With this case. I agree regarding Iran, unless they find proof Iran has breached the agreement.

But with North Korea - before all these negotiations, the media was blasting Trump for heading towards war with North Korea, and talks about how many people would die etc. due to it. And how Trump wasn't doing enough to protect america from the nuclear threat, despite the lack of success his predecessors have had in this, that should be talking peace not war.

Then suddenly the situation got to the point that China leant on North Korea (and directly or indirectly I think Trump contributed to this, either by 'skilled negotiation' with China, or happily not backing down with North Korea enough to make China want to intervene) we have the idea of negotiations, and even before the event happened, the media was attacking Trump for even meeting Kim, for apparently 'legitimising' him (a recognised head of state), that diplomacy won't work as hasn't before.

These two positions seem quite contradictory to me - either they think diplomacy could work, in which case actually giving North Korea something it wants, rather than ever increasing sanctions that haven't been working, surely is a better chance than going down the road that Obama, Bush Jr and the likes have done before.

Or diplomacy won't work, in which case end result is either let North Korea have the weapons, that the media doesn't want, or go to war, that the media previously said is a disastrous outcome. They need to pick a horse and back it.

Regarding a 'one-sided' negotiation, where North Korea has apparently got a lot of what it wanted, albeit insubstantial items, if it is keeping the diplomacy open, surely it is a good thing? The media's narrative suggests that if didn't go down that road, and just did what everyone else had tried before, it wouldn't have worked anyway, so what would have been the point? Do you think Trump could have actually forced a concession this early in the game, or that if he hadn't given anything away, it wouldn't have gone down the exact same road as before?

I don't like Trump, and think a lot of his decisions / actions (e.g. around G7) are idiotic, in this case, it feels to me that he is looking at this stage to have more success than his predecessors, and I feel more optimistic than ever before that we might actually have a peaceful outcome.

However, it feels that the media doesn't care about this, and like Random Thoughts says, doesn't matter what tack Trump had taken here, I think he would have been criticised. If he hadn't done what he did, and just did the same as everyone else, I'm sure they would have criticised him for doing so.