Thread by @sfrantzman

Thread: It's interesting that some commentators who expressed concern over the Abraham Accords not doing enough to get concessions from Israel on a Palestinian state...are often the SAME ones who appeased Iran (and often Turkey too) and thus drove Israel and the Gulf together.

What people don't understand about appeasing aggressive countries like Iran is that when you do it, there is unforeseen blowback. When threatened, countries will come together, and thus you achieve the opposite of what you thought "engaging moderates" would do

Imagine for instance if Ankara had been stopped before invading Afrin...it might have worked more peacefully in EastMed, instead of pushing a crisis that rapidly led to military and defense ties, end of arms embargo for Cyprus etc...

If you signal to an aggressive, militarist country it can do what ever it wants, eventually those it threatens will unite, usually fearing for their own survival if they don't. Threats against Israel, for instance, never achieved anything for the aggressors.

Western countries have too often thought that "engagement" by "diplomacy" will achieve results. But look at the Syria's conflict. It was the Astana process that achieved results, never John Kerry and his "process"...because actions lead to results, not talk.

If you create a vacuum of power through not being willing to stand up to aggression, then something will fill the vacuum. Each action has a reaction. This is science and international relations. Ignoring the need to be tough in the face of threats leads to policy missteps.

This idea that you always have to give regimes like Iran everything they want or they might be "more extreme" is predicated on false notions that to stop extremism, you have to give it things. All that does is lead to the opposite goal that was intended.