Thread by @NGrossman81

This @BretStephensNYT column on Iran is so bad that I can't let it go.
Leaps of logic, strawmen, internal contradictions, and some actual facts too, which if anything make it worse, because then readers less familiar with the subject might buy it.
(THREAD)
nytimes.com/2019/03/29/opi…

The first line is a strawman. Not a great start.
Critics of Trump's decision to break the Iran deal (including me) didn't say it would "bring nothing but woe." Rather, on balance, downsides outweigh upsides (many of which are wishful thinking, as Stephens will demonstrate).
2/x

Stephens' primary evidence to support his claim that Trump's Iran policy is working is that US sanctions are hurting Iran's economy.
But critics never claimed sanctions wouldn't hurt (because that would be dumb). We argued that they don't have a plausible strategic endpoint.
3/x

And what does Stephens think is the sanctions' goal? Not punishing Iran, but a better nuclear deal.
That's either a lie or naive. Stephens somehow makes it both, by proudly citing all the punishment Iran's feeling while also defending SecState Pompeo's implausible demands.
4/x

Pompeo's list of demands for a new deal effectively require Iran to abandon all its core interests. To stop being Iran. It reads like Iran demanding the US hand over its nukes, stop supporting Israel, and become a Shia theocracy.
No one could think it a good faith proposal.
5/x

Pompeo and Stephens demand total capitulation, but no one capitulates under sanctions. Iran made concessions facing global sanctions, and even then it didn't capitulate. North Korea's under more pressure. Qatar faces a lot from Saudis. Many other examples.
Not happening.
6/x

And who can seriously think that Iran, after going through a big domestic fight to accept the JCPOA in the first place, would make another deal with the US after the US broke the last one while Iran was honoring it (which the rest of the world confirms)?
7/x

Stephens also includes this gem, which is especially ridiculous this week, as news broke that the Trump admin authorized secret sales of nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia, a non-nuclear state that sponsors terrorism.
(I don't know what Stephens thinks of the Saudi deal).
8/x

Maybe Stephens would say Saudis aren't "millenarian," but that shows how little he understands Iran.
Calling Iran "millenarian" in this context means if Iran got a nuke they would use it, committing suicide to kill others.
But no evidence the Iranian gov is suicidal. At all.
9/x

Finally, Stephens declares there's no cost to the US, which is total nonsense.
For one, it's done a lot of damage to the Western alliance, even prompting Europe and China to create a new financial instrument to get around US sanctions. Long-term, that's terrible for US power
10/x

Bush and Obama united the world against Iran. Trump's Iran policy has managed to united much of the world against the US. That's not a success.
11/x
arcdigital.media/trump-united-t…

If we’re not getting a better deal—and we’re not—then what’s the point of the sanctions?
Stephens crows that Iran has less money to support its ops in Syria and Hezbollah, which is true, and a positive. Like I said, it’s about upsides and downsides, not all good or all bad.
12/x

But Iran’s side has effectively won in Syria. Hezbollah has 150,000 rockets pointed at Israel and remains strong in Lebanon’s gov.
Their budgets have shrunk somewhat, yes. But that’s like reporting Vietcong casualties. Tactical success without evidence of strategic success.
13/x

The remaining point of sanctions is collapsing the Iranian state. That seems to be Stephens’ hope, and he points to Iranian protests (which didn’t succeed and US didn’t cause).
It’s not likely. But even if it happens, why assume something stable or US-friendly rises after?
14/x

Iran is a US adversary and the US should act accordingly. But with smart strategy. Trump’s ain’t one.

Stephens’ many mistakes in this article highlight the confusion in the strategy, and how it’s a combination of wishful thinking at best, astrategic maliciousness at worst.
(END)