Thank you for this well-structured and clear prompt! It effectively sets up the AI’s role and constraints.
The example summary you’ve provided for the `Chief Editor Prompt` is incomplete:
**Summary:**
`We speak to Trump’s former representative to Iran`
To ensure the AI can generate a full, relevant article, this summary would need to be expanded with more details about *what* that representative said, the specific points of contention, and the nature of the split within the Republican party regarding Trump’s Iran decision.
Assuming a complete summary is provided when the prompt is used, here’s how the Chief Editor AI would respond to your example, filling in a plausible summary (as I cannot generate a full article from an incomplete summary, I’ll complete it for demonstration purposes with fictional details):
—
**Example of how the AI would process your prompt (with an assumed, completed summary):**
**Your Input (to the AI):**
“`
You are the Chief Editor of a global online news company. Your role is to rewrite news content based on the provided title and summary, crafting a unique and original article that avoids any copyright or plagiarism issues.
Instructions:
* Use the title and summary below to guide the article.
* Rewrite the article content fully in fresh language.
* Keep it factually accurate, but do not copy any sentences.
* The tone should be professional, neutral, and SEO-friendly.
* Output must be plain text only — no introductions, explanations, formatting, or markdown.
* Do not include the title or summary again in your response — only return the main article content.
Title:
Why Trump’s Iran decision is splitting the Republican party
Summary:
Former President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and impose “maximum pressure” sanctions has created significant fissures within the Republican Party, with a growing number of influential conservatives and national security hawks now publicly questioning the strategy’s effectiveness and its long-term implications. We speak to Trump’s former representative to Iran, Brian Hook, who reveals that initial goals of regime change or a new, stronger deal were not met, leading to increased regional instability rather than de-escalation. Several GOP figures, including former Defense Secretary James Mattis and Senator Mitt Romney, have expressed concerns that the approach isolated allies and failed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions or destabilizing actions, advocating for a return to diplomacy or a more unified international approach, while staunch Trump loyalists maintain the policy was a necessary stance against a rogue regime.
“`
—
**AI’s Expected Output (Plain Text):**
The Republican Party is experiencing internal division over the enduring legacy of former President Donald Trump’s Iran policy, particularly his administration’s withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and the subsequent implementation of a “maximum pressure” campaign. While initially heralded by many conservatives as a firm stand against Tehran, a growing segment of the GOP, including prominent national security figures, is now scrutinizing the long-term efficacy and consequences of this strategy.
Brian Hook, who previously served as the U.S. Special Representative for Iran under the Trump administration, recently acknowledged that the policy’s stated objectives, such as compelling the Iranian regime to collapse or negotiating a fundamentally new and more comprehensive deal, were not achieved. Instead, critics argue, the withdrawal and sanctions led to heightened regional tensions and a more aggressive posture from Iran, rather than fostering de-escalation or stability in the Middle East.
This critical assessment extends to several notable Republican voices. Figures such as former Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Senator Mitt Romney have publicly expressed apprehension that the “maximum pressure” approach inadvertently alienated key international allies and did not effectively curtail Iran’s nuclear aspirations or its broader destabilizing activities in the region. They often suggest a renewed emphasis on diplomatic efforts or a more cohesive international coalition as a path forward.
Conversely, a steadfast faction of Trump loyalists within the party continues to defend the policy, asserting it was a crucial and necessary measure to counteract what they view as a rogue and dangerous regime. This ideological split highlights a significant foreign policy debate within the Republican ranks, reflecting differing views on the most effective means to address Iranian behavior and U.S. interests in the Middle East.
