Still haven't heard any Iran Deal critic plausibly argue the Middle East would be better today if only Iran had nuclear weapons. Just naive fantasies that Russia and China would've continued sanctions forever, Iran was verging on collapse, or a few airstrikes would've solved it.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @NGrossman81
I think there is a reasonable case to be made that a somewhat harder bargain could have been driven, even recognizing the well-known constraints.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joelw_762
Marginally, maybe. Though it was a multilateral negotiation, and Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China all found the deal acceptable. Without them on board, the US didn't have leverage. Tinkering with the details might have been possible, but not the main trade-off.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NGrossman81
I think that relative leniency benefited the EU countries, RF, & PRC more than it did the US. I certainly buy what you're saying, just think it's up for reasonable debate. That said, reasonable debate was pretty scarce during the whole discourse.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I always support reasonable debate in general, and agree it's possible on this issue (on most things, really). My criticism is that most of the debate hasn't been reasonable.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.