The international community has been up in arms over the prospective move of Tel Aviv's US embassy to Jerusalem, breaking with decades of international policy towards Israel and Palestine, and further entrenching Israel's claim over all of Jerusalem. 

But US President Donald Trump now appears to be backpedaling on this controversial campaign promise. 

In its first ever press briefing,  Trump's White House has stated that there is "no decision yet" on the embassy's relocation to the one of the world's most contentious cities. 

"At the end of the president's first four years ... will the US embassy be in Jerusalem?" asked a reporter at yesterday's press briefing. 

"We are still at the early stages of this decision-making process. There's a reason you go through a decision-making process and that's the process we're starting right now," said Press Secretary Sean Spicer. 

"If it was already a decision. We wouldn't be going through a process." 

As a presidential nominee, Trump made a campaign promise to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. As President-elect, he gave Israel's ambassador post to David Friedman who opposes the two-state solution. 

Friedman has said he looks forward to working from “from the U.S. Embassy in Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem." 

If Trump makes good on his promise, America's would be the first embassy in the world to be located in the city considered holy to three world religions. 

But, Trump is not the first U.S. presidential candidate to vow to make the move, nearly every candidate has also made similar promises. 

In his first address as Democratic Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama, broke with international consensus on Jerusalem's status and said in a speech: 

"Jerusalem  will remain the capital of Israel, and it will remain undivided."

The remarks were made to Washington's most powerful pro-Israel organization, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). 

Recognizing Jerusalem as a "Jewish capital" is widely believed to come with major security repercussions, namely, angering a global Muslim community that numbers over 1 billion people. 

While a Jerusalem embassy makes for good campaign posturing--particularly in appealing to powerful lobbyists and certain religious contingents--it likely does not make for sound policy. It appears that Trump is finally coming to terms with that. 

A lot of Iraqis are understandably upset after U.S. President Donald Trump suggested his country could get "another chance" to steal their countries oil.

The new American president told the CIA on Saturday that ISIS "probably" wouldn't exist if the U.S. had "kept the oil."

"But, okay, maybe we’ll have another chance," Trump said.

Needless to say, Iraqis weren't having it.

"Draping his ambitions of sovereign robbery in an ISIL flag does nothing to conceal the truth. The new President is so swollen with avarice that he maintains Iraq’s oil is, in fact, owed to the US as spoils of war. Such international banditry is outlawed under the Annex to the Hague Convention of 1907 on the Laws and Customs of War, and the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War." 

– Yalla Iraq

"I participated in the attack against the Americans by attacking them with mortars and roadside bombs, and I’m ready to do it again,"  an Iraqi security official told Buzzfeed News.

"Once ISIS is gone we will save our weapons for the Americans," he said.

"He cannot do it. He cannot succeed," an Iraqi soldier said. 

"Of course I would fight the Americans if they came for the oil."

Numerous experts have previously said that taking Iraq's oil would not only be illegal, it would be extremely difficult logistically as well as costly. Additionally, it would likely cause greater destabilization and further sour regional relations.

Lance Janda, a military historian at Cameron University told Politifact that Trump's ideas are "so out of step with any plausible interpretation of U.S. history or international law that they should be dismissed out of hand by anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of world affairs."

According to experts, stealing Iraq's oil would go against a United Nations' resolution dating back to 1974. Trump's logic however, is essentially  "to the victors go the spoils," a terrorism analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies explained.

He pointed out that using this logic, "Saddam [Iraq's former president] should have been able to keep Kuwait City after he invaded" in the early 90s.

"But we [the U.S.] viewed that – quite rightly – as an act of aggression under the U.N. Charter," he said.

Years before Trump launched his political campaign, he was arguing that the U.S. should have taken Iraq's oil. Trump told a reporter for the Wall Street Journal that he "would take the oil," when asked about Iraq back in 2011.

He reiterated those statements several weeks later, saying that in "the old days ... to the victor belong the spoils."

“You go in. You win the war and you take it ... You’re not stealing anything ... We’re taking back $1.5 trillion to reimburse ourselves," Trump said. Apparently, Trump believed that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a service that deserved payment.

He further emphasized his view that the U.S. should have taken Iraq's oil throughout his presidential campaign.

Trump's most recent comments may have just been offhand – as is his style – with little intention behind them. But as he is now the president of the U.S., every statement, tweet or word he utters leaves people throughout the world questioning the repercussions.