RSS
Is Barbie Jewish? The complex Jewish history of the doll, explained.
(JTA) — Long before the craze over the upcoming “Barbie” movie, most people could conjure an image of the doll: She was the beauty standard and the popular girl, a perky, white, ever-smiling brand of Americana.
She was also the child of a hard-nosed Jewish businesswoman, Ruth Handler, whose family fled impoverishment and antisemitism in Poland. And some see the original Barbie as Jewish like Handler, a complex symbol of assimilation in the mid-20th-century United States.
The doll’s latest revival comes in Greta Gerwig’s hotly-anticipated “Barbie” movie, written by Gerwig and Noah Baumbach and featuring a star-studded cast, including Margot Robbie as Barbie, Ryan Gosling as Ken and Will Ferrell as a fictional CEO of Mattel. The expected blockbuster could collect at least $70-80 million in just its opening weekend of July 21-23, according to The Hollywood Reporter, fueled in part by a relentless marketing machine.
But this in-crowd doll was born from an outsider. Here’s its Jewish history.
The origin story
Ruth Handler was born in 1916 in Denver, Colorado, the youngest of 10 children. Her father, Jacob Moskowitz (later changed to Mosko) had escaped conscription in the Russian army like many Jews at the turn of the century, and landed in the United States in 1907. Her mother Ida, who was illiterate, arrived the next year in the steerage section of a steamboat. Jacob was a blacksmith and moved the family to Denver, where new railroads were being built.
Ida was sickly by the time she gave birth to Ruth, so the baby was sent to live with her older sister Sarah. It was in Sarah’s Jewish community of Denver, when Ruth was 16 years old, that she met Izzy Handler at a Jewish youth dance, according to Robin Gerber, a biographer who wrote “Barbie and Ruth: The Story of the World’s Most Famous Doll and the Woman Who Created Her.” She fell in love immediately with Izzy, a penniless art student wearing a torn t-shirt.
At age 19, Ruth decided to drop out of the University of Denver and move to Los Angeles, where she found a job as a secretary at Paramount Studios. Izzy soon followed her.
“As they drove across the country, she asked him to change his name to Elliot,” said Gerber. “She had felt the antisemitism at that time, in the 1930s, and she really felt that they’d be better off with a more Americanized name.”
The couple never renounced their Judaism. On the contrary, they eventually helped found Temple Isaiah in Los Angeles and became longtime contributors to the United Jewish Appeal. But Ruth was pragmatic, and she would not forget how police officers had stopped her car in Denver to make antisemitic remarks.
Against the pleadings of her family, who knew Elliot was poor, Ruth married him in 1938. She continued working at Paramount, while he enrolled at the Art Center College of Design and took a job designing light fixtures — but they quickly became collaborators. Elliot began making pieces from Lucite in their garage, such as bookends and ashtrays, and Ruth was thrilled to sell them. They were complementary business partners: Elliott was a quiet creative who shied away from ordering in a restaurant, while Ruth was vivacious and unafraid, a risk-taker who said her first sale felt like “taking a drug,” according to Gerber.
World War II challenged their business, as President Franklin Roosevelt restricted plastics to military use. Together with their friend Harold “Matt” Matson, the Handlers pivoted to making wooden picture frames and dollhouse furniture. They found success and named their company Mattel, a combination of Matt and Elliot’s names.
In 1946, Matson sold his share and Ruth Handler became the first president of Mattel. The company soon branched into toys, including a child-sized ukulele called the Uke-A-Doodle, a Jack-in-the-Box and toy guns. Since the design department was entirely male, many of its early toys targeted little boys.
One day, while watching her daughter Barbara — who would become Barbie’s namesake — Ruth had a new idea. She observed that Barbara and her friends were playing with paper dolls and pretending to be adult women. In the 1950s, the only dolls on the market were baby dolls, presuming that girls wanted to play at being mothers. But Barbara and her friends wanted to play being the dolls.
On a family trip to Switzerland in 1956, she spotted a curvaceous adult doll called Bild Lilli. This toy, based on a seductive comic strip character in the German tabloid Bild, was designed as a sexual gag gift for men. Ruth saw her as a blueprint for Barbie.
An adult female doll for children was so novel that Mattel’s designers and even Ruth’s husband dismissed the idea, saying that mothers would never buy their daughters a doll with breasts. Ruth kept pushing until the first Barbie, decked in a black-and-white swimsuit and heels, debuted at New York’s Toy Fair in 1959.
Sure enough, plenty of mothers said the doll was too sexual — but their daughters loved it. Ruth communicated directly with children by bringing Mattel to television, making it the first toy company to advertise on Disney’s “Mickey Mouse Club.”
“She completely shifted the way we buy toys,” said Gerber. “Up to that point, children only saw toys when their parents handed them a catalog. But when toys came to ads on television, then kids were running to their parents and saying, ‘I want that thing on TV.’”
Mattel sold 350,000 Barbies in its first year. Striving to keep up with demand, the company released her boyfriend in 1961 and named him after the Handlers’ son, Kenneth.
Is Barbie feminist? Sexist? Assimilationist? Jewish?
Barbie’s rail-thin figure sparked backlash from feminists in the 1970s. “I am not a Barbie doll!” became a chant for marchers at the 1970 Women’s Strike for Equality in New York. Advocacy groups such as the South Shore Eating Disorders Collaborative have said that if Barbie were a real woman, her proportions would force her to walk on all fours and she would not have enough body fat to menstruate. In the 2018 film “Tiny Shoulders: Rethinking Barbie,” Gloria Steinem said, “She was everything we didn’t want to be.”
Handler said that Barbie represented possibilities for women. Women could not open a credit card in their own name until 1974, but Barbie could buy any outfit to fit any career. Her fashion represented the future: Astronaut Barbie came out in 1965, four years before Neil Armstrong walked on the moon and 18 years before Sally Ride became the first American woman in space. Ken may be Barbie’s boyfriend, but in more than 60 years, she has not married or had children.
In Ruth’s memoir “Dream Doll: The Ruth Handler Story,” she wrote, “Barbie has always represented the fact that a woman has choices. Even in her early years Barbie did not have to settle for being only Ken’s girlfriend or an inveterate shopper. She had the clothes, for example, to launch a career as a nurse, a stewardess, a nightclub singer.”
But years before the feminist discussion, the question of how American Jews could or could not relate to Barbie said a lot about their place in the United States at the time. Handler created Barbie in 1959, when many Jews were wrestling with the concept of assimilation. Although they continued to face discrimination in the postwar period, they also had newfound security — a life they had never identified with, according to Emily Tamkin, the author of “Bad Jews: A History of American Jewish Politics and Identities.”
Suddenly, like so many others, they were moving to suburban, white-picket fence America — Barbie territory.
So, much like the iconic fashion of Ralph Lauren, a Jewish designer who changed his last name from Lifshitz, or the Christmas Carols of Irving Berlin, a Russian Jewish immigrant born Israel Beilin, Barbie would paradoxically become core to the American ideal that Jews were seen to assimilate into, said Tamkin.
“The thinking goes, if you’re safe and secure and in suburbia, is that really an authentic Jewish life?” Tamkin told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “And while they’re having this communal and individual struggle, Ruth Handler really enhances the Americana that they have this ambivalence about.”
But was the original Barbie actually Jewish herself? Susan Shapiro, the best-selling author of “Barbie: 60 Years of Inspiration,” thinks so.
“I think Ruth just assumed that Barbie reflects her, in a certain way,” Shapiro told Kveller in 2019. “Barbie was supposed to be all-American, and I think Ruth really considered herself to be very assimilated in America. But she did face antisemitism at Paramount Pictures, and her family fled Europe because of antisemitism.”
The doll doesn’t fit the rubric of stereotypes about Ashkenazi appearance — after all, her first form copied a German sex doll that “looks very goyishe,” said Gerber. (Non-white Barbie ethnicities were not introduced until the 1980s.)
Tiffany Shlain, who made a 2005 short documentary “The Tribe” about the history of Jews and Barbie, is herself a blond, blue-eyed Jewish woman (who wrote the film with her husband, serendipitously named Ken Goldberg). She was often told that she didn’t “look Jewish.”
“Right now, we’re in a real renaissance of seeing all the different ways Jews look, and there’s no ‘look,’ there’s no one ideology,” Shlain said.
Regardless of what American buyers think, Barbie has been labeled “Jewish” by discriminatory bans. In 2003, she was temporarily outlawed by Saudi Arabia’s religious police, who posted the message: “Jewish Barbie dolls, with their revealing clothes and shameful postures, accessories and tools are a symbol of decadence to the perverted West.” Iran has also repeatedly cracked down on the sale of Barbies since declaring them un-Islamic in 1996.
Will the new movie address any of this?
It’s unclear.
Gerwig’s collaborator (and partner) Baumbach is Jewish but doesn’t often reference that fact in his movies, which include “The Squid and the Whale” and “Marriage Story.” The film features a few Jewish cast members, including Hari Nef, a trans actress and model who has appeared in shows such as “Transparent,” “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” and “The Idol.”
Details about the movie’s plot have been scarce, but it seems to involve characters leaving a make-believe Barbie world for the real world.
The wide diversity of the cast — which features several different actors playing Barbie and Ken — also seems to be a commentary on Barbie’s white, all-American roots.
“We were able to cast people of different shapes, sizes, differently abled, to all participate in this dance — all under this message of: You don’t have to be blonde, white, or X, Y, Z in order to embody what it means to be a Barbie or a Ken,” said actor Simi Liu, who plays one of the Kens.
—
The post Is Barbie Jewish? The complex Jewish history of the doll, explained. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
US Lawmakers Grill Ireland Ambassador Nominee on Israel
US Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) speaks during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing at the US Capitol, in Washington, DC, May 21, 2024. Photo: Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
During Thursday’s confirmation hearing for the position of US ambassador to Ireland, Dublin’s long-standing skepticism towards Israel became a central point of discussion.
Edward Walsh, the Trump Administration’s pick to serve as the liaison between America and the Ireland, fielded comments from federal lawmakers over the Emerald Isle’s intense criticism of Israel’s military operations in Gaza.
“This is going to be a tough needle to thread when you got a close ally making a horrible mistake,” Jim Risch, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said about Ireland’s treatment of Israel, “But you have got to thread that needle and I hope you will convey the message that they are very much out of step with the United States as far as the relationship with those countries.”
Risch lamented Ireland’s decision to officially recognize a Palestinian state, calling the declaration “a heartbreaking mistake with zero recognition of what Hamas did on October 7.”
“I hope you will ensure that our friends in Ireland will understand that America strongly supports Israel,” Risch added.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) lambasted the International Criminal Court (ICC) for being “engaged in a campaign against our Israeli allies.”
In November, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas terror leader Ibrahim al-Masri (better known as Mohammed Deif) for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza conflict. The ICC said there were reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu and Gallant were criminally responsible for starvation in Gaza and the persecution of Palestinians — charges vehemently denied by Israel, which has provided significant humanitarian aid into the war-torn enclave throughout the war.
US and Israeli officials issued blistering condemnations of the ICC move, decrying the court for drawing a moral equivalence between Israel’s democratically elected leaders and the heads of Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group that launched the ongoing war in Gaza with its massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7.
“These warrants are utterly illegitimate,” claimed Cruz, who added that the ICC’s warrant requests against Israeli leaders is “setting a precedent to go after countries who are not members of the Court, which exposes American soldiers and officials.”
“Ireland has filed a motion to directly boost the ICC campaign,” said Cruz.
Walsh agreed that Ireland’s lack of support for Israel represents a “big issue and a big concern.”
“We’re an ally of Israel so it’s a difficult conversation and I’d be glad to relay president Trump’s message over to them at any time,”
In January, Ireland filed a motion to join South Africa’s bid to the ICC accusing Israel of “genocide.” Israel responded by closing their embassy in Ireland and issuing a statement blasting Dublin for backing “the politicized proceedings being conducted at the ICC against Israel and its leaders.”
Ireland’s relationship with Israel has sharply deteriorated following the events of October 7, when Hamas launched a deadly massacre on the Jewish state, slaughtering roughly 1200 individuals and kidnapping 250 others. While Ireland swiftly condemned the Hamas attacks, its government has since voiced mounting criticism of Israel’s conduct in the conflict, particularly in regard to the high civilian death toll and humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
In response, Israeli officials have accused Ireland of bias and undermining Israel’s right to self-defense, further souring diplomatic ties. The deepening rift reflects long-standing tensions over Middle East policy and positions Ireland as one of the most outspoken critics of Israel within the European Union.
The post US Lawmakers Grill Ireland Ambassador Nominee on Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Panic on Memorial Day: Sights and Sounds From Israel
Israelis stand for a moment of silence as the memorial siren sounds on Israel’s Memorial Day. Photo: Meir Pavlovsky, OneFamily
I was at the Memorial Day ceremony at Habima Square in Tel Aviv, which is like Israel’s Lincoln Center. This is not like America’s Memorial Day — there are no barbecues or celebrations. This is Israel: a small country, where everybody has lost somebody.
The commemorative siren sounded and thousands of people fell completely silent, some cried, a few dogs howled back at the siren. I saw two female police officers holding hands, one had tears in her eyes.
The siren ended and the ceremony proceeded, with speakers and prayers, but then, suddenly — screams.
“Screaming” isn’t really the right word — it was coming from all directions and sounded more like a huge high frequency roar, but not like in a sporting event. I can’t quite describe it; it was like hearing a tornado approach.
Then people were running, thousands of people, like a human tsunami — so I ran too. Because when something like this happens in Israel, you get to safety first and ask questions later.
To view a video of some of the event, click here.
Like most people around me, I first focused on getting some distance between myself and the event location, not knowing whether I might be about to run into something dangerous. I turned onto a side street because it seemed like a safe direction to go, then I saw some people running into a building, and I ran there too because it simply seemed to make sense. I found myself in someone’s apartment with about 20 other people.
I don’t remember falling along the way, but I noticed my knee was hurting, and my pants were ripped, so apparently I had.
One of the people in the apartment was crying and panicking, a young American girl, probably high school age, who didn’t speak Hebrew. So I sat with her explained what little I knew, as a few of us tried to give her some degree of comfort. I could at least offer a familiar American voice to talk to.
I also walked around and asked people if anyone had cell phone reception or had heard any news, and for the most part the answer was no. Later, when everything seemed OK, I thanked the apartment owner for “hosting” us and stood outside with the American girl waiting for her mother to come get her.
An Israeli woman nearby seemed concerned and I offered to walk her home. She thanked me, and told me her husband thanks me too — he was on the phone from Gaza where he was serving in combat that very night.
So what actually happened?
According to reports, several suspicious people, apparently wearing what appeared to be combat vests, tried to force their way through security into the ceremony. The suspicious people were arrested without further incident. Some conflicting reports said the suspects had attempted to attack police. Whatever it was, something about the interaction triggered a panic, which spread.
The police officially say this was not a “security event” but it’s important to remember that at the time, none of us knew that. We knew only that there was an urgent need to run, possibly for our lives.
I don’t mean to compare this small experience to some of the more dramatic ones Israelis have faced and continue to face: our hostages, our lost loved ones, our fallen soldiers, and more. But I can say this: in 14 years, I’ve been in my share of bomb shelters, and heard my share of sirens, yet this is the first time I’ve been inside of what one might call an “event.”
Meanwhile, terrorists successfully managed to set the countryside around Jerusalem on fire, cancelling numerous Memorial Day and Independence Day events and setting Israelis to work fighting the blaze.
It is well understood by all Israelis that terrorists favor large crowds and symbolic events for their attacks. A Memorial Day ceremony in Tel Aviv would be an ideal target — this reality was in the back of everyone’s mind from the beginning — which probably contributed to the rapid and dramatic reaction of the crowd.
And there’s something simply amazing about that: knowing that we realistically might be walking into danger, we came anyway. We came by the thousands, to HaBima Square and to other ceremonies across the country. We also show up to our jobs, and our lives, we take public transportation, we visit parks, and malls, protests and yes, even music festivals. The day-to-day courage of ordinary Israelis is remarkable, and touching beyond words.
There’s an Israeli expression: on Memorial Day, we acknowledge the painful cost of having a state; on Yom HaShoah (Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day) we acknowledge the cost of not having one.
And finally, on Independence Day, we celebrate. Celebrations are muted this year: due to the fires around Jerusalem, the hostages in Gaza, and our loved ones in the IDF fighting on seven different fronts.
Nonetheless, I wish you all a Happy Independence Day from Israel.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post Panic on Memorial Day: Sights and Sounds From Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump’s Nuclear Talks With Iran Prompt Concern Among Republicans, Applause From Ex-Obama Officials
US President Trump speaks to the media at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, Washington, DC, April 21, 2025. Photo: Andrew Leyden/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
As the US continues to negotiate a potential nuclear deal with Iran, the Trump administration has drawn praise from political adversaries and criticism from traditional allies over a perceived reversion to the basic framework of the now-defunct 2015 nuclear accord, which US President Donald Trump has lambasted as a dangerous agreement.
Members of the former Obama administration have expressed cautious optimism that the approach of Trump and his team to the current nuclear talks might mirror the steps they took to reach the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 deal which placed temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of major international sanctions. Trump withdrew the US from the accord during his first presidential term in 2018, arguing it was too weak and would undermine American interests.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers and hawkish foreign policy analysts have increasingly raised skepticism about the Trump administration’s approach to the Iranian nuclear program, suggesting that the White House has been receiving bad advice.
Such critics have argued that the White House may have relaxed its hardline stance against Iranian uranium enrichment, potentially allowing Iran’s Islamist regime to continue enriching uranium “civilian purposes.” Tehran has previously rejected halting its uranium enrichment program, insisting that the country’s right to enrich uranium is non-negotiable. Iranian officials have also refused to include their ballistic missile program, which would allow Iran to continue improving its weapons delivery capabilities, in negotiations with Washington.
The 2015 deal, which the Obama administration negotiated with Iran and other world powers, allowed Iran to enrich significant quantities of uranium to low levels of purity and stockpile them. It did not directly address the regime’s ballistic missile program but included an eight-year restriction on Iranian nuclear-capable ballistic missile activities.
Allies of Trump had argued such terms of the deal were insufficient, as they would allow the regime to maintain a large-scale nuclear program and wait for certain restrictions to expire before ramping up their activity. Supporters of the deal countered that the accord kept Iran further away from being able to break out toward a bomb quickly and gave international inspectors greater access to Iranian nuclear sites.
The current framework being advanced by the Trump administration “suggests that the Americans have, at least for now, abandoned several of the fundamental demands that were emphasized before negotiations began,” the Israeli outlet Israel Hayom wrote.
Former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who served as Trump’s top diplomat from 2018 to 2021, questioned the utility of attempting to broker a nuclear deal with Iran “while it is at its weakest strategic point in decades” in a recent article for the Free Press. He appeared to be referring to Israel’s military activities in recent months decimating Iran’s air defenses and proxy forces — particularly Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon — in the Middle East. Pompeo argued that conservatives who “coddle” Iran in hopes of avoiding war are only ensuring that Tehran eventually acquires a nuclear weapon.
The White House has also received criticism from fellow Republicans in Congress. In a comment posted on X/Twitter, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), for example, lamented, “Anyone urging Trump to enter into another Obama Iran deal is giving the president terrible advice.” Urging the White House to reverse course, Cruz added that Trump “is entirely correct when he says Iran will NEVER be allowed to have nukes. His team should be 100% unified behind that.”
Andrea Stricker, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where she works as deputy director of the think tank’s Nonproliferation and Biodefense Program, also warned against any deal allowing Iran to retain its uranium enrichment capabilities.
“Only the full, verified, and permanent dismantlement of Iran’s enrichment, weaponization, and missile-delivery programs constitutes a sound deal with Iran,” she told The Algemeiner. “Leaving enriched uranium, associated facilities, centrifuges, and infrastructure in the country means Tehran can renege on a deal and ramp its nuclear threat up at any time. Iran’s breakout time would also be considerably shorter today given its stock of thousands of fast-enriching advanced centrifuges.”
Stricker continued, “The regime’s goal is to wait out the Trump administration, delay sanctions pressure, and avoid a military strike. The administration should make clear that dismantlement is the only possible deal that allows the regime to avoid major consequences.”
David Bedein, director of the Jerusalem-based Center for Near East Policy Research, blasted the Trump administration for supposedly keeping the details of the negotiations a “mystery” and potentially compromising Israel’s long-term interests in the region.
The Trump administration’s allowing Iran to continue enriching uranium would be “an absolute violation of Israel’s interests,” he told The Algemeiner.
Bedein also claimed that the intentions of Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, are “dangerously unclear,” noting his ties to Qatar, which has long maintained close cooperation with Iran and supported terrorist groups such as Hamas.
In 2023, the Qatar Investment Authority, the country’s sovereign wealth fund, purchased one of Witkoff’s New York properties for nearly $623 million. Witkoff further raised eyebrows earlier this year when he praised Qatar as a partner of the US and a stabilizing force in the Middle East.
Witkoff drew backlash last month when, during a Fox News interview, he suggested that Iran would be allowed to pursue a nuclear program for so-called civilian purposes, saying that Iran “does not need to enrich past 3.67 percent.” The next day, Witkoff backtracked on these remarks, writing on X/Twitter that Tehran must “stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Thursday that Iran has to “walk away” from uranium enrichment and long-range missile development and it should allow nuclear inspectors access to military facilities.
Despite pursuing diplomacy, Trump has said he is committed to ensuring Iran never gets a nuclear weapon and has threatened additional sanctions, tariffs, and military action if Iran does not agree to a deal to curb its nuclear activity.
Harsh US sanctions levied on Iran during Trump’s first term crippled the Iranian economy and led its foreign exchange reserves to plummet. Trump and his Republican supporters in the US Congress criticized the former Biden administration for renewing billions of dollars in US sanctions waivers, which had the effect of unlocking frozen funds and allowing the country to access previously inaccessible hard currency. Critics argue that Iran likely used these funds to provide resources for Hamas and Hezbollah to wage new terrorist campaigns against the Jewish state, including the brutal Oct. 7 massacres throughout southern Israel perpetrated by Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists.
Iran has claimed that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes rather than building weapons. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, reported last year that Iran had greatly accelerated uranium enrichment to close to weapons grade at its Fordow site dug into a mountain.
The UK, France, and Germany said in a statement at the time that there is no “credible civilian justification” for Iran’s recent nuclear activity, arguing it “gives Iran the capability to rapidly produce sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons.”
However, former key players within the Obama administration have praised the similarities between Trump’s efforts and the JCPOA.
Ilan Goldberg, a national security advisor in the Pentagon and State Department during the Obama administration, praised the Trump administration for doing the “right thing” by revisiting key components of the now-scrapped JCPOA during their negotiations with Iran.
“It’s hard not to take a jab at Donald Trump for walking away from the nuclear deal in the first place, because I think if we get to a deal, it’ll probably be something pretty similar,” Goldberg told Jewish Insider.
Phil Gordon, a national security advisor to Vice President Kamala Harris and White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf Region during the Obama administration, said that the Trump team will learn that they are likely to “have to accept some of the same imperfections that the Obama team did.”
Israel has been among the most vocal proponents of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arguing that that the US should pursue a “Libyan option” to eliminate the possibility of Tehran acquiring a nuclear weapon by overseeing the destruction of Iran’s nuclear installations and the dismantling of equipment.
The post Trump’s Nuclear Talks With Iran Prompt Concern Among Republicans, Applause From Ex-Obama Officials first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login