Trump Does Not Understand the Art of the Deal

I've never read Trump's much bragged about book, The Art of the Deal. I don't know if he wrote it. Maybe it was ghost written. Maybe not. What is clear is that he doesn't understand its topic: How to make a deal. 

If by deal Trump means negotiation, then deal-making is the opposite of war. In a deal, all parties negotiate respectfully and in good faith, seeking a resolution that satisfies all. Even if your opponent is a monster, you feign respect, so as to allow him to save face at home should he agree to your terms.

But Trump bullies everyone, good guys and bad. Consider last year's bullying of Denmark as he tried to steal Greenland. Although both Denmark and Greenland insisted that Greenland was not for sale, Trump kept darkly hinting that he was going to get a "deal" for Greenland whether Greenland liked it or not.

That's not deal-making. That's Don Corleone style thuggery. You don't seek a resolution in which both parties walk away satisfied. You make them an offer they can't refuse. They either agree or you send them a severed horse's head. Or bomb their civilization into extinction.

Trump's crude attitude is understandable. He comes from the world of New York real estate. He knows how to work the system. How to make government connections, tax breaks, lawsuits, and bankruptcy laws work for him. How to promise the moon, and if you fail to deliver, walk away, explain away, declare victory and expect everyone to agree, or at least forget.

It's not that past presidents, Democratic and Republican, haven't engaged in bullying and thuggery. They have. Nor that other nations don't also practice bullying and thuggery. But I've not in my lifetime seen an American president so brazen about it. No fig leafs, no diplomatic niceties, no pretty words, no feigned politeness or respect. 

Trump doesn't only grab at what he wants. He wants to rub his opponent’s face in the dirt for all to see. 

It's like his renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America (which I don't think will stick). A wiser president would politely negotiate with Mexico on trade and immigration. Perhaps just as firmly, but in a manner that would allow Mexico to accede to U.S. demands while saving face. But instead, Trump needlessly humiliates Mexico, making it all the harder for Mexican politicians to agree to his demands.

Sometimes thuggery backfires. Trump not only failed to steal Greenland, but he angered all of our NATO allies. This is likely part of the reason they're reluctant to join Trump's war on Iran.

Trump knows very little about the "art of the deal."

==================

U.S. State Department Admits Israel Requested the Iran War

On April 21, 2026, the U.S. State Department issued a surprising press release that, perhaps inadvertently, admits the U.S. attacked Iran at Israel's request.

 

The press release is credited to Reed D. Rubinstein, Legal Advisor, Office of the Legal Advisor.

 

Its first two paragraphs reads as follows:

"On February 28, the United States Armed Forces launched Operation Epic Fury with a set of clear objectives: to '[d]estroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy [Iran’s] navy and other security infrastructure,” and, finally, ensure that Iran “will never have nuclear weapons.'

"Epic Fury is only the latest round of an ongoing international armed conflict with Iran. As the United States has explained in multiple letters to the U.N. Security Council, including most recently on March 10, the United States is engaged in this conflict at the request of and in the collective self-defense of its Israeli ally, as well as in the exercise of the United States’ own inherent right of self-defense."

 

 

The press release goes on to claim that this war is also in America's interests, and gives various other justifications for this war. 

 

Still, this is the first time I can recall an official admission that Israel's interests played any role in America's decision to attack Iran.

 

============

The Canard That Welfare for Israel Benefits the U.S. Economy

In a New York Post article, dated April 25, 2026, Joseph Epstein trots out the tired old canard that U.S. welfare for Israel (i.e., foreign aid) is really for America's benefit. He makes the claim (which I've been hearing for decades) that "Most of that $3.8 billion must be spent on American-made military equipment. That’s not charity — it’s a subsidy for our own defense industrial base."

It's a bizarre argument coming from any alleged conservative.

Following Epstein's logic, all domestic welfare (including Food Stamps, DEI and BLM grants, and even money for illegal migrants) really benefits all Americans, because that money "subsidizes" (Epstein's word) American grocery stores, restaurants, retailers, movie theaters, landlords and medical providers.

Following Epstein's logic, we should expand all welfare programs (foreign and domestic), so more money will "subsidize" American businesses.

But every true conservative and libertarian knows this is a bogus argument. If we eliminated all welfare programs (including welfare for Israel), that money would remain with American taxpayers, who would also spend that money in the U.S. But instead of the goods and services going to welfare recipients (foreign and domestic), they would instead benefit the taxpayers who earned the money in the first place.

In either case, American businesses are "subsidized" by consumers. The difference is whether that "subsidy" buys goods and services for welfare recipients (foreign and domestic) or for American taxpayers.

Epstein's argument flows either from his stupidity or his dishonesty. And I doubt that Epstein is stupid.

And that's without raising additional points, such as that Israel is an extremely wealthy nation that could easily afford to pay for its own defense.

=========