty) was signed onto by the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Russia, China, and of course, Iran.  Many will remember the deal made by then President Clinton with North Korea regarding their desire to have nuclear weapons.  We know how well that worked out.  To evil dictators who abuse their own citizens, and who murder their own citizens, the words on a piece of paper mean nothing.  

Nevertheless, President Trump wanted to give diplomacy a chance - for 60 days.  On June 4, the Times of Israel reported that Ayatollah Khamenei said Trump's proposal was "100% against" the ideals of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.  The New York Times reported that "Iran has roughly doubled its stockpile of near bomb-grade uranium over the past three months even while negotiating with the Trump administration over a deal to limit its nuclear program, according to a confidential report that the United Nations nuclear inspection agency has begun circulating to capitals around the world."  On June 7, the Times reported that Iran was able to  produce a sufficient amount of bomb grade uranium for 10 weapons.

On June 8, the Jerusalem Post reported on a Wall Street Journal article stating that "Iran orders thousands of tons of ballistic missile ingredients from China"  Apparently enough to produce about 800 missiles.  Also on June 8, the Jerusalem Post reported that "Iran carried out implosion tests for nuclear weapons development, IAEA reports."  It was on April 12 that Trump announce he was giving Iran 60 days to come to an agreement with the U.S.  Trump had repeatedly said for years and years that "Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon."  Now, it turns out that every U.S. president in this century has said the same thing - Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.  But none of them did anything to stop Iran.  

On June 12, Trump was asked about a possible Israeli attack on Iran.  Trump:  "I don't want to say imminent, but it looks like it's something that could very well happen."  Of course, Trump had advance notice.  Israel waited until the 61st day to attack Iran.  Early on, Israel was successful in targeting Iran's top military leaders and top nuclear scientists.  

Back in 2009, I advocated for a joint force of the U.S., the U.K., France and Israel, taking out Iran's developing nuclear program.  But we know that the Europeans are worthless.  We know that every other president this century only gave lip service to denying Iran's ability to get nukes.  And, since this started on June 12, I have alternated between being quite upset with some of Trump's comments, to again having faith in him.  Because some of the earlier comments suggested he was willing to let Israel go it alone.  That very first blog post I wrote about "Iranian Nukes" was followed up shortly thereafter with "Iranian Nukes, Part II," written on February 21, 2010.  Not believing that sanctions would deter Iran, and not believing that any enforceable deal could could be made, I ended that post with this:  "But if I am correct, it will ultimately take military action to prevent Iran from getting nukes." 

What Charlie Kirk Doesn't Get

Charlie Kirk is a co-founder of the conservative action group Turning Point USA.  Kirk also has his own radio show, and is a big supporter of President Trump.  Following the recent terror attack on the group "Run For Their Lives" (a group that marches weekly post 10/7 to remind the world that hostages are still being held by Hamas), Kirk opined as follows:  "If you are a Jewish person in this country, you should never leave your house without a firearm.  If you're a Jewish person, you should have a firearm on you at all times."  The individual who attacked these Jewish marchers (allegedly) was an Egyptian national, and was yelling "Free Palestine," while throwing Molotov cocktails at the crowd.

Kirk's comments telling Jews to protect themselves, are clearly not the words of an antisemite.  Unfortunately, Kirk then deviated from his apparent defense of the Jewish people to these comments, which he predicted would result in his being called an antisemite.  "To the Jews of America, how are you still voting Democrat, and why are you still giving money to the institutions and the charities and the political parties that hate you and want you dead?"  Much of that is a fair question.  As readers know, I raise those questions myself.

But here is where Kirk (and others I personally know) diverge.  Kirk:  "My tolerance with the American Jews that are giving money and playing footsie with the American left is nothing.  In fact, my patience has completely run out."  Those two sentences are so wrong for so many reasons.  In no particular order, I will address some of my concerns.  First, he is blaming the victim.  To me, that is akin to those on the left blaming the gun for a shooting instead of the perpetrator.  The alleged perpetrator here is an Egyptian national who believed all the lies about Israel; and who is blind to the fact that Gaza/Hamas has received billions of dollars in aid which they squandered on tunnels and weapons to be used to kill Jews, instead of building a modern and productive society for the people of Gaza.

Second, is Kirk suggesting that if the majority of Jews voted Republican and not Democrat, that would have guaranteed neither Obama nor Biden would have won the presidency?  Has he said the same things about the leftwing Christian denominations, such as the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, or the Anglican Church?  

Third, the Jewish people have been around for about 3,500 years.  Throughout our long history, Jews have been persecuted and murdered and blamed for all sorts of things.  It is always easier to find a scapegoat for why things in your life or your country are not going as you would like, instead of blaming yourself, or the actual perpetrators of evil.  Here are some simple questions for Kirk and those who agree with him.  Do you think Hitler and the Nazis ever asked which Jews are loyal citizens of Germany?  Or if they voted for the National Socialist Party?  Or did they just round up every Jew regardless of party affiliation, and regardless of loyalty to the state, and murder them?  

Now I'll ask the same of Hamas.  Some of those Jews living in Israel near the Gaza border, gave jobs to the Arabs living in Gaza.  Some worked for getting the "Palestinians" their own state.  Others worked to get them needed medical care.  Did the Hamas terrorists give a damn about which Jews supported them and which Jews did not?  Of course not.  The goal of these Jew haters in every generation is the same:  kill all the Jews.  From the ancient Egyptians to the Babylonians to the Assyrians to more modern times, these Jew haters all have the same goal - kill ALL the Jews.  Never do they ask which Jews are on "our" side.  Does Kirk think that it matters to the Jew haters if their victims are Democrats or Republicans?  

Merely suggesting that is, if not outright antisemitism, then at a minimum encouraging antisemites to take action against the Jewish people.  The young couple that was brutally gunned down in D.C.?  The woman was Jewish but the man was Christian.  What if there were Christians marching for the hostages in Boulder, and they were injured?  Would you say you lost your patience with them, Kirk?  You lost your patience for those reminding the world that hostages are still being held by Hamas?  The perpetrator (yes, I know, alleged perpetrator) sides with Hamas.  The focus should be on the evil perpetrated by the evil perpetrator - not on the "gun."

Fourth, the Jewish people have a long and proud history of charitable giving, of "tzedakah."  It is part of our tradition to care about those who are less fortunate.  Now, one could debate which party today is most closely associated with caring for those in need.  But one cannot legitimately argue the correctness of tzedakah, which is not only seen as charitable giving, but as a moral obligation.  

As a Jew, I have neither the liberty nor the luxury of giving up my patience and tolerance for my fellow Jews.  If Kirk thinks he does, he is sorely mistaken.  The antisemites, the terrorists, the Jew haters - do not care who you are.  You think Hamas hesitated to take Americans hostage?  You think the students on college campuses who interrupt classes and graduation ceremonies care that they're also affecting Christian students?  You think the perpetrator in Boulder cared about whether Christians might be marching with Jews?  Stop blaming the victim, Kirk; stop blaming the "gun."

Kirk has at times referred to the Torah, the first Five Books of the Hebrew Bible.  So he would do well to recall that G-d promised Abraham:  "I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse."  It's also said that G-d promised to bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse Israel.  Of course, the biblical "Israel" is nothing other than the Jewish people.  Think about it, Kirk.

Am Yisrael Chai!  The People of Israel (the Jewish People) Live! 

Is Anyone Really Surprised?

You might think that in the year 2025, we'd be past this.  But we're not.  And how could anyone be surprised.  On college and university campuses we've seen and heard the pro-Hamas demonstrations.  We've heard the shouts:  "From the river to the sea."  What does everyone think that means?  It means no more Israel and no more Jews.  How about "Globalize the intifada."  The two intifadas in Israel resulted in the deaths of thousands of Jews, as a result of nonstop terrorist attacks by the Palestinians.  So, "globalize" it?  Start killing Jews everywhere around the world?  That's what just happened, isn't it?  

We have anti-American and anti-Israel professors around the country funded by the likes of Qatar and Saudi Arabia and the CCP.  We had university presidents testify before Congress that calling for the genocide of the Jewish people might be acceptable, depending on the context.  What context would that be?  You weak-kneed bastards succumbed to a little pressure from your pro-Hamas students and faculty.  This is the crumbling of Western civilization.  At the graduation ceremony at Columbia University this week, University President Claire Shipman's prepared speech had this line:  "I know many in our community are mourning the absence of our graduate, Mahmoud Khalil."  

Are you kidding me?  Mourning?  He's not dead.  Trump is trying to get him deported.  (See my two posts about Khalil on March 15, 2025, "Mahmoud Khalil Must Be Deported," and April 2, 2025, "More About Mahmoud Khalil".)  Khalil was the leader of the pro-Hamas demonstrations at Columbia.  Did Shipman have any concern about how the Jewish students might feel about that comment?  Why would she, when the only important students are the pro-Hamas ones - many of whom are not American citizens. 

This past Monday we had three major Western countries, the U.K., France and Canada, issue a joint statement condemning Israel, and calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state.  As I sit here, I'm thinking I would not be disappointed if France and the U.K. fell to Germany, but for the impact it would have had on the Jewish citizens of those countries.  Because their leaders are MORONS!  Thankfully, we still have a presidential administration in this country that does believe in western civilization.  Mike Huckabee is the U.S. Ambassador to Israel.  He said that in WWII, the U.K. and France did not seek a "tie" in their war with Germany.  They "bombed the heck out of Germany and that's what ended the war.  It was a decisive victory."  Well, with U.S. help, of course.   

Huckabee:  "The prolonged suffering for everybody is on Hamas.  And I'm outraged that the U.K., Canada and France, they're blaming the wrong (party).  They need to start putting the pressure on Hamas."  Imagine if, in WWII, the U.S. said to the U.K. and France:  "You need to stop bombing Germany.  You need to stop fighting the Germans.  Just let them establish an expanded state on whatever land they want."  

You many not believe this.  But you should.  Liora Rez is the Founder and Executive Director of an organization called StopAntisemitism.  She was recently on Fox discussing what happened at the University of Illinois campus.  She said that stickers were put up around the campus.  What did those stickers say?  "Exterminate the Zionists."  Make no mistake, the Leftists and the pro-Hamas crowd make no distinction between Zionists and Jews.  (Every Jew should be a Zionist, in my opinion.)  We are now seeing constant calls for the genocide of the Jews in the year 2025 in the United States of America.  Of course, Ms. Rez's organization contacted both the Mayor's office and the university officials.  What did they reply to her?  Nothing!  They never replied!  

Yaron Lischinsky, age 30, was about to propose to Sarah Milgrim, age 26, when the two of them were gunned down by a cowardly terrorist (imagine all the worst curse words you can, and they will still be insufficient to describe my feelings about the perpetrator) on Wednesday evening outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C.  Like many, I again found myself both sad and angry.  Yaron was a Christian born in Germany who had moved to Israel.  His father was Jewish  and his mother Christian.  Sarah was an American and a Jew, who grew up in the suburbs of Kansas City.  They worked at the Israeli embassy in D.C.  As is my practice, I refuse to name the evil shooter.  But he said he shot these two young people for Gaza.  That's a joke.  The rulers of Gaza, Hamas, have made it very clear that they don't give a damn about the people of Gaza.  And, as the shooter was led away, he was shouting "free free Palestine."  Free Palestine from what?  Free Gaza from Hamas if you want to see an end to the constant wars.

The Jew hating antisemites have been out in force since the cold blooded terror attack on Yaron and Sarah.  One 19 year old punk referred to the victims as "war criminals."  He knows nothing.  But if he agrees to move permanently to Gaza, I'll raise money for his flight.  Then we have a so-called journalist who writes for the BBC, saying that Jews should be burned "as Hitler did."  Then there is this gem someone (not in support) posted on LinkedIn:  "Natural logic:  when governments fail to hold Israel accountable for an actual holocaust being committed before our very eyes, no genocidal Zionist should be safe anywhere in the world."  Just another way to say "globalize the intifada."

Interesting how they accuse the Jews of what they actually say and do.  Hamas calls for the end of Israel.  Hamas says they will commit another attack like 10/7 over and over and over again - until all the Jews are dead.  But when the Jews defend themselves, somehow then we are committing genocide.  These people want to bring about an end to western civilization, to the Judeo-Christian basis for western societies.  Some in the West are only to happy to accommodate them.  Perhaps out of fear.  Perhaps out of self-loathing.  But the rest of us better stand up and speak out.  Or the evil-doers will win out.       

...and the Ugly

Qatar offered to give Trump a jumbo 747-8 plane, described as a luxury palace in the sky, which would serve as Air Force One.  Thereafter, the plane would go to Trump's presidential library, and maybe even be available for his personal use.  Trump has been annoyed at Boeing as they are apparently behind in finishing the two new jumbo jets that are intended to replace the current aging Air Force One.  I hope that Congress is investigating why there has been such a delay.

Trump said only a "stupid person" would refuse the offer.  "They're giving us a free jet...I could say 'no, no, no, don't give us - I want to pay you, $1 billion, or $400 million, or whatever it is.  Or I could say thank you very much."  Seriously, President Trump?  In what might be described as a major understatement, Senator Ted Cruz said the plane "poses significant espionage and surveillance problems."  I cannot imagine the DOD and the Secret Service ever approving the use of that plane as AF1.  Even if the plane was taken apart piece by piece, and stripped down to the bare bones, who knows what electronic devices, or worse, may have been embedded in the various parts.  Every little piece would have to be x-rayed and scanned.

Here was the conservative New York Post:  "Sorry, this 'gift' is far from free; Qatar will surely expect something in return."  No doubt.  The Post:  "...it creates all kinds of conflicts of interest and runs smack into the Constitution's Emoluments Clause, which prohibits foreign gifts."  Said the Wall Street Journal:  "If the emir calls the White House to share his views on Iran, Israel and the region, won't he expect the President to pick up the phone?  Should voters even have to wonder?  It demeans the presidency to have a foreign government handing out such a valuable gift to America's elected leader."  Not to mention that Qatar has already said they do not want the U.S. to use our base there to attack Iran.

Here's something else that bothers me.  Remember when Biden was VP and then president, and during those times he and his family seemed to have ongoing business concerns in Europe and with China.  I didn't like any of it.  Most of my fellow conservatives did not like it either.  Well, this is no different when it comes to the Trump family.  I don't care that Trump's holdings may be in a blind trust.  His sons are running the family companies.  We clearly need some federal legislation to deal with this.

There needs to be a law preventing not only the president and vice-president, but all cabinet members and others high up in an administration (and their family members), from conducting overseas business  while they hold office.  All of these officials should be serving the American people, and only the American people.  There should never be any doubt about that.  But doesn't the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution already cover this?  I do not know the extent to which it might cover a federal official from doing business in foreign countries, as the clause refers to foreign governments.

It was never clear to me why Steve Witkoff was flying all over acting as Trump's envoy, when we have a Secretary of State to do that job.  According to the New York Post:  "Qatar spent $643 million in a leveraged buyout to bail out Witkoff and his partners in a New York hotel project."  Are we supposed to feel good about that?  I don't.

And, it hits closer to home.  The Post article continued:  "Eric Trump signed a $5.5 billion deal with a Qatari company to build a golf club and villas 40 miles north of Doha...and it's expected to net millions for the Trump clan."  I hope that everybody agrees that this is entirely unacceptable.  It was unacceptable, at least to the conservatives I know, when Biden seemed to be selling access and influence when he held office.  And while I'm sure those on the Left will agree with me now, many simply made excuses for Biden and his family at the time Biden was in office.  

But it all needs to stop.  And if this president or the next one were to veto such legislation, then I would expect sufficient votes in Congress to override any such veto.  Anyone in Congress not willing to do so, should not be reelected.  Yes, that's how strongly I fell about protecting the integrity of the federal government.  

The Bad...

That was quite a whirlwind tour of the Middle East - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE.  But before arriving in Saudi Arabia, Trump made a deal with the Houthis, the terrorist group in Yemen.  If they stopped attacking U.S. ships in the Gulf, he would stop bombing them.  It was disappointing to see that Trump did not insist on the Houthis ceasing their missile attacks on Israel as part of the deal.  And Israel was neither invited to any of the meetings with the various Arab leaders, nor was Israel one of the countries visited by Trump.

In Saudi Arabia, there was Trump signing a $600 billion investment deal with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS).  The arms deal was worth $142 billion.  And, it certainly looks as if Trump is willing to allow the Saudis to develop civilian use of nuclear energy.  Yes, the U.S. has a long history with the Saudis.  We protected them, and they provided cheap oil to us.  But, I can't help but feeling torn over this.  The Saudis were said to have had a hand in 9/11.  And they have exported their radical Wahhabism (part of Sunni Islam) to the US and to our educational system.  

Under MBS, Saudi control over their population has eased slightly.  And Trump did say some things I would expect any U.S. president to say.  "I stood here envisioning a Middle East that would eradicate terrorism and extremism, rising as one of the world's proudest, most prosperous and successful regions."  And Trump said he would like to see Saudi Arabia in the Abraham Accords, but said to MBS:  "you'll do it in your own time."  

I wish he had said something like this:  "I hope you will not delay in joining the Abraham Accords.  It is no secret that Hamas carried out their attacks against Israel on 10/7 in order to affect your decision.  Hamas knew that Israel would have to retaliate in a significant way.  The damage to Gaza, the deaths of their fellow Arabs - your fellow Arabs - means nothing to them.  By delaying your participation in the Abraham Accords, it only encourages Hamas to keep fighting, to the detriment of the people of Gaza.  Once you join the Accords, Hamas will have lost the backing of the most important of the Gulf Arab countries."

Trump said to MBS:  "I like visiting with you...I really believe we like each other a lot."  As I recall watching that, MBS sat there expressionless.  I dislike those types of comments.  It reminded me of George W. Bush saying:  "I looked the man (Putin) in the eye.  I found him very straightforward and trustworthy - I was able to get a sense of his soul."  No Bush!  No Trump!  Don't mistake these men for who they are.  If you believe that making deals with them is in America's interest, that's one thing.  But don't fawn over them.  And definitely do not be obsequious.  

A similar comment was made by Trump about the new leader of Syria, Ahmad al-Sharaa, who was in Saudi Arabia.  Trump described him as a "tough guy.  Strong past.  Very strong past.  Fighter."  Why?  Al-Sharaa was part of Al-Qaeda.  But Trump did say they have a lot of work to do in Syria, and hopes they will then join the Abraham Accords also.  In order to encourage movement in that direction, Trump announced that he was lifting sanctions on Syria.  

Then Trump went to Qatar.  Yes, Qatar is home to the forward base (Al Udeid Air Base) of the U.S. Central Command, which is headquartered in Florida.  Trump also signed deals with the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.  Qatar pledged to purchase up to 210 Boeing aircraft (787's and 777x's), valued at $96 billion.  Perhaps most concerning is the agreement for Qatar to purchase the MQ-9B reaper drones/pilotless aircraft, as well as advanced counter-drone capabilities.  

Let's not be naive.  Qatar provides perhaps the major source of funding for Hamas.  The same Hamas that killed and took as hostages American citizens.  Qatar has also provided a safe haven for the leaders of Hamas.  Guess who funds and controls anti-Israel and anti-America news organization (propaganda machine) Al Jazeera?  That would be Qatar.  Then we have vast amounts of money that Qatar sends to our colleges and universities in support of anti-American and anti-Israel "student" organizations.  And we've seen the type of effects that has had in our most elite universities.  Let me put this as clearly as possible:  Qatar supports terrorism!

Will these deals with Saudi Arabia and Qatar have a moderating influence on their governments?  Their governments are not democratically elected - they are monarchies.  But, Mike - we became friends with Germany and Japan after WWII.  Yes, we did.  After we defeated them in war, and they were basically at our mercy.  I understand the hope that having good economic relations may lead to less wars and less tension in the Middle East.  But that's a hope.  It does not appear that Trump insisted on any moderating concessions out of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.  Will economic relations alone be enough to moderate these two countries?  I do believe that economic relations can have beneficial effects on countries that are not considered to be free market economies.  Or democratically free.  In any event, insisting on political change has not usually worked.  

The Good...

I have to imagine that it's no surprise to anyone the speed at which things are happening in the second Trump Administration.  However, before I get to the events of this past week, let's have a brief recap of the first nearly 4 months of Trump's second term.

After Biden lied multiple times that he was unable to secure the southern border without Congressional action, and after his Secretary of Homeland Security, Mayorkas, lied multiple times and told the American people that the border was secure - Trump was able to significantly secure the border in a matter of weeks.  Southwest border crossings totaled 137,473 in March, 2024.  In March, 2025 that number was 7,181.  Still too many, but a huge drop off.  I have no doubt that Trump and Homan will continue to get those numbers lower.

I understand the concerns people have about masked ICE agents forcibly snatching people off the street.  And, I read about the 19 year old Georgia college student who is currently in ICE custody.  Her parents brought her here when she was 4 years old.  Where would she be deported to?  The U.S. is the only country she knows.  On the other hand, I have to ask what efforts she made to become a citizen.  If she is given leniency, which I do not oppose, I would expect that she would have to comply with significant court orders.

Trump set up DOGE, and has reduced the size of the federal bureaucracy.  Has it gone too far at times?  Yes.  But he is not the only President who has tried to reduce the size of the federal government, and in the process cut federal spending.  

What about DEI?  I have previously expressed my opinion that DEI is evil.  It supports racism and antisemitism.  And it encourages people to view the world immorally - not through the lens of right and wrong.  Rather, Black vs White, oppressed vs oppressors, and so on.  I'm happy to see the executive order ending it.  But, the Executive Order may have gone too far when it also eliminated "accessibility."  Disabled people should have access, whether or not they are favored.  But if a disabled person is qualified for a job, they should not be denied that because of being in a wheelchair.  

Biological men competing in women's sports?  Title IX was supposed to protect women's sports.  But a more favored small minority always seems to get priority for the Left.  I am not unsympathetic to people who may feel they were born into the wrong sex.  But that does not mean they get to upend a system that has long been in place.  And, if they remain with male genitalia, they should definitely not be sharing a locker room with biological females.  Of course, all this used to be considered common sense.  And if they are such a small minority, schools should be able to make some accommodation allowing them to change into and out of gym clothes privately.

Trump, as in his first term, issued another executive order intended to combat antisemitism.  Said the order:  "These attacks (of October 7, 2023) unleashed an unprecedented wave of vile antisemitic discrimination, vandalism, and violence against our citizens, especially in our schools and on our campuses."  While some say the order takes away free speech, I disagree.  Obviously, citizens can still say whatever they want about government policy (with very few limitations).  The issue is what can visa holders and green card holders say.  I have commented twice on Mahmoud Khalil.  He not only wants to see the end of Israel, he wants to see the end of America.  And he openly interfered with American citizens at Columbia being able to study and get to their classes.

I don't get it.  He is a guest in our country.  For those on the Left:  imagine I was invited into your house and "occupied" your bedroom and bathroom, and denied access to you.  And imagine I said horrible things to you and about you.  And accused you of oppressing people who are different from you in some way.  What would you do?  You would call the police to get me the hell out of your house.  Well, I want ICE to get someone like Khalil the hell out of our country.  If you're a guest, act like it!   

I have not agreed with everything Trump has said or done.  I criticized his unfair attacks on Zelenskyy.  I disagreed with eliminating all of USAID.  And, as noted above, sometimes the executive orders are taken too far.  The DOD web site had a page about the military service of Jackie Robinson.  They removed it.  Then, under pressure, they restored it.  The idea is not to rewrite history.  That's what the Soviets did.  The idea is to learn from it.  A similar thing happened at the National Park Service, when they removed, then restored, a quote from Harriet Tubman about the underground railroad.  That's part of our history.  Learn from these things, and understand that we should all be treated equally.  And, as MLK Jr. said - judged on the content of our character, not the color of our skin (or our religion or ethnic background).