Thread by @AliVaez

The escalation of US-Iran tension in recent days has provoked a lot of speculation about specifics: the interpretation of specific intelligence, the agendas of particular individuals.

Perhaps it's worth thinking more broadly too [Thread]

2| There's a context to the crisis we've walked into since 6 May. For the past year, Washington has pursued a coercive strategy that's based on brandishing a big stick and burning down the carrot farm.

3| And despite repeated warnings, including by @CrisisGroup that "maximum pressure" campaign was more likely to lead to increased confrontation rather than Iranian capitulation, the admin continued to double down dismissive of possible consequences. bit.ly/2JqDWO5

4| For example, when US designated the IRGC as a terrorist org, there were concerns from defence & intelligence officials over the implications. But when a senior official was asked if there might be risks, his answer was: "we don't believe so". n.pr/2LZ7LHY

5| Similarly, in late April, the assessment "we should be surprised if [the Iranians] are not in compliance [with JCPOA]", even though it was clear that Tehran's deal dividends were withering into nothingness. bit.ly/2VxDsrg

6| It was only last week that President Trump was talking about how the U.S. was “successfully imposing the most powerful maximum pressure campaign ever witnessed”. bit.ly/2Yehew7

7| Therein lies the issue: while we focus - rightly given the circumstances - on an immediate de-escalation, it's also important to question the wisdom of the policies that got us here in the first place. If we take water off boil, it's still piping hot.

8|8 Here's @SecPompeo last week: "we are pushing back. And when you push back, tension does increase. Our mission set is very clear". As long as we're thinking about things through this mindset, we'll be in danger of stumbling. bit.ly/2W9cyKD