MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Trump Foreign Policy Doctrine? 'I'm Trump, Bitch'

He celebrates his weak deal with North Korea while tearing up the Iran deal only because Obama signed it

Piss TrumpShikha DalmiaDonald Trump's cheerleaders claim that he deserves credit for lowering tensions with North Korea—that he himself created, btw—and pulling off a successful summit with King Jong-un. And, to be sure, I note in my column at The Week, any day that Trump does not blow up the world should feel like a victory.

But the problem with Trump is not that he is making a deal with Kim, it is that Trump is tearing up similar deals his predecessors had made just because he didn't make them. The North Korea deal is likely going to end up being much weaker than the one Obama signed with Iran. But he called it "terrible" and "the worst deal ever" and tore it up. But he's celebrating his handiwork because it is his.

Trump's foreign policy isn't "We're America, bitch," as a senior White House advisor told The Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg. It is "This is Trump, bitch."

Go here to read the piece

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I get this weird feeling that Shikha doesn't like Donald.

  • Just Say'n||

    Not true. Without Trump, Shikha might not be employed. There is a symbiotic relationship between the unhinged president and his insane detractors.

    I blame the Russians

  • Yellow Tony||

    I blame the Jewish Russians. Can't get anymore evil than that.

  • Just Say'n||

    Jewish Nazis trumps Jewish Russians

  • Just Say'n||

    "The North Korea deal is likely going to end up being much weaker than the one Obama signed with Iran."

    I repeat, if you criticized the Iran deal, but praised the North Korean talks then you may be a partisan hack. And vice versa.

    But, we already knew that Shikha was a partisan hack, right? Or are we still pretending?

  • I can't even||

    I thought she was just a parody of a liberal pretending to be a libertarian.

  • Just Say'n||

    Pretty sure that's ENB and "newly woke" Matt Welch now

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Progressive Libertarian"

    Seriously. It's in a short bio she has floating around.

  • Adam330||

    There is plenty of room for opposing the NK deal and supporting the Iran deal. Folks like Pompeo and Trump criticized the Iran deal because it had insufficient verification, but at least it actually had verification. The NK deal does not even use the word verification. I realize that the NK deal is just a preliminary framework and the administration envisions a full agreement later, but how likely is it that NK is going to agree to some comprehensive verification regime when Trump couldn't even convince them to put the word verification in the framework? There was a similar framework agreement for the Iran deal and it had lots of language about verification.

  • Just Say'n||

    "I realize that the NK deal is just a preliminary framework and the administration envisions a full agreement later"

    Did you just argue against yourself in real time?

  • Adam330||

    Reading comprehension is hard.

  • Just Say'n||

    It really isn't.

    You just compared a finished deal to the entry stage of a new deal. Let's now compare the livability of a finished house to a bunch of piled up wood and nails.

    If this is the best argument in defense of Shikha's hypocritical position then clearly TDS is one hell of a drug

  • Adam330||

    No, I compared the Iran framework from Nov. 23, 2013 to the Trump NK framework. " There was a similar framework agreement for the Iran deal and it had lots of language about verification."

  • Just Say'n||

    The Iran deal framework followed months of backdoor exchanges between the US and Iran. Trump made these exchanges public with his meeting with Kim. So, it makes sense to fault Trump for not engaging in backdoor negotiations instead of the public meeting, but comparing the Iran framework with the initial meeting is sort of an apple and oranges comparison.

    And I'm not even criticizing the Iran deal, necessarily. I'm only saying that it's not a fair comparison.

  • Adam330||

    There have been months of backdoor exchanges going on with NK too. Pompeo met Kim in late March or early April, and there have been lots of lower level discussions.

  • Just Say'n||

    It's probably a good thing to take a wait and see approach to any negotiations with a foreign power. The reverse Fox News done on the Left with this is enjoyable, though

  • Adam330||

    The problem is that this is now the framework set out by the top level leaders. The high level is deal is "to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula" and "security guarantees to the DPRK."

    When the lower level US negotiators say, ok let's turn to verification, the Norks are going to say, what verification? I don't see verification here in this agreement.

    And by framing the goal as "complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula," the Norks are going to be a in a position to start demanding that the US eliminate is nuclear umbrella over SK in return for them giving up their nukes. It's a complete disaster of an agreement.

  • Cyto||

    Yeah.... that's what they were pointing out.

    The top level guys said the goal is complete denuclearization. That's a pretty big deal. That was never a stated goal of NK. They agreed to "limit their actions at this nuclear site" and such in the past in exchange for actual stuff... like money. They didn't follow through on their side of the deal.

    Now they have an agreement that they are going to work toward complete denuclearization. This is actually a big deal, even if it is Trump doing the negotiating.

    If you want to find a parallel for criticism, it isn't Iran. The parallel on this meeting is Gorbachev and Reagan in Iceland. The two leaders went rogue and agreed to complete nuclear disarmament. Their advisers shit a collective brick and everything got reeled back in as soon as they left the meeting.

    Expecting Kim to get a dose of reality from his "advisers" and the whole thing to collapse is a rational prognostication. Fretting that there is no verification regime at this point is not a rational critique.

  • Adam330||

    You are just completely full of it. NK has specifically promised denuclearization many times in the past and promised not to get nukes even more that. Here are just two examples.

    - Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, January 20, 1992. North and South Korea sign an agreement that "the South and the North shall not test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use nuclear weapons."
    - Six-Party Talks, September 19, 2005, North Korea "committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning, at an early date, to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to IAEA safeguards."

  • damikesc||

    When the lower level US negotiators say, ok let's turn to verification, the Norks are going to say, what verification? I don't see verification here in this agreement.

    "MY HYPOTHETICAL PROVES THIS DEAL IS REALLY, REALLY BAD!!!"

  • I can't even||

    You did a good job of describing why it's a stupid comparison.

  • Adam330||

    Let's compare the NK deal to the framework agreement for the Iran deal then. The Iran framework from Nov. 24, 2013 (which was the basis for the final deal in 2015) specifically said: "A Joint Commission of E3/EU+3 and Iran will be established to monitor the implementation of the near-term measures and address issues that may arise, with the IAEA responsible for verification of nuclear-related measures." It also had a list of five specific items of "enhanced monitoring" that Iran agreed to, including "Daily IAEA inspector access when inspectors are not present for the purpose of Design Information Verification, Interim Inventory Verification, Physical Inventory Verification, and unannounced inspections, for the purpose of access to offline surveillance records, at Fordow and Natanz."

    Where is that in Trump's NK deal? He couldn't even get Kim to agree to some kind of verification.

  • mtrueman||

    "Folks like Pompeo and Trump criticized the Iran deal because it had insufficient verification, but at least it actually had verification. "

    It's just a pretext. I doubt Trump cares much about verification or countries like Iran or North Korea getting and possessing nuclear weapons. Israel and Saudi Arabia were against warming relations between US and Iran, and that's more than enough reason to oppose the deal.

  • damikesc||

    So, your argument is bullshit, by your own words? Thanks.

  • JeremyR||

    Except North Korea is not a threat to its neighbors.

    Iran funds terrorism in other countries. They're currently in Syria (posing a threat to Israel), they are currently in Yemen (again, so they can potentially attack Saudi Arabia)

  • Juice||

    Except North Korea is not a threat to its neighbors.

    Someone actually typed this out and clicked submit.

  • General_Tso||

    She's on a roll this week.

  • SoCal Deathmarch||

    Just when you think she has hit peak retard she somehow reaches deep inside and manages to strangle the life out of her few remaining brain cells. It's quite impressive, especially for a mentally handicapped person.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    She sounds like a cosmotarian Howard Beale, only with more crazy.

  • lap83||

    If every undocumented immigrant opened up a popcorn food truck, would they make enough for the resulting Shikha article?

  • I can't even||

    "only because Obama signed it."

    Yeah - that's the only problem with that "deal".

  • Ken Shultz||

    "He celebrates his weak deal with North Korea while tearing up the Iran deal only because Obama signed it"

    Reads like something you'd hear someone on the next bar stool say. Might as well publish comments from random strangers as they come down the sidewalk.

    It's amazing to see someone get paid for this.

  • Cyto||

    It is funny …. funny interesting, not funny ha-ha … watching all of the projection going on.

    Obama literally did cancel stuff just because it was Bush's. I'm particularly thinking of Nasa's Mars mission. The rocket, the capsule, the goal.... all of it. And there was much cheering from the left - emphatically from the science community of all places. People like Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse-Tyson opined about how everyone at NASA hated that program and the administrator and the administration and it all had to go. Hurrah for robotic missions!!

    And then just a couple of years later Obama brought it all back. The capsule, the rocket, the mission... all with minor tweaks that made it much more expensive. And all of the exact same lefties cheered it as a bold vision for the future. Not a single quibble. No problem with wasting tens of billions in the delay. No problem with the idiotic "senate rocket" that is only designed to maintain the Shuttle program's political payoffs.

    There's no indication that any of Trump's antipathy toward anything is because "it was Obama's". Well, other than the obvious narcissistic tendency to take credit for everything for himself. And this is particularly acute in the case of the Iran deal, as Trump has been critical of everything done in the middle east by anyone for a very long time. It is almost as if he has figured out that nothing works in that region, so second guessing everything is a strategy that always pays off.

  • damikesc||

    Hell, I'll go far and say: If the Senate is not required to approve/deny this deal...then this is as bad as Iran.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Might as well publish comments from random strangers as they come down the sidewalk."

    For the articles lately, and certainly any of Shikha's, it would be an improvement.

  • Yellow Tony||

    Whenever I wish to commit some sort of malefaction (e.g. stealing skin mags, jaywalking, selling kids oregano in my banana hammock, downloading a car, etc.), I identify myself as "America."
    For example, I was at one of my gay fountain parties a few weeks ago, and I slowly became more aroused as the event went on. Sadly, our matinee only allowed brief kisses (losers); so I decided to have sex with the one of the downspouts belong to the host's house. To obviate any possible repercussions, I simply put on my "America" shirt and went to bone town; it worked!
    Incidentally, I also plunged my penis into a nest of spiders. For that, I do apologize. Pedophilia is wrong.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    This is what happens when you elect McAfee.

  • Just Say'n||

    That's why McAfee is the best libertarian candidate right now. People will vote for him out of fear.

  • Rhywun||

    This shtick kind of works if I read it in Stewie's voice.

  • Yellow Tony||

    You're just jealous you weren't invited. These homosexual fountain parties typically have fantastic catering. After I fucked the downspout (and thus those poor baby spiders), everybody gathered to eat sashimi off a guy's chiseled chest. Of course, if this were a homoerotic party, we'd be eating off more than that a beautiful chest.

  • Aloysious||

    Bone Town. I like it. Sounds like a glam-metal band.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    OT: The Authoritarian
    Right and Left

    Excellent article about libertarianism.

  • Just Say'n||

    Milton Friedman is on the far "anarchist right". This guy needs to get out more. He'd shit himself if he ever read Rothbard.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I don't think he is the originator of those graphics. And I am pretty sure he read Rothbard, since he is well acquainted with Hoppe.

  • Just Say'n||

    I made a mistake. I misread the chart.

    Is this your blog? You can be honest. I liked the article. I thought parts of it were spot on.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    No, but I can see why you would think that, lol. The guy does sound like me.

  • Yellow Tony||

    Damn, that webpage is ugly; however, it also doesn't load a shit ton of superfluous scripts and graphics. For that, it should be commended.

  • Citizen X||

    You trying to give lc another stroke?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

  • Yellow Tony||

    The fact that people seriously discuss incels is hilarious.

  • Citizen X||

    Yes, well, regular and enthusiastic participation in public orgies isn't mandatory in this timeline, like it is in yours.

  • Yellow Tony||

    Don't slander my dimension. Nothing is mandatory; it's just heavily encouraged that you lose your virginity by the age of 14, so parents usually hold parties for all their pansexual children with the goal of accomplishing this important milestone in bulk. Calling this an "orgy" has negative connotations and is simply misleading.

  • Citizen X||

    It is "This is Trump, bitch."

    Isn't it, though?

  • Yellow Tony||

    No. Trump isn't real. He's merely a meat suit filled with sentient Furbies.
    Supposed ladies and esteemed gentlemen, we must stop this Furby threat before our country--nay--our planet is dominated by these disturbing, rapey, and machinating creatures.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Your dimension is starting to sound terrifying.

  • Yellow Tony||

    "Starting?" The horrific war with the fish people wasn't terrifying enough for you? The Jacket died fighting off our oceanic nemesis during the initial invasion. Have some fucking respect.

  • Just Say'n||

    "It's good that the Furbies are raping everyone. This is 7th dimensional anal rape chess that our president is playing here. The liberal media won't report on the fact that one Furbie rape resulted in a man seeing a doctor and determining that he has colon cancer. They're already making America great again. Democrats love colon cancer."

    - Sean "Sensei" Hannity

    (He knows karate)

  • Yellow Tony||

    Fantastic, man.
    Funnily enough, during the Sea People's invasion of humanity's lands, Sean "Sensei" Hannity was captured by the traitorous Ed and was augmented to become half Sea Person, half human. So while Hannity wasn't kicking ass with karate, he was brutally laying eggs in his human victims' mouths.

  • Z565||

    Trump sycophants in the media: Trump has to kiss Kim's ass and deal with him as an equal because Kim has nuclear weapons. Nevermind the human rights atrocities because Kim has nuclear weapons.

  • Just Say'n||

    Presidents meeting with foreign tyrants that abuse human rights is unseemly. But, enough about Saudi Arabia...

  • Just Say'n||

    Pinochet, Franco, the Ayatollahs, Saddam Hussein, the Saudis, the Chinese, the Soviets, the South Koreans (under their dictatorship).......

    None of this happened! Reality began when Rachel Maddow said it began!

  • Z565||

    I have no issue with talking and dealing with tyrants. My point was that in defending Trump Republicans have revealed how indispensable nuclear weapons are for Kim.

  • perlchpr||

    Is there any world leader who didn't see what happened to Muammar Khaddafi and figure that out immediately already?

  • Z565||

    It's not that. It's that Kim is nothing without nuclear weapons and Republicans are inadvertently making the point in their defense of Trump's behavior. You'll never get Kim to give up nuclear weapons because it's all he has to defend his regime against the next Trump who gets elected.

  • Just Say'n||

    Countries with nuclear weapons get the attention of major powers.

    Yes, that is accurate.

    Republicans are being hypocrites here.

    Yes and so are Democrats. That's how this game works unfortunately.

  • mtrueman||

    Countries with nuclear weapons get the attention of major powers.


    But it's minor powers who are pulling Trump's strings here. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia oppose closer relations between US and Iran, and South Korea and Japan both want to see a less roguish North Korea.

  • damikesc||

    Most Americans oppose closer relations with the Iranian mullahs as well. Only Europe wants it, and they tend to like a lot of extremely stupid things.

  • John||

    The two agreements are entirely different. Just because one agreement is bad doesn't mean every agreement is bad or that criticizing a bad agreement means you missy object to all agreements. You talking point is just stupid

  • John||

    Kim has tens of thousands of artillery poeces pointed at Souel and has tons of chemical and biological weapons. He is not nothing without nukes. The only reason he has nukes is because Clinton let him have them.

    He just agreed in principle to give up his nukes in return for a promise we won't attack him, something we should not do anyway. And you are bitching about that?

  • JeremyR||

    Yeah, but the only one threatened by his conventional forces is South Korea.

  • damikesc||

    But Iran was great because it dealt with their human rights viol...oh wait.

  • damikesc||

    Donald Trump's cheerleaders claim that he deserves credit for lowering tensions with North Korea—that he himself created, btw

    Hitting blatant falsehoods earlier than usual in this piece, eh?

  • John||

    She is just dishonest. No one is this stupid

  • Tony||

    He did threaten to totally destroy their entire country. I suppose you're suggesting that Trump is a toddler-brained gasbag nobody should take seriously?

  • JeremyR||

    Iran wants to be a regional power. The regional superpower. And to spread its form of Islam all over the world. And it's been using the cash that Obama gave them to put troops in Syria (where they threaten Israel) and fund rebels in Yemen, presumably the ultimate goal of taking over Saudi Arabia.

    North Korea does not. Do they do stupid stuff? Yes. Are they a threat to anyone besides South Korea without their nukes? No.

  • Harvard||

    Shecky is blowing Gillespie. The only explanation.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Reason is now a clickbait site for Shikha at other sites?

    Also, Reason now bitches about an attempt to finally end the Korean War and hostilities with NK? Really?

    Gone all NeoCon just because you love the cut of their NeverTrumper jib?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online