Kasandra,
I shouldn't need to explicate my position on those things in order to ask you to be consistent about your assessment of Trump's decisions in Syria and Afghanistan. You are treating this like a for/anti-Trump discussion, where I am personally taking neither position but pointing out that you are clearly taking on an anti-Trump position despite also claiming that he could not have done better.
That being said, for the sake of diplomacy, I'll answer those questions, although I don't know what good it will do you since I have no skin in the game of trying to prove that Trump is doing a good job:
-The NK situation is unresolved but as things stand relations are better with NK than before, especially in regards to SK. Trump did not go as far as I hoped but he got further than anyone expected (and further than some wanted him to). In that regard I would call his activity in this area a partial success, closer to being marginal than to being decisive.
-This one comes purely down to what intel he was operating under. If, for instance, Assad is guilty but more lives would be saved in the long-run doing as Trump did then it's a lesser of evils situation which I'm not in a position to assess. But let's take the other side: what if, as some claim, the chemical weapon attacks were staged by his opponents or by terrorists trying to take him down, and not done by Assad? In that case it would be good not to assists the terrorists. And maybe it's murkier than either of these. I don't have the intel so I can't say, other than I thought the U.S. had no business being there in the first place.
-I haven't sufficiently studied the Kurdish situation to say what I think.
-I don't really know what to believe about the state of Iran's nuclear program. I have neither spent lots of timing studying the issue, nor am I sure I would get good information without digging deeper than I care to. Iraq 2.0 should teach you that it's hard to know what's really going on in another country where our media and most of our government are antagonistic to them.
-To be fair to Trump, that s***show has been going on since Bush43 and at this point I have no clue what would be right or wrong. From what I do know about South American politics they have gotten so screwed over by outside interests over the years that I find it hard to parse how much of what goes on there is their fault or others' faults; and that determination would be necessary to assess what a current U.S. President's position should be on it. I was reading the other day about the War of the Roses and trying to track the family lineages and the claims to the throne. If you asked some random person which side they supported it would be totally incoherent to answer unless they actually knew the family trees, the marriages, the strengths of the claims, the law and its precedent, and other matters related to it. After knowing all of that backstory you'd be in a position to say what you think of some guy supporting the Lancasters and opposing the Yorks. Absent that backstory, the assessment would be meaningless, as would my commenting on Venezuela.