Politics
Column: Obama’s strong terms curbed Iran. Trump struggles to secure even a weak deal
President Trump, it’s well known, is into gold. Every day brings new evidence that he’s thoroughly enjoying the “golden age” he pronounced in his inaugural address — as few other Americans are — with stock trades, crypto profiteering and much more, even a new taxpayer-financed slush fund to reward his allies.
As for me, I’ve gone into silver. That is, I constantly look for the silver linings in Trump’s heinous acts.
One silver lining, of course, is his cratering job-approval numbers in the polls, especially among the young and Latino voters who made his reelection possible. But here’s another: By his humiliating failure to bring Iran to heel, nearly three months after starting a war that he said would last weeks at most, Trump has brought new, more positive attention to what he again this week derided as “Barack Hussein Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.” (The emphasis on “Hussein” is Trump’s, always.)
The president, along with his Republican cheerleaders, counts his first-term abrogation of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as a signature achievement. This week, yet again, he falsely claimed that had he not done so, Iran would have a nuclear weapon. In fact, his action in 2018 taking the United States out of the multinational deal subsequently led to Iran’s rebuilding of its nuclear program, the emboldening of the Iranian hard-liners now in power and the Middle East morass in which the United States is now mired.
That quagmire has left Trump seeming desperate for a deal — almost certainly a worse deal than the one Obama struck. Call it JCPOA Lite.
If he were able to get Iran’s sign-off on the sort of detailed, restrictive agreement that Obama and other world leaders won 11 years ago, he’d be trumpeting himself as the world’s greatest dealmaker. (He does that anyway, but his record proves otherwise.) Instead, by his own failure to date, Trump has invited reconsideration of the very agreement he decried as the “worst deal ever” on his march to election and reelection.
No sooner was the 2015 deal signed than Trump and Republicans succeeded in defining it as a giveaway to Iran that assured, not hindered, its development of a nuclear weapon to threaten Israel and the world. Opponents condemned the agreement for not addressing Iran’s other threats, notably its support for militant proxies throughout the Mideast. Some Democrats, notably Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, were among the foes. Other Democrats, cowed by opposition to the agreement by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government and pro-Israel lobbyists, were all but mute in the pact’s defense.
Now some Democrats are belatedly finding their voice (and, post-Gaza, some willingness to defy Israel). Along with nonpartisan experts, those Democrats are drawing comparisons between the 2015 agreement, flawed yet successful, and Trump’s promised yet ever-elusive alternative. What’s ironic for Israel and Netanyahu, still implacably against negotiating with Tehran, is that they could end up, under Trump, with a nuclear deal that gives Iran more leeway than the hated JCPOA did.
As Americans are being reminded, the 2015 deal wasn’t just between Iran and Obama, as Trump has long suggested; other signatories were China, Russia, Britain, France, Germany and the 27-nation European Union. Reconstituting that group would be all but impossible today.
The pact’s 159 highly technical pages and five appendices — a far cry from the short-lived one-pager that Trump officials teased earlier this month — required Iran for 15 years to limit its nuclear program to civilian purposes, forfeit more than 97% of its enriched uranium and submit to intrusive monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure compliance. In return, Iran gradually got relief from some, but not all, international economic sanctions and access to Iranian funds that were frozen after the 1979 Islamic revolution. Presumably, after 15 years, the agreement would have been extended somehow.
By all accounts, including those of Trump’s first-term intelligence and national security officials, Iran was complying when he abandoned the deal. Its “breakout time” for building a nuclear weapon was about a year — time enough for the world to intervene — instead of two to three months. Now, though the president boasts he barred Iran from having that weapon by breaking the Iran nuclear deal, he incessantly tells Americans that he went to war against Iran on Feb. 28 because it was on the brink of a bomb — never mind that he also said he had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program last summer, a program that was in a well-monitored box until he first took office.
If you’re confused, you’re paying attention.
A month ago, Trump posted online that he was close to a deal “FAR BETTER” than the 2015 accord. “I am under no pressure whatsoever, although, it will all happen, relatively quickly!” To several reporters, he suggested he in fact had a deal and that Iran had agreed both to suspend its nuclear activities and to forfeit all of its enriched, near-weapons-grade uranium.
Preposterous claims, given Iran’s current government, and Tehran promptly denied them. It was a sign of Trump’s squandered credibility that few, if anyone, believed him in the first place. Nor have folks believed his more recent talk of imminent success; oil markets, too, have learned not to trust the president, as prices at the pumps attest.
On Tuesday at the White House, amid a noisy tour of the billion-dollar-ballroom construction site, Trump told reporters he’d been “an hour away” from striking Iran again that very day but Mideast leaders asked for more time for negotiations.
Don’t hold your breath.
But for the tragic consequences, Obama might be enjoying some justifiable schadenfreude about Trump’s travails.
“We pulled it off without firing a missile. We got 97% of the enriched uranium out,” he told Stephen Colbert in an interview last week. Both U.S. and Israeli intelligence agreed that Iran was abiding by the nuclear limits, Obama added, “and we didn’t have to kill a whole bunch of people or shut down the Strait of Hormuz.”
That sure doesn’t sound like the “worst deal ever.” It wasn’t.
Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Massachusetts legislature passed a bill that would remove “outdated and offensive language” used to describe people with disabilities in the state’s General Laws.
The measure would eliminate various terms, including “handicapped,” “disabled,” and the “r-word” in favor of language such as “persons with a disability” and “person with an intellectual or developmental disability.”
The bill, which was introduced by Democratic state Sen. Pat Jehlen and listed with 17 petitioners, now heads to Democrat Gov. Maura Healey’s desk.
The 61-page bill updates 346 sections of Massachusetts law.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER ‘PERSONALLY OFFENDED’ WHEN SPEAKER SAYS ‘HOMELESS’ INSTEAD OF ‘UNHOUSED’
The 61-page bill updates 346 sections of Massachusetts law. (Getty Images)
“Language is constantly changing. And it’s changing because of the activism of people who were ignored and demeaned for too long,” Democrat state Sen. Pat Jehlen, the Senate’s primary sponsor of the legislation, said in a statement. “When people tell us they feel insulted and offended by the use of outdated words, we worked to change the legal language. It took a long time, because we kept finding more examples of offensive language. Language and activism will continue to evolve, and there’ll always be more work to do, but this is a gigantic step forward in respect.”
Some of the updated language featured in the bill includes replacing “disabled person” with “person with a disability,” “handicapped” with “disability” and “retarded” with phrases such as “person with an intellectual or developmental disability.”
The legislation also scraps terms such as “crippled” and “deformed” when referring to people with disabilities.
The measure would eliminate various terms, including “handicapped,” “disabled,” and the “r-word.” (Lindsey Nicholson/UCG/Universal Images Group)
The term “hearing-impaired” was revised to “deaf or hard of hearing” and the “chronically ill” was changed to “persons who are chronically ill.”
Additionally, the bill amends specific legal definitions, including changing the current definition of “caretaker” — which describes an individual or entity responsible for a “disabled person” — to instead use the phrase “a person with a disability.”
“When dusty and dangerous relics of a bygone era darken our laws, it creates the potential for real harm to residents today,” Senate President Karen Spilka, a Democrat, said in a statement. “Thanks to the voices of advocates like former Senate staff member Melissa Reilly and the leadership of Senator Jehlen and Senator Kennedy, the Legislature has acted to make our laws better represent who we are in 21st-century Massachusetts.”
MASSACHUSETTS DROPS CONTROVERSIAL GENDER IDEOLOGY MANDATE FOR LICENSING FOSTER CARE PARENTS
The bill now heads to Democrat Gov. Maura Healey’s desk. (Adam Glanzman/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“With a White House that glorifies, and seemingly longs for, the days when many Americans were discriminated against because of who they are, now is the time to make sure our state laws respect and support the rights and dignity of our residents,” she added.
The passage of this measure comes after a 2024 law that renamed the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission to MassAbility, which state officials argued was a display of a broader effort to modernize disability services and promote inclusion. That law also reflected a broader move away from terms state officials described as outdated or offensive.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“As lawmakers, we know that words matter,” said state Speaker of the House Ronald J. Mariano, a Democrat. “This legislation is our latest effort to ensure that our state laws do not use antiquated words that carry negative connotations, words that also serve as a reminder of past injustices.”
The bill passed with broad legislative support, including unanimous recorded votes in both chambers.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Massachusetts GOP for comment.
SACRAMENTO — Disability rights advocates on Monday gathered outside the state Capitol to push back on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed cuts to in-home supportive services.
“These aren’t just numbers in a budget; these are real people,” said Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez (R-Indio). “These are children, seniors, veterans and individuals with disabilities whose independence and quality of life depend on these services every single day.”
The In-Home Supportive Services program helps disabled and elderly people remain in their houses by providing in-home care. It pays assistants to help with tasks such as showering, cooking or attending doctor appointments. Newsom’s revised budget proposal, which was unveiled last month, would cut $367.7 million from the program and shift some of that financial burden onto counties.
Gonzalez explained that the issue hits close to home for his family. He said his son has cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder, and relies on assistance to live with dignity.
“Families should not have to wonder every budget season whether the support they rely on will be taken away,” Gonzalez said. “These services should not be treated as bargaining chips in budget negotiations.”
Assemblymember Laurie Davies (R-Laguna Niguel) questioned why a successful state like California would need to enact such cuts.
“It’s hard to go a day without hearing the governor or the administration brag about how we are the fourth-largest economy in the world and yet we can’t fully fund [this program for] the most vulnerable?” Davies said.
The governor has previously explained that difficult decisions must be made as the state could soon face an economic downturn. The budget proposal relies on a tax windfall, largely attributed to the stock market success of artificial intelligence companies, to erase California’s deficit — but some analysts have warned that the AI bubble could burst.
H.D. Palmer, deputy director for external affairs for the California Department of Finance, on Monday said some of the proposed cuts are a byproduct of the federal government’s changes in funding and eligibility for health and human services programs.
The so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill” signed by President Trump last year shifted federal funding away from safety-net programs, he said.
Palmer stressed that state budget negotiations are ongoing.
“Until we land on an agreement, speculation regarding the resolution of any specific differences between the Governor’s budget plan or the Legislature’s respective budget proposals would be premature,” he stated by email.
Monday’s event drew some bipartisan support. Brody Fernandez, communications director for Assemblymember Esmeralda Z. Soria (D-Fresno), said the legislator had been fighting for In-Home Supportive Services funding since she was elected.
Fernandez said his daughter has special needs and her mother had to give up her career to become a full-time caregiver. “This is personal for us and for many of the incredible individuals standing behind me,” he said.
Graham Knaus, chief executive of the California State Assn. of Counties, told The Times that he appreciated efforts to raise awareness about the burden these changes would place on counties.
“We applaud the Senate and Assembly for recognizing counties’ concerns and rejecting this proposal,” he said. “We ask them to hold the line in final negotiations.”
Elizabette Guecamburu, a bookkeeper who has a rare neuromuscular disorder, spoke at Monday’s rally and implored the governor to remember the teachings of their shared alma mater Santa Clara University, a Jesuit-led private school.
“I want him to remember where he came from,” she said, adding that students were taught to value compassion and community. “Don’t forget your Jesuit roots.”
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
PORTLAND, Maine — Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner used a profane insult against Sen. John Fetterman during a Sunday town hall in southern Maine, escalating his feud with the Pennsylvania Democrat just two days before Maine’s Senate primary.
The Senate really is a place of, it’s a lot about relationships, and I I don’t want to go down there and simply be nonfunctional,” Platner said in response to a question from a supporter about who he is looking forward to working with in Washington, D.C., if elected in November.
“I mean, as you can all probably tell, we got a lot of criticisms about the way this government functions. But in order for us to make it functional, we’re going to have to do stuff. And you can’t just go down there and be John Fetterman and just and just kind of just sort of be an a–hole.”
Platner added, “He’s said mean things about me, I’m allowed to say that.”
JOHN FETTERMAN ERUPTS OVER ‘CREEPER’ GRAHAM PLATNER, SUGGESTING HE’S A ‘NAZI SYMPATHIZER’
Democratic Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner called Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., a profanity during a town hall event in Portland, Maine, on Sunday night. (Graeme Sloan/Getty Images ; Scott Eisen/Getty Images)
Platner and Fetterman have been going after each other in recent days with the Pennsylvania Democratic senator calling out the Maine progressive over his history of inflammatory remarks while challenging him to release messages linked to a Kik account that has become a flashpoint in his campaign.
“This is a guy that had a problem with me, how I dress, but he seemed to have no problem posing in a towel at a disgusting website that consistently had serious problems about that kinds of depravity,” Fetterman, who has faced strong criticism from within his own party over his strident support for Israel, told Fox News host Sean Hannity.
PLATNER STILL HAS ACTIVE ACCOUNT ON ANONYMOUS APP DUBBED ‘PREDATOR’S PARADISE’ AMID CHEATING SCANDAL
The Democrat later challenged Platner to make public messages he allegedly exchanged with women on the platform.
“Let me make a deal. I’ll tell P-Hustle, I’ll wear a suit every day, if he releases all those texts and messages that he’s had… [with] the dozen women,” he continued, referencing Platner’s username on the platform.
Over the weekend, Platner posted on X that “John Fetterman seems to genuinely think that the reason no one likes him is because he refuses to wear a suit.”
“It’s not the hoodie, dude. It’s because you’ve become a stooge for AIPAC and the Republican Party.”
Fox News Digital reached out to Fetterman’s office for comment.
Platner was not asked by the audience, nor did he bring up on his own, the various criticisms he has faced in recent months ranging from a Nazi tattoo, to deleted Reddit posts trashing the military, to sexual messages sent to other women during his marriage, to an explosive New York Times report where an accuser alleged that Platner exhibited “toxic” traits and was physically abusive toward her.
THE GROWING LIST OF CONTROVERSIES THREATENING DEMOCRAT GRAHAM PLATNER’S MAINE SENATE BID
Sen. Bernie Sanders and Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner stand together during a “Fighting Oligarchy” tour stop at the Collins Center for the Arts on the University of Maine campus in Orono, Maine last weekend. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
“I am very much just some random guy from Sullivan, Maine,” Platner told the raucous crowd of supporters shortly before receiving a standing ovation for claiming in November “we are going to beat Susan Collins.”
Platner’s message to voters focused strongly on wealth inequality and painted a picture of a Congress that is beholden to the powerful as opposed to the voters.
“We must understand that we have entered a new phase in the American political story,” Platner said. “We have entered an era that I think looks a lot more like the 1880s or the 1930s or the 1960s than the last 40 years. We have entered an age of a politics of power, and we need to start acting like it.”
Platner, widely believed to be the presumptive Democratic nominee for Senate, heads into a Tuesday night primary election where Democratic Gov. Janet Mills and former senior government official David Costello are on the ballot.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
If victorious, Platner will square off against incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins in November.
Fox News Digital’s Taylor Penley contributed to this report.
-
New York52 minutes agoVideo: Spurs Beat Knicks, Quieting New York City Crowds
-
Los Angeles, Ca57 minutes agoIn-N-Out Burger opens new flagship location on Las Vegas Strip
-
Detroit, MI1 hour agoMan arrested for concealing gun in baby stroller
-
San Francisco, CA1 hour agoFatal stabbing leads to fines at SF hospital
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoAdditional Mosquito Samples in Dallas, Carrollton Test Positive for West Nile Virus
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoA Greg Dulcich breakout – The Splash Zone 6/9/26
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoOfficials investigating death of child in South End – Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoDenver Parks and Recreation begins work to rebuild historic bandshell destroyed in fire
