Well, howdy there, Internet people, it's Bell again.

So today, we're going to talk about Trump, Iran, deals, conflicts, and logic.

Sometimes Trump's comments can be waived off.

Sometimes the comments themselves have real-world implications, even if Trump never acts on them, even if he never planned to act on

them. That's the type we have to talk about today. Trump's comments likely ended any chance of a

functioning nuclear deal with a wrong. Don't get me wrong, he might get a deal, but it won't be

worth the paper it's printed on.

Trump was asked if he was worried about being dragged into a Middle Eastern war with Iran by Israel.

He indicated he wasn't worried about being dragged into a war with Iran because, quote,

I may go in very willingly if we can't get a deal.

If we don't make a deal, I'll be leading the pack.

This kind of rhetoric may play well in the U.S., but they get the news in Toronto as well.

Why do countries want a weapon that hasn't been used since the 40s?

Deterrence.

Why do countries want deterrence?

Countries want nuclear weapons

so other countries can't force them into deals

under threat of attack or invasion.

If a country was threatened with attack or invasion,

would it make that country more or less likely

to pursue a nuclear weapon?

The tough guy rhetoric seems likely to reinforce Iran's belief that it needs a nuclear arsenal.

...