An alternative title for this piece could be “Nobel Peace Prize for Trump?”
Three recent events in international relations have been heralded as successes by many Trump supporters and of course, derided or spun as disasters by his detractors. Three Americans, long held as political prisoners of North Korea, were returned to U.S. soil in a peace gesture by the North Korean government. President Trump announced the U.S. was withdrawing from Obama’s Iran nuclear deal as he had long promised, and the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem finally opened.
Particularly the hope of peace and denuclearization in the Korean peninsula has led to talk of the Nobel Peace Prize going to Donald Trump.
That award would be premature but less ridiculous than awarding it to Obama in 2009, for campaign promises-it was awarded before he had been even inaugurated. While the North Korean negotiations could still blow up, this is the most promising development in obtaining a lasting peace since the end of the Korean War in 1953.
Why has the North Korean nuclear threat only intensified under each U.S. President since Clinton but may be resolved peacefully by the foreign policy novice Trump? It’s called “Peace Through Strength,” and Donald Trump’s message is: Get used to it.
President George Washington told us, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving the peace." And in rebuilding our then-atrophied military capabilities, President Ronald Reagan abbreviated that sound advice to his motto, adopted by President Trump, "Peace through Strength."
You obtain peace through strength, not appeasement or accommodation. Ronald Reagan backed the Soviet Union down not only by talking tough but through military spending as well.
On the campaign trail, candidate Donald Trump promised us a return to the Reagan-era doctrine of “peace through strength.” Over the last two weeks, the Trump administration has begun implementing that doctrine in a dramatic fashion.
Trump also declared that he had paid North Korea "zippo" for the release of these American — in contrast to President Obama’s release of billions to Iran along with concessions to achieve the "worst deal" in history.
Barack Obama gave the Iranian regime $150 billion and it bought nothing. It is still the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and is now only richer- not moderating or “normalizing” at all. Neither money nor accommodation will buy off an aggressive dictatorship. Standing your ground may back them down though.
Every President since Truman had promised to move the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, but Trump was the one to actually do it. Hamas may be protesting now, but those terrorists are willing to sacrifice their own civilians, even children to play to an already anti-Israeli media.
Speaking of Israel, here’s an interesting analogy between the events leading to World War II and the situation in the Middle East today.
History will show that Netanyahu has been a Churchill, Obama was a Chamberlain, and President Trump is a pro-Israel Roosevelt.
Winston Churchill’s main goal was to convince President Roosevelt to get into the military conflict to crush Nazi Germany. Netanyahu’s goal has been to find a Roosevelt and convince him to stand up alongside Israel to crush Iran with crippling economic sanctions first and then unchain the Israeli army to attack Iran and its proxies in the Middle East.
Obama was a Chamberlain all along, believing that negotiating, appeasing, and conceding to an evil regime will stop its sinister aspirations of taking over the Middle East. But with Trump, Netanyahu found a Roosevelt whom he was able to convince to join the fight against evil similar to Reagan confronting the Soviet Union into total regime collapse.
President Trump will never be recognized for these accomplishments by the media. I really believe Donald Trump could cure cancer today, and the New York Times and their lap-dog sycophants would have nothing good to say about it.
