dialmformusicology.com/2017/02/15/tru… regarding the handshake. Quite a bit of planning, and forethought. I don't feel sorry for Trump, I disapprove of Trudeau's actions. Great fun, tells us quite a bit about our PM. (still voted for him, who wants a pushover PM?)
Ain't it funny how Obama's Iran deal was "bad" even though it was an actual deal with binding stipulations that Iran was proven, internationally, to have been complying with, but Donald Trump gets Kim to pinkie promise him and all of a sudden that's considered a historic deal?
Even with those stipulations, the Iran deal was considered largely impotent by many analysts and politicians alike. The stipulations did not actually prevent them from developing nuclear weapons, merely throw a temporary halt, extending the time before they became nuclear capable.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_…investors.com/politics/editorials/the…nationalreview.com/2015/10/why-iran-d…So while the deal was working as intended, the deal was never truly effective in the first place.
As for the deal with NK, the easiest way to sum it up is: NK is already a nuclear power, and has ICBMs. A pinkie promise is essentially all that has kept the world from MAD in the first place. By getting North Korea to say they will (whether or not they choose to follow it) denuclearize fully, Trump has achieved more than Obama ever did with either North Korea - under the exact same leadership - or Iran.
Compare:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Compreh…With:
nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/full… (sadly Wikipedia seems to be slacking)
While one uses much more technical language, and is 109 pages long - the JCPA - it does not prevent nuclear development in anyway. In fact at the conclusion of this treaty, Iran, if they had not already become nuclear, would be closer than before. In fact the confiscating of their uranium stockpiles would leave them with a significant enough stockpile to become nuclear in months, if not weeks.
The shorter, simpler document, makes clear and with no room for maneuvering, that to abide by the agreement they strive towards complete denuclearization, as well as other agreements that seem to be ignored in favor of the hot button issue.
Arguing as to whether they will abide by this, while worthwhile to some extent considering their past, is ultimately pointless. As certain parties argued as Trump declared the Iran deal a failure "Any deal is better than no deal!" Following that logic, the true value of this deal will be determined by the actions of the DPRK that follows. Should it succeed, the deal will have ended one threat to global security, permanently. Had the JCPA succeeded, it merely would have postponed a global security threat.
Edit: Finally both matters are exceedingly complex and attempting to compare the two, while they appear similar, is comparing apple's and oranges (HA!) Both can be broken down with much more detail without attempting to connect the two.
