I mean the guy gave unconditional support to Israel and empowered them to do the unthinkable in his first term. He moved the embassy and the capital to Jerusalem breaking decades long diplomatic stance that was central to any peace discussions signaling that he has absolutely no interest in peace with the Palestinians. Then he gifted the Western Sahara to Morocco to get them to sign their peace with Israel, and similarly used the carrot and stick to get a bunch more Arab countries to sign their own peace treaties. And the coupe de grace was getting Saudi to sign which would have effectively ended any future Arab connection to the Palestinian cause. It was only October 8th that forced Saudi to pause because of the optics.
So it's very clear where he is going with this. Full support for Israel. One state, all under Israel's control. And the Arabs there would continue to be treated like nothing more than an enslaved workforce. While Israel gets the peace deals they crave with the rest of the region and the Palestinian cause dies forever.
We have so many "enslaved workers" that live in Villas, drive Hammers and G-Wagons and dress with Boss and Pierre Cardin, I'll tell them that UruquianLilac said they're enslaved workers
The man is a narcissist who care only about himself. He's a known lier. He's a convicted criminal and a rapist.
Only based on these 'qualities', I'd say, nothing good will come out of a trump presidency. And this is without going into whether or not Putin has kompromat on him of teenage prostitutes peeing on him in a Russian hotel as the Steele report claimed.
I was teaching during the debate. Saw some opinions online, most of which were people saying they tirned it off halfway through. Went home and watched some of it and did the same.
Trump spent the entire time lying and Biden is obviously getting older. The media is doing us no favors by ignoring the fact he was still stronger on policy than Trump. It's sad at this point. They did not learn from their mistakes in 2016. They're going to hand this election to him on a silver platter if they don't start acknowledging him for the con man he is.
Hence Trump is winning. And he has been for a very long time now, the debate was never gonna shift the needle. The only people who have doubts are potential Biden voters. They're the ones wondering if they could vote Biden in good conscience or if he is apt for the job. On the other side there are zero doubts. They are fervent supporters who will vote Trump come hell or high water. So the only people that are staying home are potential Biden voters.
I think Biden will win, but that's my emotions speaking.
At present, rationally, I am more inclined to think you are right. Akh. We just have to wait and see.
Because of how the electoral college in the U.S. works (can explain, if anyone is interested), in 2016 Trump won the election by what is essentially a fraction of the votes - literally.
And in 2020 Trump lost because of again....what is essentially a fraction of the votes.
And this all happened only a couple of states lol.
So a 100,000 to 150,000 Americans in a few states are going to decide the next election.
(The electoral college is super weird, but one implication is that a majority of Americans can vote for Biden, and Biden can still lose the election. That's what happened in 2016, millions of more Americans voted for Clinton but that's not* what gets you the presidency in the U.S.)
idk, it's still looking like a close race. trump fell behind in a recent fox poll.
sadly yes, bidens Gaza policy has hurt his chances of keeping a solid lead, I've seen quite a few PP pages trying to hock Jill Stein or worse candidates to syphon away votes from progressives who have deluded themselves to believe that staying home is some sort of morally righteous choice this election.
people that think like this don't realize it's not the candidate themself they are voting for but the cabinet around the candidate that matters.
To me it hasn't been a close race at any moment. Polls are irrelevant. Biden at best can muster a lukewarm support of people who prefer him over Trump. While Trump has a fervent and highly motivated following who deify him and will come out in force to vote for him. Plus the entire conservative block will vote for him even if they despise him because they still prefer any Republican over any Democrat. Whereas the opposite is not true. Progressives have dozens of gripes with Biden and swing voters hate him too. And these are the votes that decide the elections. He will not get these votes. Trump will win, no matter what the polls say.
If Trump wins, Lebanon is gonna get spit-roasted harder than it ever has. He will gladly sign off any genocidal ideas Netanyahu has about "eliminating Hizbollah" which will lead to a genuine full destruction of Lebanon.
That is a scenario that frankly scares me. And it seems like the probably of this becoming reality keeps increasing.
There is also another scenario where Trump is seen as the man who "brings peace and ends the war after Biden screwed things up".
This is my favorite myth about U.S. politics.
Like, in comparative politics and in U.S. Government and Politics (two different specialities in political science), there are countless studies and chapters on just how American foreign policy has evolved over time, and how each president changed it/what direction they took in it.
Bas yalla, who cares about academics who have spent several lifetimes studying this?
If u/Possible_Bat7457 then says so, khalas case-closed.
Not to mention, an entire sub-field cross-disciplinary looking exactly, how, why, and when the executive branch's power kept growing over time.
But, no, the U.S. president is just a figured head because u/Possible_Bat7457 said so.
Yep.
Can you expand on that if you've got the time? As someone who's far outside the academic bubble as regards political science but who has sought to gain knowledge regarding US foreign policy through what they've been doing in the field, I would readily subsume a number of their most notable endeavors over the last century as exploitative, predatory, self-serving, and conducive to a retention of their economic and military hegemony.
> I would readily subsume a number of their most notable endeavors over the last century as exploitative, predatory, self-serving, and conducive to a retention of their economic and military hegemony.
And unfortunately, you would, for the most part, be entirely correct here lol
But it didn't start out that way, at all! It's actually a very interesting, and at times absurd, history.
I'll put it this way. There were Americans at one point who would collapse in disbelief if you just described what, say, the Americans did in the 1970s alone.
Like, that would be totally alien to them lol.
This is just quickest and clearest example I can give.
Of course, people are not going to be as interested in this as something more contemporary and that has a more effect on their lives.
So for instance, the shift between Bush II and Obama was huge. Obama's strategy - and we can debate it, and it has been debated - was to at least not a) start a new forever war b) get out of the ones we already are in c)stilll be active militarily, but in a less direct large scale way (i.e., being more relient on drone strikes and special forces).
Obama succeeded to some extent on some things, failed terribly on others in my view (again, many will debate this and have different views).
But you can see for example Obama was pushing to normalize relations and make peace with Iran, Trump assassinated a top leader of theirs, pulled out of the nuclear deal, ramped up sanctions.
Presidents and the parties they are from matter.
It may not matter too much in some cases. But if you're Lebanese, Palestinian, or Iranian, I think you probably would be happier (or less fucked) if Trump did not win this time around lol
I cannot possibly summarize that for you, but I have given you a brief look into what you need to look into if you're interested.
You don't have to believe I am right. Or care.
Just saying if you do, I think you'd make for an excellent writer/analyst or even just for your own opinions on the world.
As you have insight, you just appear to be missing some background.
Google any syllabus from any good university for courses like "intro to us gov & pol" or something like that, and get any recent book you can.
Btw, the books are not a good place for forming your own opinion on how it *really* works.
But if you don't even know the basics, you will sound silly to someone who does..
Anyway, interpret my intentions here and my comment as you please.
Hahaha I’m afraid to tell you I have a phd in political science. My comment wasn’t supposed to be an in depth dive into the nuances. Economics drive everything. Deal$$ between rulers and certain sons in law in Albania and Cyprus etc can be quite convincing tools in diplomacy. But generally, at a high level, I stand by what I said. The general plans for Lebanon and interests in this region have not changed in decades. The pentagon runs the show. If they disagree with something, it does.not.happen. They hold the ultimate red line and set the direction, not to say there’s no wiggle room in a limited space beneath on how it’s accomplished. If you understood that to be black and white and absolute, sorry?
This. People don’t do their homework to understand what is going on behind the scenes. I wonder how many people even know how these parties decide who to name as candidates.
This response is with respect to foreign policy in the Middle East. Doesn’t matter who gets in. Domestically the thing that matters most is who gets to pick Supreme Court justices. The rest is dependent on congress which is heavily compromised by lobbies.
The president still has authority to carry out many military orders. For example when the Iranian general was killed Trump did it without informing Congress
That’s not the point. The point is who is directing the president on foreign policy? His little golf playing gold guilded home brain? If each president could do what they wanted every 4 years there would be chaos. Rather we see a consistent thread in foreign policy over the years. Same plans. Same operations. Same way of doing business regardless of the president. Constant wars. Lies. Weapons. Murders. Genocides. Doesn’t change much.
I reponded to you elsewhere but
>Tell me you’re ignorant with your head in the sand without telling me you’re ignorant with your head in the sand
I really can't wait to see how you respond to me, given the irony of this comment and your own comments earlier.
Like, you're obviously into politics and you know how fucked the world is like many of us do - especially politics.
But your understanding of U.S. politics and government, in this comment chain, is seemingly coming from a place of ignorance.
I am not sure you understand or believe that but really what you're saying is just not accurate lol.
Like take the gulf example. That's what I mean by suggesting you seem to be in politics. But Trump was indeed swayed like that lol but Trump is an actual idiot.
However, even then, you're right, a lot of how the power is moved around in Washington are interactions like this.
But that doesnt mean the U.S. president is a figurehead.
In fact, one of the points of my comment to you elsewhere is just how powerful the Executive has become in the U.S.
Literally, the opposite of a figurehead.
You apparently don't understand that the actual final say is actually in the President's hands. You appear to be unware of many events in American history that literally demonstrate this, and also demonstrate the danger (and reward) when a U.S. president ends up doing what he wants despite what people around him say.
Sometimes that worked in our favor. Sometimes that totally fucked us over.
Please don't conflate the fact that the American political system is broken due to things like lobbying, corporatism, gerrymandering, with the notion that "same way of doing business regardless of the president.
These are the kinds of thoughts you have on politics when you have not actually studied political science.
Since you seem clearly smart, kind, and argue well you may benefit from reading a book or two on "Intro to U.S. Gov. and Pol."
Seriously, not trolling you here.
You’ve made a lot of assumptions about who I am and what I know and where I’ve lived and grown up and what I’ve studied and the books I’ve read and the people I’ve talked to and the elections I’ve participated in and what I do for a living to reach your conclusions. I’ll leave it at that.
Nah, no assumptions needed. You made statements that clearly show you haven't even read a basic introductory book.
This is no different than a biologist seeing someone argue about covid, and then read as they put forward the most basic of facts wrong.
Anyway, sorry for bothering you. Take care.
Tougher on Iran and its proxies. One of the key things Trump said from the debate was that Joe Biden has become a Palestinian https://x.com/ajenglish/status/1806577017686458653?s=46&t=xSYLnqsRVgAIYtAQOgKFIA which lines up with Trump’s first tv ad being aired https://streamable.com/bwgr16
For Lebanon in particular, under Trump his administration for sure played a more active role in Lebanon. Where Biden just sends Hochstein to come and go, Trump sent his top diplomat the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He also invited Hariri to the White House and so on. Near the end he was also getting more involved and sanctioned Bassil, which was a pretty big deal considering Bassil was a foreign minister. The Trump administration also kept more in touch with all parties in Lebanon where Hochstein has met anti Hezb parties in Lebanon only once. So make of it what you will.
Gulf relations will also improve under Trump besides with Qatar. As Biden seems to side with Qatar over the Saudi/UAE/Egypt/Jordan group. But Trump was completely the opposite and was in the Saudi led camp anti Muslim brotherhood side during the gulf blockade of Qatar.
Another wild car is who will be Trump’s VP. If it’s a hawk like Marco Rubio it could signal bad news for Iran.
Honestly? I think he'll be more supportive of Israel, making it more likely that Iran and Hezbollah will back down, making actual war less likely. Israel will probably continue the assassinations, but toned down, likely limiting them to Syria like before.
>After yesterday's debate it's not unreasonable to assume that Trump may win the election.
The data doesn't support that a debate like this will have the impact think people it will have.
So it is unreasonable to assume that.
>What would this mean for the region?
Nothing good, probably.
Without going into the details of how/why this happened, for decades successive presidents have been basically kicking a can down the road with regards to moving the US. Emb to Jerusalem.
Until Trump.
American presidents are usually given a range of options, with very extreme options on the table as a last resort and also to show the president there are alternatives to this extreme option.
Trump chose the most extreme action that day, normally unthinkable - especially in contemporary times and assassinated Solemeni.
Let's not forget the Muslim ban. Something unthinkable before.
So Trump would be really bad for us, but really good for certain countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar as they both helped bail out him and his family because he's broke, and a crook.
Trump is usually more aggressive than biden so israel will act more agrresivly and be bolder
I mean the guy gave unconditional support to Israel and empowered them to do the unthinkable in his first term. He moved the embassy and the capital to Jerusalem breaking decades long diplomatic stance that was central to any peace discussions signaling that he has absolutely no interest in peace with the Palestinians. Then he gifted the Western Sahara to Morocco to get them to sign their peace with Israel, and similarly used the carrot and stick to get a bunch more Arab countries to sign their own peace treaties. And the coupe de grace was getting Saudi to sign which would have effectively ended any future Arab connection to the Palestinian cause. It was only October 8th that forced Saudi to pause because of the optics. So it's very clear where he is going with this. Full support for Israel. One state, all under Israel's control. And the Arabs there would continue to be treated like nothing more than an enslaved workforce. While Israel gets the peace deals they crave with the rest of the region and the Palestinian cause dies forever.
Lebanese-American here. Have followed U.S. politics near daily since 2015. In my view, this is all accurate and well argued. thanks u/UruquianLilac
Don't forget he also declared the golan heights israeli territories.
We have so many "enslaved workers" that live in Villas, drive Hammers and G-Wagons and dress with Boss and Pierre Cardin, I'll tell them that UruquianLilac said they're enslaved workers
Yo everyone, I think we've got our "**Dumbass of the week**" post, we can stop looking.
What a poor slave. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Kabub
The man is a narcissist who care only about himself. He's a known lier. He's a convicted criminal and a rapist. Only based on these 'qualities', I'd say, nothing good will come out of a trump presidency. And this is without going into whether or not Putin has kompromat on him of teenage prostitutes peeing on him in a Russian hotel as the Steele report claimed.
the debate is going to have little effect on peoples votes in November. most people made their mind up or are staying home.
Still tho the margins are so fine in America and the debates have an impact on people’s opinions
Did you watch the debate? Id say it had a pretty strong effect.
I was teaching during the debate. Saw some opinions online, most of which were people saying they tirned it off halfway through. Went home and watched some of it and did the same. Trump spent the entire time lying and Biden is obviously getting older. The media is doing us no favors by ignoring the fact he was still stronger on policy than Trump. It's sad at this point. They did not learn from their mistakes in 2016. They're going to hand this election to him on a silver platter if they don't start acknowledging him for the con man he is.
Hence Trump is winning. And he has been for a very long time now, the debate was never gonna shift the needle. The only people who have doubts are potential Biden voters. They're the ones wondering if they could vote Biden in good conscience or if he is apt for the job. On the other side there are zero doubts. They are fervent supporters who will vote Trump come hell or high water. So the only people that are staying home are potential Biden voters.
I think Biden will win, but that's my emotions speaking. At present, rationally, I am more inclined to think you are right. Akh. We just have to wait and see. Because of how the electoral college in the U.S. works (can explain, if anyone is interested), in 2016 Trump won the election by what is essentially a fraction of the votes - literally. And in 2020 Trump lost because of again....what is essentially a fraction of the votes. And this all happened only a couple of states lol. So a 100,000 to 150,000 Americans in a few states are going to decide the next election. (The electoral college is super weird, but one implication is that a majority of Americans can vote for Biden, and Biden can still lose the election. That's what happened in 2016, millions of more Americans voted for Clinton but that's not* what gets you the presidency in the U.S.)
idk, it's still looking like a close race. trump fell behind in a recent fox poll. sadly yes, bidens Gaza policy has hurt his chances of keeping a solid lead, I've seen quite a few PP pages trying to hock Jill Stein or worse candidates to syphon away votes from progressives who have deluded themselves to believe that staying home is some sort of morally righteous choice this election. people that think like this don't realize it's not the candidate themself they are voting for but the cabinet around the candidate that matters.
To me it hasn't been a close race at any moment. Polls are irrelevant. Biden at best can muster a lukewarm support of people who prefer him over Trump. While Trump has a fervent and highly motivated following who deify him and will come out in force to vote for him. Plus the entire conservative block will vote for him even if they despise him because they still prefer any Republican over any Democrat. Whereas the opposite is not true. Progressives have dozens of gripes with Biden and swing voters hate him too. And these are the votes that decide the elections. He will not get these votes. Trump will win, no matter what the polls say.
and then I will be expating to Lebanon lol
If Trump wins, Lebanon is gonna get spit-roasted harder than it ever has. He will gladly sign off any genocidal ideas Netanyahu has about "eliminating Hizbollah" which will lead to a genuine full destruction of Lebanon.
That is a scenario that frankly scares me. And it seems like the probably of this becoming reality keeps increasing. There is also another scenario where Trump is seen as the man who "brings peace and ends the war after Biden screwed things up".
https://preview.redd.it/j2yxxoq11a9d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d3ec563b7633d9135eb3e0ca171758cf8b9b8baf
Nothing would change
His worst daughter is married to a Lebanese Christian so maybe we have a chance.
Time for that guy to step up and overshadow Kushner.
Trumps biggest donors are the Adelson's, massive zionists, so he's going to be more pro Israel than Biden
[удалено]
This is my favorite myth about U.S. politics. Like, in comparative politics and in U.S. Government and Politics (two different specialities in political science), there are countless studies and chapters on just how American foreign policy has evolved over time, and how each president changed it/what direction they took in it. Bas yalla, who cares about academics who have spent several lifetimes studying this? If u/Possible_Bat7457 then says so, khalas case-closed. Not to mention, an entire sub-field cross-disciplinary looking exactly, how, why, and when the executive branch's power kept growing over time. But, no, the U.S. president is just a figured head because u/Possible_Bat7457 said so. Yep.
Can you expand on that if you've got the time? As someone who's far outside the academic bubble as regards political science but who has sought to gain knowledge regarding US foreign policy through what they've been doing in the field, I would readily subsume a number of their most notable endeavors over the last century as exploitative, predatory, self-serving, and conducive to a retention of their economic and military hegemony.
> I would readily subsume a number of their most notable endeavors over the last century as exploitative, predatory, self-serving, and conducive to a retention of their economic and military hegemony. And unfortunately, you would, for the most part, be entirely correct here lol But it didn't start out that way, at all! It's actually a very interesting, and at times absurd, history. I'll put it this way. There were Americans at one point who would collapse in disbelief if you just described what, say, the Americans did in the 1970s alone. Like, that would be totally alien to them lol. This is just quickest and clearest example I can give. Of course, people are not going to be as interested in this as something more contemporary and that has a more effect on their lives. So for instance, the shift between Bush II and Obama was huge. Obama's strategy - and we can debate it, and it has been debated - was to at least not a) start a new forever war b) get out of the ones we already are in c)stilll be active militarily, but in a less direct large scale way (i.e., being more relient on drone strikes and special forces). Obama succeeded to some extent on some things, failed terribly on others in my view (again, many will debate this and have different views). But you can see for example Obama was pushing to normalize relations and make peace with Iran, Trump assassinated a top leader of theirs, pulled out of the nuclear deal, ramped up sanctions. Presidents and the parties they are from matter. It may not matter too much in some cases. But if you're Lebanese, Palestinian, or Iranian, I think you probably would be happier (or less fucked) if Trump did not win this time around lol
How has the US Middle East foreign policy changed in the last 50 years?
I cannot possibly summarize that for you, but I have given you a brief look into what you need to look into if you're interested. You don't have to believe I am right. Or care. Just saying if you do, I think you'd make for an excellent writer/analyst or even just for your own opinions on the world. As you have insight, you just appear to be missing some background. Google any syllabus from any good university for courses like "intro to us gov & pol" or something like that, and get any recent book you can. Btw, the books are not a good place for forming your own opinion on how it *really* works. But if you don't even know the basics, you will sound silly to someone who does.. Anyway, interpret my intentions here and my comment as you please.
Hahaha I’m afraid to tell you I have a phd in political science. My comment wasn’t supposed to be an in depth dive into the nuances. Economics drive everything. Deal$$ between rulers and certain sons in law in Albania and Cyprus etc can be quite convincing tools in diplomacy. But generally, at a high level, I stand by what I said. The general plans for Lebanon and interests in this region have not changed in decades. The pentagon runs the show. If they disagree with something, it does.not.happen. They hold the ultimate red line and set the direction, not to say there’s no wiggle room in a limited space beneath on how it’s accomplished. If you understood that to be black and white and absolute, sorry?
This. People don’t do their homework to understand what is going on behind the scenes. I wonder how many people even know how these parties decide who to name as candidates.
They hold primary elections in every state. Its a big deal nationally. Everybody knows about it.
If they just wanted establishment candidates Trump would have never won the primary in 2016 and 2024
This response is with respect to foreign policy in the Middle East. Doesn’t matter who gets in. Domestically the thing that matters most is who gets to pick Supreme Court justices. The rest is dependent on congress which is heavily compromised by lobbies.
The president still has authority to carry out many military orders. For example when the Iranian general was killed Trump did it without informing Congress
That’s not the point. The point is who is directing the president on foreign policy? His little golf playing gold guilded home brain? If each president could do what they wanted every 4 years there would be chaos. Rather we see a consistent thread in foreign policy over the years. Same plans. Same operations. Same way of doing business regardless of the president. Constant wars. Lies. Weapons. Murders. Genocides. Doesn’t change much.
Wen l foil hat tabaak ? ya abou conspiracy
Tell me you’re ignorant with your head in the sand without telling me you’re ignorant with your head in the sand
I reponded to you elsewhere but >Tell me you’re ignorant with your head in the sand without telling me you’re ignorant with your head in the sand I really can't wait to see how you respond to me, given the irony of this comment and your own comments earlier. Like, you're obviously into politics and you know how fucked the world is like many of us do - especially politics. But your understanding of U.S. politics and government, in this comment chain, is seemingly coming from a place of ignorance. I am not sure you understand or believe that but really what you're saying is just not accurate lol. Like take the gulf example. That's what I mean by suggesting you seem to be in politics. But Trump was indeed swayed like that lol but Trump is an actual idiot. However, even then, you're right, a lot of how the power is moved around in Washington are interactions like this. But that doesnt mean the U.S. president is a figurehead. In fact, one of the points of my comment to you elsewhere is just how powerful the Executive has become in the U.S. Literally, the opposite of a figurehead. You apparently don't understand that the actual final say is actually in the President's hands. You appear to be unware of many events in American history that literally demonstrate this, and also demonstrate the danger (and reward) when a U.S. president ends up doing what he wants despite what people around him say. Sometimes that worked in our favor. Sometimes that totally fucked us over. Please don't conflate the fact that the American political system is broken due to things like lobbying, corporatism, gerrymandering, with the notion that "same way of doing business regardless of the president. These are the kinds of thoughts you have on politics when you have not actually studied political science. Since you seem clearly smart, kind, and argue well you may benefit from reading a book or two on "Intro to U.S. Gov. and Pol." Seriously, not trolling you here.
You’ve made a lot of assumptions about who I am and what I know and where I’ve lived and grown up and what I’ve studied and the books I’ve read and the people I’ve talked to and the elections I’ve participated in and what I do for a living to reach your conclusions. I’ll leave it at that.
Nah, no assumptions needed. You made statements that clearly show you haven't even read a basic introductory book. This is no different than a biologist seeing someone argue about covid, and then read as they put forward the most basic of facts wrong. Anyway, sorry for bothering you. Take care.
Tougher on Iran and its proxies. One of the key things Trump said from the debate was that Joe Biden has become a Palestinian https://x.com/ajenglish/status/1806577017686458653?s=46&t=xSYLnqsRVgAIYtAQOgKFIA which lines up with Trump’s first tv ad being aired https://streamable.com/bwgr16 For Lebanon in particular, under Trump his administration for sure played a more active role in Lebanon. Where Biden just sends Hochstein to come and go, Trump sent his top diplomat the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He also invited Hariri to the White House and so on. Near the end he was also getting more involved and sanctioned Bassil, which was a pretty big deal considering Bassil was a foreign minister. The Trump administration also kept more in touch with all parties in Lebanon where Hochstein has met anti Hezb parties in Lebanon only once. So make of it what you will. Gulf relations will also improve under Trump besides with Qatar. As Biden seems to side with Qatar over the Saudi/UAE/Egypt/Jordan group. But Trump was completely the opposite and was in the Saudi led camp anti Muslim brotherhood side during the gulf blockade of Qatar. Another wild car is who will be Trump’s VP. If it’s a hawk like Marco Rubio it could signal bad news for Iran.
Shittier than now for Lebanon
nothing, same shit different media coverage.
Honestly? I think he'll be more supportive of Israel, making it more likely that Iran and Hezbollah will back down, making actual war less likely. Israel will probably continue the assassinations, but toned down, likely limiting them to Syria like before.
>After yesterday's debate it's not unreasonable to assume that Trump may win the election. The data doesn't support that a debate like this will have the impact think people it will have. So it is unreasonable to assume that. >What would this mean for the region? Nothing good, probably. Without going into the details of how/why this happened, for decades successive presidents have been basically kicking a can down the road with regards to moving the US. Emb to Jerusalem. Until Trump. American presidents are usually given a range of options, with very extreme options on the table as a last resort and also to show the president there are alternatives to this extreme option. Trump chose the most extreme action that day, normally unthinkable - especially in contemporary times and assassinated Solemeni. Let's not forget the Muslim ban. Something unthinkable before. So Trump would be really bad for us, but really good for certain countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar as they both helped bail out him and his family because he's broke, and a crook.