OK, let's talk about this one.

This starts pedantic but stick with me. The point is larger.

Trump says any country that buys oil from Iran will not be allowed to do any business with U.S. cnb.cx/3RJXmig There are some issues here.

First and foremost, if what he actually means is truly "secondary sanctions," then what he's actually threatening is that anyone who does business with anyone who buys Iranian oil is who will be denied access to the United States.

I've been thinking a lot about this exchange. Although certain people are turning this into a political "gotcha" moment for the president -- an effort to which I do not subscribe -- I think this misses an opportunity to really think about what deterrence means and sanx role. 1 I disagree that sanctions "never deter," though I accept that this is something on which people can have a good faith, fact-based argument. I think the real question is WHAT sanctions can deter and HOW sanctions deter, and WHETHER sanctions can deter someone like Putin... 2

A thread on Russia sanctions, prompted by talk of the United States considering sanctions against Rosatom, Russia's civil nuclear company/agency, but more generally by criticism of some of the licenses and implementation modifications made to sanctions thus far. 1/ The challenge presented by Russia's invasion of Ukraine has rightly -- in my view -- prompted the United States, EU, and many other partners to impose sweeping sanctions against Russia. These have included a range of sectors and entities of significance to the global economy. 2/

Three thoughts, adapted from my book The Art of Sanctions, on the Russia campaign thus far:

1) It's still early days, but the cohesion of the coalition facing Putin right now is remarkable. Coordination has been tight and messaging consistent. 1/9 If you've not done this before, you can't imagine how hard it is to manage these various different moves, which have to balance different legal structures and traditions, national economic needs and capabilities, and complex international relationships. 2/9

@EliClifton @ArianeTabatabai @mdubowitz Yeah but that's kinda what "polite society" implies, no?

I also think the concept of "giving a platform" is a little weird here. I mean, the idea that the JCPOA was a bad deal and that max pressure is a good idea is not an isolated FDD concept. @EliClifton @ArianeTabatabai @mdubowitz I disagree with it on a fundamental level, as everyone knows. But, for us to pretend that it is only an FDD beef is just not right.

As for "platform" as in "a place to speak," FDD has 41,000 followers on Twitter. I've got 6,800. If anything, FDD is giving ME a platform.

@EliClifton @mdubowitz @ArianeTabatabai Thanks, but frankly, no. Several reasons.
1) This is a debate concerning one position on one topic, not each other's twitter feed or other activities. Frankly, it is not even a debate about "us" as much as it is the actual question Ariane put to us on one US policy. @EliClifton @mdubowitz @ArianeTabatabai I doubt Mark would like to legitimize some of my twitter feed, especially my comments around the last presidential debate, but fortunately for all, he's not being asked to do that either. Now, for the record, I don't happen to agree with that particular tweet. But, not the point.

1. For all its talk about replacing the JCPOA with a better deal, the reality is that the Admin's policy has resulted in Iran's nuclear program once more on the brink of being able to produce a nuclear weapon in weeks and no real plan to prevent it. #blunderingtowardnuclearchaos 2. This is a primary conclusion of a recent article I wrote to support the American Nuclear Policy Initiative (ANPI) and its report on the Trump Administration's Blundering Toward Nuclear Chaos, available here: globalzero.org/blundering-tow…

It should not go unnoticed how swiftly people who argued that we could get a "better deal" with Iran through more sanctions and tougher diplomacy are shifting to advocacy of military options. Here we are, barely a year after JCPOA withdrawal, and some of these folks are already promising us a "two strike" war that solves everything. Now, that's crazy and no one seriously believes this. But, it has to have a bearing on how we treat their entire analysis.

Dear fellow JCPOA supporters: Do not get sucked into this latest crazy nonsense about what Kerry or others may or may not be doing. It is an obvious and unnecessary head fake by opponents, considering they're currently ruling the policy roost in Washington. 1/ The fact that the JCPOA was working and may still work at constraining Iran's nuclear program for some time is a good thing. There is nothing harmful about encouraging Iran not to antagonize the rest of the P5+1 by restarting the nuclear program or indeed doing other things. 2/