Share this page!

Richard Goldberg Profile picture
Twitter logo
8 Nov, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Four days later, I stand by this tweet. I was a Republican staffer on Capitol Hill when I served as a reservist in Afghanistan. My commander in chief was President Obama. I was honored to serve in the Trump administration. And I congratulate President-elect Biden and his team. /1
We have serious policy differences in America. How to create economic opportunity. How to empower everyone in our country to achieve the American dream. How to keep our country safe & secure. These differences will continue. High-minded debate makes us all better. /2
Violence is not who we are. Intimidation & threats are not who we are. Dehumanizing our fellow Americans is not who we are. This is an emotional period for many. Some joyous, others distraught. We should treat each other with respect as the president-elect encouraged tonight. /3
I pledge to do my part. Encourage and support bipartisanship whenever possible. Offer constructive ideas. Applaud good policy decisions when I see them. Vigorously oppose bad policy and dangerous views whenever they appear. /4
I am lucky to count close friends on both sides of the aisle (people in both the Trump & Biden camps if you can believe it). That’s how it used to be. That’s how it should be. I hope it’s how it will be for the years ahead. END

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Richard Goldberg

Richard Goldberg Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rich_goldberg

Richard Goldberg Profile picture
21 Aug
THREAD. Reading E3 letter to the Security Council (which by the way shreds any credibility for those countries to ever opine on the virtues of international law again) it becomes clear that they (plus Russia and China) would have said a US snapback in May 2018 was invalid, too.
Obama, Biden, Kerry, Sherman, Lew & others vowed the US could snapback even if all other countries opposed it. Were they lying? Was that the understanding? Are these official lying today when they say we could have in 2018 but we can't now? Was this supposed to be a jump ball?
The answer is: you are supposed to read the language of a binding Security Council Resolution and defer to the complaint of a named party if at any time that party wants to snapback. UNSCR 2231 makes clear US can go directly to the Council to snapback, bypassing the JCPOA JC.
Read 8 tweets
Richard Goldberg Profile picture
16 Aug
THREAD. This is an important issue to tackle because I see variations of this argument out there. It basically concedes that the US *does* have the legal right to snapback based on the reading of UNSCR 2231 but that the snapback will be meaningless because Russia will ignore it.
First, procedure matters a great deal because the question of enforcement and legitimacy will have a lot to do with what has happened (or hasn't happened) at the end of the 30-day snapback period. Did the UNSC take a vote on a resolution to ignore a complaint as required by 2231?
In a scenario where no vote is held and the Council is divided on the legitimacy of a US complaint, I think this argument could be valid. But procedure dictates whether that scenario can occur. And due to the "double veto" power of a P5 member, I don't see how it can.
Read 9 tweets
Richard Goldberg Profile picture
16 Aug
THREAD. Wendy, did you ever read the Resolution you negotiated? Operative Paragraphs 9-12. A legally independent snapback is in the plain text of UNSCR 2231 as is the US' eligibility to trigger it (with no provision for ever changing that eligibility). undocs.org/S/RES/2231(201…
Here's @wendyrsherman on August 5, 2015: "If Iran fails to meet its responsibilities, we can ensure that UN Security Council sanctions snap back into place, and no country can stop that from happening.” Where did Wendy 2015 go? banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…
Here's @JohnKerry on 7/24/15: "if we’re not happy, we can go to the Security Council & we alone can force a vote on the snapping back of those sanctions. And the vote is already structured in the UN res that was passed the other day as a reverse vote." 2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/rema…
Read 6 tweets
Richard Goldberg Profile picture
12 Apr
The case against any IMF loan to #Iran is obvious to most Americans. Yet on the eve of IMF spring meeting, the regime's supporters are keeping up the fight. Here's a 'Top 10' (of many) reasons shareholders should oppose along with recent @FDD policy brief. fdd.org/analysis/2020/…
Iran doesn’t need the #IMF’s money to fight #coronavirus. Khamenei just tapped 1 bil euro from his sovereign wealth fund. More available in his $200 billion business empire. Why is this still a topic of conversation? en.radiofarda.com/a/khamenei-agr…
Iranian FM @JZarif recently tweeted the truth: the whole campaign has nothing to do with battling the virus; it’s about getting an international economic bailout without abandoning terrorism, nuclear expansions, missile testing, human rights abuses, etc.
Read 11 tweets
Richard Goldberg Profile picture
5 Apr
For someone who "practices" sanctions law, this thread is riddled with errors. Perhaps he and his firm need more "practice." Talk about disinformation. Time for some CLE. Let me assist.
Sec 104 of CISADA applies to banks that are found to be financing the IRGC, terrorism and proliferation activities. There should be no exceptions for obvious reasons. Dozens of Iranian banks aren't designated for such conduct. Still aren't. Let's move to other applicable acts.
As the quoted item states correctly, the "CBI sanctions" aka Menendez/Kirk sanctions aka FY12 NDAA Sec 1245 provided an explicit exception for transactions with the Central Bank of Iran for food, medicine and medical supplies. That exception still applies today.
Read 11 tweets
Richard Goldberg Profile picture
5 Apr
A coalition of pro-Iran deal advocates (e.g. Obama admin & Euros dedicated to saving JCPOA & evading US sanctions) are calling for Iran sanctions relief to fight Coronavirus. But remember: they were for sanctions relief before the virus; they’ll be for sanctions relief after too.
As a reminder, #Iran doesn’t need sanctions relief to fight #coronavirus. Money is available. The regime confirms that. This is just an excuse to get wholesale sanctions relief to keep money flowing for illicit/malign activities. @mdubowitz & I explained foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/31/the…
Sanctions relief for #Iran should be a non-starter. It’s not a partisan position. It’s not a Trump position. @JoeBiden @SenatorMenendez @RepEliotEngel have taken nearly the exact same position as the Trump administration. Advocates for sanctions relief are on the fringe.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get email notifications when new thread is out from this Author!

Check out other threads from this Author!

Read all threads by @rich_goldberg