The Iran nuclear deal's original terms made the world a safer place. That's why restarting the agreement through "compliance for compliance", rather than trying to hold out for a new/different deal (as Trump, Iran hawks wanted) is the best path.
1/ A short THREAD explaining why:
1/ A short THREAD explaining why:
2/ The Iran deal put the U.S./Europe/Russia/China all on the same side of Iran policy. Leaving the deal shattered that coalition.
We can't make progress on Iran's missile program or terrorist funding without this team regrouping, and a quick reentry to the JCPOA does this.
We can't make progress on Iran's missile program or terrorist funding without this team regrouping, and a quick reentry to the JCPOA does this.
3/ Plus, so long as we continue Trump era sanctions, Iran will seek to destabilize the region, in Iran, Yemen, Syria, etc.
Neocons say we can't negotiate with Iran while they provoke, but that's their typical BS. We need de-escalation, and restarting the JCPOA does that.
Neocons say we can't negotiate with Iran while they provoke, but that's their typical BS. We need de-escalation, and restarting the JCPOA does that.
4/ Going back to the negotiating table and demanding Iran do a broader agreement on nukes, missiles, terrorism, is a fool's errand. Pompeo tried to hold out for everything and failed miserably. Why choose to fail again, when a nuclear deal is there for taking now?
5/ "Compliance for compliance" is the right path. And the U.S. shouldn't be afraid of going first. If we release sanctions and Iran doesn't reciprocate, then we can always reapply sanctions.
6/ I inherently trust the Biden team to pursue the right course here. But query whether reentering the JCPOA actually needs a new set of negotiations, or whether talks could be a trap, when a less complicated path to restarting the deal is right in front our eyes.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
