"It's Personal." Is it though?

Sad to say, but a family member (more than one actually, but this post concerns one) is still not over the results of the 2024 election.  Meaning, not over Trump.  I have tried over the years to maintain relations with my nieces and nephews (except for one with whom I have had no relationship, perhaps unrelated to this topic) by periodically texting and talking.  Either just to say "hi, how are you," or to wish a happy birthday, or whatever the case may be.

Recently, to one such relative, my texts were going unanswered.  So I asked what the problem was.  The reply was rather shocking - I was asked if I am still MAGA, and a true Trump supporter.  Am I MAGA?  I've voted for Trump three times, yet I've never thought of myself as MAGA.  My self-identity is not tied to any particular politician or party.  I have my beliefs, mostly conservative, and that's that.  If I voted for Trump three times (again, I did) but also have criticized him, am I MAGA anyway?

Am I a true Trump supporter?  I do support Trump.  But, again, I've also criticized Trump.  So, have I been kicked out of the true Trump supporters club?  I just don't think of myself in those terms.  But these comments made me remember one time when I was in court when Obama was President.  I was complaining to another attorney that, contrary to Obama's promises about the ACA/Obamacare, we did not get to keep our insurance policy, and just staying with the same company with a different policy would cost us an additional $2400 a month.  I then added "Obama lied."  

The reaction was quite visceral.  It was as if I had accused that attorney of lying to me, rather than saying Obama lied.  He yelled:  "Don't say that about my President."  He was really saying "Don't say that about me."  But why?  Why is it personal to some people when their side is criticized, or disagreed with?  Why do people react like this?  I've had people say horrible things about Trump, to me.  I may not like it (I usually don't). but it's about Trump.  Trump is not me.  

Here is my analysis.  Some people have so internalized their worldview/weltanschauung that any criticism of their side is taken as a personal affront to them.  Their self identity is wrapped up in their worldview.  The two are inseparable.  Which would account for this family member telling me that it's not just a difference of opinion, it's personal.  Which also explains why it is impossible to have an intellectual discussion of issues with someone like that, because if you disagree with them, you are attacking them, and then it's all emotions.  It's personal.  A very bright friend from college noticed this, and said to me some 54 years ago, that if you challenge some people's worldview, their fundamental assumptions about the world, you may very well get a violent reaction.  

This exchange with this family member also brought to mind a quote from my post "Classical Liberalism," coincidentally posted exactly nine years ago today, on July 17, 2016.  In that post, I discuss the classical liberal treatise written by John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty."  With regards to speech, Mill wrote this:  "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

Unfortunately, so many of today's Democrats are no longer classical liberals.  They are Leftists, and we know that Leftists can brook no dissent.    

I'm Sick Of It! Really Sick Of It!

I am sick of much of the world blaming the Jews for everything.  It's bad enough that rightwing conservatives like Tucker Carlson blame Israel for controlling US foreign policy.  But then we have this Zohran Mamdani blaming Israel for being attacked on October 7, 2023.  Let's not blame Hamas (Mamdani refused to do so) - let's always blame the Jews.  The nationwide anti-Israel and pro-Hamas demonstrations started almost immediately after October 7.  Was that just coincidental?  Of course not.  These are coordinated efforts to end support for Israel among the US population and our elected officials.

And, it's working.  In a Pew Research Center poll conducted from March 24 to March 30, 2025, of 3,605 US adults, the numbers are disturbing.  Comparing views of Israel this year with 2022, 53% of US adults have a negative view of Israel, compared to 42% in 2022.  Of course, among Democrats and those leaning Democrat, the negative view of Israel has increased from 53% in 2022 to 69% in 2025.  That's a whopping 70% of Democrats.  

The numbers are better for Republicans and those leaning Republican, with negative views of Israel increasing from 27% in 2022 to 37% in 2025.  But it is an upward trend among all groups.  The religious breakdown?  Thankfully, 73% of Jews have a favorable view of Israel, 27% do not.  A good number, but one that should approach 100% favorability.  I was surprised by the Catholic numbers - 53% favorable but 45% unfavorable.  Protestants had similar numbers, with 57% favorable and 40% unfavorable.  Not surprisingly, white evangelical Protestants had 72% favorable and 26% unfavorable.

Most disturbing to me were the percentages of Muslims with an unfavorable view of Israel - 81%, with only 19% favorable.  Early on in the blog, and over a period of years, I did a multi-part post called "Are We At War With Islam?"  In Part VI of that post (written on 6/20/16) I pointed out that Sharia Law was inconsistent with Western values of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and the basic value of freedom of the individual.  Does every Muslim believe in Sharia Law?  Obviously not.  Yet far too many are unwilling to blame Hamas and the radical Islamists (Hezbollah, the Houthis and the puppet masters in Iran, the Ayatollahs) for much of anything.  

I don't get it.  My view of the world is that bad guys, obvious bad guys, are, well, bad guys.  Putting gays to death.  Bad guys.  Israel has a large gay pride parade every year.  They don't put gays to death.  Israel allows everyone to practice their religion.  No one gets put to death for renouncing Judaism, as can happen in Islam.  And what is with this concept of "honor killings?"  Don't even get me started.

Are Jews also responsible for the way Muslim countries have treated Christians?  There were an estimated 1.5 million Christians in Iraq before 2003.  Now, about 150,000 to 250,000.  Given the rise of ISIS, and the violence and persecution, many fled.  Same thing with Lebanon.  When Christians controlled the country, Beirut was a center of tourism and culture and international finance.  But with the Lebanese civil war, and the rise of Hezbollah, well, you know the rest.  No one is flocking to Beirut, a city that was once called the Riviera of the Middle East.  

What about Gaza?  Same thing.  Christians fled after Hamas took over in 2007.  But what about Israel causing Palestinians to be displaced in 1948?  Some were undoubtedly displaced.  Others left voluntarily.  And still others left because the surrounding Arab countries assured them they would wipe Israel off the map, after which they could return.  But the Christian population is alive and well in Israel.  And about 800,000 Jews were displaced from the countries surrounding Israel, during and after Israel's war for independence (1948-1949).  

 Here's an important question.  How many Christians who were persecuted, who had to flee countries taken over by Muslims, who had lived in those countries for generations and then had to give up their land and possessions - how many of them went on killing rampages like Hamas and other radical Islamist groups have done?  The answer is they didn't.  When Christians and Jews were displaced from Arab countries, they moved on to make lives for themselves wherever they ended up.  They started families.  They started businesses.  They made the best of their situation. 

I have repeatedly said in the blog that I do not believe every Muslim hates the Jews.  But look at these poll numbers.  81% have an unfavorable view of Israel.  Why don't they condemn Hamas?  Why does Mamdani refuse to condemn Hamas?  With the billions of dollars in aid that they have received, Hamas has chosen to build hundreds of miles of underground tunnels so that they can sneak into Israel and kill Jews.  They have purchased material to make rockets and missiles to fire into Israel.  

Gaza is on the Mediterranean Sea.  Hamas could have built a modern society for their people, and attracted tourism and industry.  Time after time after time they chose not to do so.  Because 77 years after the reestablishment of the State of Israel, they would rather kill Jews than move on.  They have shown that they don't give a damn about the people of Gaza, knowing full well that their constant wars with Israel will result in death and destruction in Gaza.  Every other "refugee" group in the world (and there have been many throughut history) has moved on.  Instead of blaming Hamas for not moving on, for not accepting reality, the world blames Israel.  AND I'M SICK OF IT!     

Might Zohran Mamdani Be Elected Mayor Of Our Country's Largest City? (Part II, Is Mamdani An Antisemite And Jew Hater?)

Mamdani's Assembly District covers Astoria, Queens, and surrounding areas.  Astoria has about 20,000 Jewish residents.  In an article in the Forward, a leftwing Jewish newspaper, one local business owner who is Jewish, described Mamdani as "a pretty upstanding, decent guy, trying to do the right thing."  Really?  How is that so given this man's next comment, pointing out that Mamdani refused to condemn Hamas by name after the attack on October 7.  This Jewish business owner said he was "disappointed" by that failure of Mamdani.  Disappointed?  That's it?  Only disappointed that Mamdani would not call out the group that committed the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust.  I'm a lot more than just "disappointed."

This same individual also hoped Mamdani would have have responded differently when he refused to denounce the phrase "globalize the intifada."  You would have hoped for a different reply?  That's it?  In an interview with NBC News, Mamdani was given 3 opportunities to denounce the phrase.  He refused to do so.  His excuse was he did not want to police language.  (If someone called for killing Muslims you can be sure Mamdani would be policing that language.)  As a reminder, the Arabs committed two intifadas against Israel.  The first was from December, 1987 through September, 1993.  The second was from September, 2000 through February, 2005.

Maybe the second intifada is more fresh in everyone's mind.  It started after Bill Clinton had Yassir Arafat, head of the PLO, and Ehud Barak, then Israeli P.M., to the White House.  Even though Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state on almost the entirety of the West Bank, Arafat walked out on the President of the United States and returned to Ramallah, and started the second intifada.  Intifada is interpreted to mean "uprising."  And what was the nature of this uprising.  Arafat sent so-called "suicide bombers" (more accurately "homicide bombers") to blow up Israelis.  Where?  On buses, in cafes, at malls, and even at a Passover Seder.  You know, civilians.  Men, women and children. 

One might think that the world got the message, that the Palestinians did not want a state of their own as long as Israel still exists.  They said it enough times.  Arafat proved it.  With the second intifada 600-700 Israeli civilians were killed.  Murdered.  The only difference between that and the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, is that Hamas was able to kill more civilians.  I want to know why this Jewish business owner was not outraged by Mamdani's refusal to criticize Hamas by name for the October 7 attack.  In fact, I want to know why this man was not furious over Mamdani refusing to criticize the phrase "globalize the intifada."  

Anyone who uses that phrase is calling for Jews worldwide to be assaulted and killed.  Why isn't the rise in antisemitism and outright Jew hatred enough to infuriate this Jewish business owner?  How dare you call Mamdani a "pretty upstanding, decent guy!"  My problem with anyone on the Left, especially Jews on the Left, is that you will come to the defense of every other minority group in the world (black, gays, trans, etc.) but you will not defend your own people.  I've seen it time and again.  

What does Mamdani think of Israel?  Not much.  After October 7, Mamdani said this:  "The path toward a just and lasting peace can only begin by ending the occupation and dismantling apartheid."  In other words, blame the Jews for October 7.  It's always blame the Jews.  The occupation?  Israel vacated Gaza in 2005.  Apartheid?  If Israel is an apartheid state, how does he explain that Arabs in Israel are doctors and lawyers and judges and members of the Knesset (the Parliament).  Recall that Mamdani co-founded his college's chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). What did SJP have to say about October 7?  They called it a "historic win for the Palestinian resistance."   

This "pretty upstanding, decent guy" also supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel.  He participated in the pro-Hamas demonstrations.  And he will not say that Israel has a right to exist as the one Jewish state in the world.  But, clearly not all Jewish people have lost their sanity.  Not all have given up on defending their own people.  One Jewish woman quoted in that Forward article opined this way:  "I certainly don't think that somebody who has a hard time condemning terrorism against Jews should be mayor of any city in our country."  Amen to that!     

If Mamdani wins, will more Jews leave NYC?  As of May, 2024, the UJA-Fedeeration of New York, found that the number of Jewish people living in NYC is approximately 960,000, with another 412,000  in three nearby suburban counties.  Those numbers are down, and would likely go lower with a Mamdani victory.  Would businesses and business owners leave?  Would millionaires and billionaires leave?  Mamdani has said he does not believe there should be billionaires.  If wealthy people leave, who is going to pay for all the "free" stuff?  

Might Zohran Mamdani Be Elected Mayor Of Our Country's Largest City? (Part I, Mamdani's Background And Politics)

Mr. Mamdani is now the Democratic Candidate for Mayor of New York City.  With NYC's "ranked voting," Mamdani ended up with 56% of the vote compared to Andrew Cuomo's 44%.  The lesser candidates who received votes, end up being dropped under the ranked voting system.  So what do we do know about Mamdani?  He attended a private school and then the Bronx High School of Science.  Then he went to Bowdoin College in Maine.  Bowdoin is a small liberal arts college.  Also private.  He was unsuccessful in his efforts to become a rapper.  Mamdani was elected to the New York State Assembly in 2020, and continues to hold that office.

He was born in Uganda, and became a naturalized citizen in 2018.  He is a Shia Muslim, and is married.  Mamdani's father is a professor at Columbia University.  His father has a "decolonial"/"post-colonial" view of the world.  At Bowdoin, Zohran Mamdani co-founded the school's chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, an organization that many believe has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.  What about Mamdani's politics?

He is an avowed member of the Democratic Socialists of America, although his stated policies would arguably support communism.  He has called for seizing the means of production, defunding the police, abolishing the prison system, banning all guns, free childcare for all, free buses for all and city run grocery stores.  I love "free" stuff.  It just means nobody has to pay for it, right?  No, it means somebody else pays for it.  

When Rudy Guiliani was Mayor of NYC, his policies made the city safe again after Mayor Dinkins.  Not by defunding the police, but by having the police show no tolerance even for so-called minor offenses.  It was the "broken windows" theory of policing, and it worked.  But Mamdani has a different take on the police, as reflected in this 2020 Tweet:  "We don't need an investigation to know that the NYPD is racist, anti-queer and a major threat to public safety."    

I wonder how city run grocery stores would operate.  I remember seeing pictures of government run grocery stores in the Soviet Union.  Many shelves were empty.  Is Mamdani perhaps thinking of expanded food banks, run not by private charities but by the government?  I don't know.  But, it appears that the food would be "free."  

What about this organization, the Democratic Socialists of America.  As their name suggests, they are not particularly fond of capitalism.  Capitalism - a system that has created more wealth for more people than any other system.  Is capitalism perfect?  Of course not.  But, the problem with many on the Left is this - if something is not perfect we need to get rid of it.  Of course, government run organizations work better.  What government run system would that be?  Don't tell me the military.  Because the military is more akin to an authoritarian system, which it has to be in order to function.  But who wants that for the civil society?  

Some other Democrats consider themselves to be democratic socialists, although I do not know if they are official members.  Nevertheless, the DSA has endorsed them - Senator Bernie Sanders, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Representative Rashida Tlaib.  Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez went on a nationwide campaign against Trump, drawing sizeable crowds.  So, is this the direction of the Democratic party?  Continue to move far left even after the country showed it was more center oriented in the last election.  The Democrtic National Committee did make David Hogg the vice-chair.  He is not exactly a centrist Democrat.

Iranian Nukes, Revisited, Part III

Breaking News!  The U.S. has attacked three of Iran's nuclear sites.  President Trump to address the nation at 10pm Eastern time tonight.

Those opposed to U.S. action have neglected some important facts.  One is that Iran has repeatedly referred to the United States as the "Great Satan."  Israel is the "Little Satan."  Also, Iran has been seeking ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles).  They don't need ICBMs to reach Israel.  They do to reach the U.S.

A friend and colleague who writes his own blog, opposed U.S. involvement.  I replied to him as follows:  "First, I'll remind you that every president this century has said that it's unacceptable for Iran to get a nuclear weapon.  Second, Iran, both directly and indirectly through its proxies, have taken Americans hostage, have killed Americans, and have attacked American bases.  Third, Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror.  Imagine if they had nuclear weapons what actions  they would feel free to take beyond what they've already done...

Fourth, Israel is our best ally in the Middle East.  We share the same democratic values.  Israeli intelligence has proven to be a tremendous asset to the United States...what message are we sending to the world if we refuse to come to the aid of one of our closest allies in the world?  China and Russia will surely get the message.  Russia will have no incentive to stop the war in Ukraine.  China will think they will have free rein with regards to Taiwan...imagine what (our Sunni Arab allies) would think - if the U.S. won't even support Israel, there's no chance they would come to our defense.  They would have to consider closer ties to Russia and China."  

I then told my friend about 2 opposing views of war and peace.  Jimmy Carter:  "'War may sometimes be a necessary evil.  But no matter how necessary it is always an evil, never a good.'  How very wrong...Contrast that with Teddy Roosevelt:  'Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy.'"

Today, President Trump did what every other president this century only gave lip service to.  When Trump said Iran must not get a nuclear weapon, he actually meant it.  Six of the 30,000 pound bunker busting bombs were dropped on Iran's hardened nuclear sites (Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan), and 30 tomahawk missiles were also deployed.  No one should be surprised.  Trump refused to sign the proposed G-7 statement calling for Israel and Iran to de-escalate.  That would have allowed the Iranian nuclear program to get multiple nuclear bombs. 

So, I say G-d bless President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu.  Those two leaders are the only true leaders in the Western world.  They understand "peace through Strength."  As for those MAGA isolationists, who claim U.S. involvement would fracture MAGA (such as Marjorie Taylor Greene), Trump posted on June 16:  "AMERICA FIRST means many GREAT things, including the fact that IRAN CANNOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.  MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN." 

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."