The Washington Hilton is the exact same hotel where President Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981. Explore why this venue has such a notorious reputation in Secret Service history and the chilling parallels to the Cole Tomas Allen attack.

The 'Reagan Curse': The dark history behind Trump's shooting at Hilton by Cole Tomas Allen

The current debate echoes earlier eras when the United States expanded its territory through negotiated purchases, events that profoundly shaped the nation’s map.

Louisiana, California, Alaska and more: Top 8 territorial purchases made by the United States

The hair samples of three US presidents, including John F Kennedy, will go into deep space by the end of 2023. According to the Houston Chronicle, hair samples from presidents John F Kennedy, Dwight D Eisenhower and George Washington will head into deep space in a Vulcan rocket of the United Launch Alliance before the month ends.

The hair samples of three US presidents, including John F Kennedy, will go into deep space by the end of 2023. According to the Houston Chronicle, hair samples from presidents John F Kennedy, Dwight D Eisenhower and George Washington will head into deep space in a Vulcan rocket of the United Launch Alliance before the month ends. Celestis, a company specialising in sending cremated remains and DNA samples to outer space, will organise the mission. Colby Youngblood, the president of Celestis, told the Chronicle, "It is absolutely feasible, from a scientific point, that future researchers can find this flight capsule and study what's in it." In a statement released in 2023, Celestis said that sending DNA samples of late presidents to space could help people learn more about US history in the future. "Off-world DNA storage allows the human genome to be preserved for thousands of years in space without degradation," the company stated. "This means it is possible it could be discovered later, like a cosmic time capsule. It could allow future generations to learn more about the US forefathers millennia into the future," the statement read further. ALSO READ | Beware! Wildfires can convert a harmless element into the toxic 'Erin Brockovich' chemical The DNA samples of the three US presidents will be on the Enterprise Flight of Celestis, named in honour of the TV series Star Trek. "We feel it's an honourable tribute to those three presidents to put them on this first historic mission," said Youngblood. The flight will also carry the ashes of the series creator Gene Roddenberry, his wife Majel Barrett Roddenberry and a DNA sample of their son. Charles M Chafer, the co-founder and CEO of Celestis, said in a statement in 2022, "We're very pleased to be fulfilling, with this mission, a promise I made to Majel Barrett Roddenberry in 1997 that one day we would fly her and husband Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry together on a deep space memorial spaceflight." The official website of Celestis said the mission will "launch over 150 flight capsules containing cremated remains (ashes), DNA samples, and messages of greetings from clients worldwide on an endless journey in interplanetary space." The flight, earlier scheduled to leave on the morning of December 24, might get delayed, according to the post on X by the CEO of United Launch Alliance. Previously, Celestis has sent DNA and cremated remains into space. The company markets itself as helping families "commemorate the lives of their departed loved one" through memorial spaceflights starting at nearly $3,000. (With inputs from agencies)

Hair samples of three US presidents are being sent into space. Here's why

By:&nbsp;Charles Hermann*

The United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, according to a May 8 announcement by President Donald Trump. The decision reverses a hard-won agreement that President Barack Obama negotiated with European allies, Russia, Iran and other nations in 2015.

This is hardly Trump’s first foreign policy turnaround.

The president plans to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, something no sitting U.S. president has ever done. He also scrapped the Trans-Pacific Partnership, relocated the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and decreed tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.

All of these decisions have triggered vehement criticism.

But is Trump really such an outlier? As a scholar of American foreign policy, I know that many American presidents have reoriented international relations.

Some of those policies succeeded. Many faced opposition. Ultimately, though, my research shows that what matters more to U.S. national security is how those presidents responded when their foreign policy shifts failed.

From Truman to Bush

History has sometimes redeemed foreign policy shifts that seemed radical at first blush.

In 1947, President Harry Truman, a Democrat who stumbled into the presidency when Franklin Roosevelt died in office, asked Congress to authorise major military and economic assistance to Greece, Turkey and other countries where Communism was making inroads.

In the end, the “Truman Doctrine” – which held the U.S. should provide political, military and economic assistance to all nations under threat from authoritarianism – became a cornerstone of U.S. policy. Republicans in Congress, who wanted to enact steep federal budget cuts, opposed Truman’s request. Critics on the left said the U.S. should not assist non-democracies.

Three decades later, President Jimmy Carter paid a steep political price for agreeing to return the Panama Canal – at the time owned and operated by the U.S. – to Panama. Polls showed that a majority of respondents opposed the agreement.

The Senate approved the Panama Treaties by one vote. Several lawmakers who supported Carter subsequently lost their seats. In 1980, California governor Ronald Reagan – who criticised Carter’s return of the canal – handily defeated him for the presidency. Today, it seems logical that the Panama Canal belongs to Panama.

Another major shift in foreign policy occurred in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. President George H.W. Bush had to decide whether the U.S. should support the reunification of Communist East Germany with democratic West Germany.

European allies, vividly remembering that Germany had caused two global wars earlier that century, objected strenuously to reunification. So did Russian President Mikael Gorbachev. U.S. newspapers editorialised caution.

President Bush prevailed. A single, democratic Germany entered NATO. It is now the leader of democratic Europe.

Carter’s risk-taking

Presidents who upend foreign policy do so for different reasons.

Truman was responding to an international crisis. Carter saw himself as an outsider elected to transform America’s global role. Bush wanted to end the Cold War. Some presidential changes are designed to boost approval with core supporters.

Trump’s own policy shifts are probably driven by a variety of such factors.

Whatever his motivation, in my experience the most critical question now is: What happens if a Trump policy goes badly?

History confirms that the wrong reaction can be dangerous.

Take the Iran hostage crisis of 1979, when some 50 U.S. diplomats were detained at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran hostage.

After diplomatic negotiations failed to obtain their release, President Carter’s advisors presented him with several options, including levying sanctions, blockading Iran or attempting a rescue mission estimated to risk significant casualties.

Carter’s chose the rescue attempt, illustrating a well-researched insight into human decision-making: When people experience loss, they will take substantial risks in an attempt to recover.

The Iran hostage rescue mission was aborted almost immediately after several helicopters failed to reach the refueling point. Two other aircraft collided, killing eight men and badly burning four others.

Bush’s escalation

George W. Bush’s behavior during the Iraq War demonstrates another kind of potentially dangerous behavior, called escalation of commitment.

When people find that their initial idea is not working well, they must either double down or change course. Regardless of how bad the news, many opt to increase their commitment.

By 2006, the U.S. faced losing the war initiated against Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. Fifty-seven percent of voters that year disapproved of Bush’s performance. Roughly the same percentage favored withdrawing from Iraq.

Many of Bush’s top military advisors urged him to reduce military involvement in Iraq and turn most combat over to Iraqi forces. Instead, in 2006, he changed his field commander and “surged” U.S. combat troops. The surge achieved some success, but the war continued.

What will Trump do?

I have identified two forces that help presidents avoid these dangerous decision-making behaviors.

The first is strong, independent-minded advisers. During the Cuban missile crisis, when Soviet offensive missiles were discovered in Cuba, President John F. Kennedy faced an agonising decision. Should he do air strikes, an invasion or a blockade?

More than a dozen Kennedy advisers vigorously debated the strengths and weaknesses of each possible response. Their willingness to criticise, question and speak out may have saved the U.S. from nuclear war.

Trump, on the other hand, famously demands loyalty of his advisers. Those who question his decisions risk losing their position.

Presidents can also avert crises by flexibly responding to changing facts on the ground.

For example, in 1983, President Reagan ordered U.S. Marines to return to an international peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, which had descended into civil war. Reagan thought neutral troops could restore order.

Instead, the Marines became targets. More than 200 died when their barracks were bombed on October 23, 1983. So Reagan recalculated, pulling out U.S. troops.

In Trump’s Iran decision, I perceive an unwillingness to re-evaluate policy choices when outside evidence contradicts his original cost-benefit analysis.

When Trump first threatened to scrap the multinational agreement, he assumed the other signatories would agree to re-impose sanctions on Iran, as the U.S. will.

But European countries strongly oppose that idea. They even said they would refuse to renew their sanctions. Still, Trump’s analysis did not change.

Presidential history strongly warns of danger for this White House. Inevitably, some of this president’s policies will fail. Attempts to save them could take the U.S. down a deadly path.

*Charles Hermann, Senior Professor, and Brent Scowcroft Chair Emeritus, Bush School of Government & Public Service, Texas A&M University

(This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/presidents-often-reverse-us-foreign-policy-how-trump-handles-setbacks-is-what-matters-most-now-95580">original article</a>.)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Many presidents have radically changed US foreign policy. Truman created his own doctrine. Carter gave up the Panama Canal. But a presidential historian sees danger in Trump's decision-making style

By: Charles Hermann* The United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, according to a May 8 announcement by President Donald Trump. The decision reverses a hard-won agreement that President Barack Obama negotiated with European allies, Russia, Iran and other nations in 2015. This is hardly Trump’s first foreign policy turnaround. The president plans to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, something no sitting U.S. president has ever done. He also scrapped the Trans-Pacific Partnership, relocated the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and decreed tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. All of these decisions have triggered vehement criticism. But is Trump really such an outlier? As a scholar of American foreign policy, I know that many American presidents have reoriented international relations. Some of those policies succeeded. Many faced opposition. Ultimately, though, my research shows that what matters more to U.S. national security is how those presidents responded when their foreign policy shifts failed. From Truman to Bush History has sometimes redeemed foreign policy shifts that seemed radical at first blush. In 1947, President Harry Truman, a Democrat who stumbled into the presidency when Franklin Roosevelt died in office, asked Congress to authorise major military and economic assistance to Greece, Turkey and other countries where Communism was making inroads. In the end, the “Truman Doctrine” – which held the U.S. should provide political, military and economic assistance to all nations under threat from authoritarianism – became a cornerstone of U.S. policy. Republicans in Congress, who wanted to enact steep federal budget cuts, opposed Truman’s request. Critics on the left said the U.S. should not assist non-democracies. Three decades later, President Jimmy Carter paid a steep political price for agreeing to return the Panama Canal – at the time owned and operated by the U.S. – to Panama. Polls showed that a majority of respondents opposed the agreement. The Senate approved the Panama Treaties by one vote. Several lawmakers who supported Carter subsequently lost their seats. In 1980, California governor Ronald Reagan – who criticised Carter’s return of the canal – handily defeated him for the presidency. Today, it seems logical that the Panama Canal belongs to Panama. Another major shift in foreign policy occurred in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. President George H.W. Bush had to decide whether the U.S. should support the reunification of Communist East Germany with democratic West Germany. European allies, vividly remembering that Germany had caused two global wars earlier that century, objected strenuously to reunification. So did Russian President Mikael Gorbachev. U.S. newspapers editorialised caution. President Bush prevailed. A single, democratic Germany entered NATO. It is now the leader of democratic Europe. Carter’s risk-taking Presidents who upend foreign policy do so for different reasons. Truman was responding to an international crisis. Carter saw himself as an outsider elected to transform America’s global role. Bush wanted to end the Cold War. Some presidential changes are designed to boost approval with core supporters. Trump’s own policy shifts are probably driven by a variety of such factors. Whatever his motivation, in my experience the most critical question now is: What happens if a Trump policy goes badly? History confirms that the wrong reaction can be dangerous. Take the Iran hostage crisis of 1979, when some 50 U.S. diplomats were detained at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran hostage. After diplomatic negotiations failed to obtain their release, President Carter’s advisors presented him with several options, including levying sanctions, blockading Iran or attempting a rescue mission estimated to risk significant casualties. Carter’s chose the rescue attempt, illustrating a well-researched insight into human decision-making: When people experience loss, they will take substantial risks in an attempt to recover. The Iran hostage rescue mission was aborted almost immediately after several helicopters failed to reach the refueling point. Two other aircraft collided, killing eight men and badly burning four others. Bush’s escalation George W. Bush’s behavior during the Iraq War demonstrates another kind of potentially dangerous behavior, called escalation of commitment. When people find that their initial idea is not working well, they must either double down or change course. Regardless of how bad the news, many opt to increase their commitment. By 2006, the U.S. faced losing the war initiated against Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. Fifty-seven percent of voters that year disapproved of Bush’s performance. Roughly the same percentage favored withdrawing from Iraq. Many of Bush’s top military advisors urged him to reduce military involvement in Iraq and turn most combat over to Iraqi forces. Instead, in 2006, he changed his field commander and “surged” U.S. combat troops. The surge achieved some success, but the war continued. What will Trump do? I have identified two forces that help presidents avoid these dangerous decision-making behaviors. The first is strong, independent-minded advisers. During the Cuban missile crisis, when Soviet offensive missiles were discovered in Cuba, President John F. Kennedy faced an agonising decision. Should he do air strikes, an invasion or a blockade? More than a dozen Kennedy advisers vigorously debated the strengths and weaknesses of each possible response. Their willingness to criticise, question and speak out may have saved the U.S. from nuclear war. Trump, on the other hand, famously demands loyalty of his advisers. Those who question his decisions risk losing their position. Presidents can also avert crises by flexibly responding to changing facts on the ground. For example, in 1983, President Reagan ordered U.S. Marines to return to an international peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, which had descended into civil war. Reagan thought neutral troops could restore order. Instead, the Marines became targets. More than 200 died when their barracks were bombed on October 23, 1983. So Reagan recalculated, pulling out U.S. troops. In Trump’s Iran decision, I perceive an unwillingness to re-evaluate policy choices when outside evidence contradicts his original cost-benefit analysis. When Trump first threatened to scrap the multinational agreement, he assumed the other signatories would agree to re-impose sanctions on Iran, as the U.S. will. But European countries strongly oppose that idea. They even said they would refuse to renew their sanctions. Still, Trump’s analysis did not change. Presidential history strongly warns of danger for this White House. Inevitably, some of this president’s policies will fail. Attempts to save them could take the U.S. down a deadly path. *Charles Hermann, Senior Professor, and Brent Scowcroft Chair Emeritus, Bush School of Government & Public Service, Texas A&M University (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: After Iran deal turnaround, how Trump handles setbacks is what matters now

us-history

Us History, News on Us History, stories on Us History, articles on Us History, Us History stories at Wion, Us History news, Us History latest news

us history

The 'Reagan Curse': The dark history behind Trump's shooting at Hilton by Cole Tomas Allen

From Louisiana to Alaska: Top 8 territorial purchases made by the United States

Hair samples of three US presidents are being sent into space. Here's why

Opinion: After Iran deal turnaround, how Trump handles setbacks is what matters now