Read on Twitter
U.S. concerns may center on nuclear issues, but the priority of Arab and Israeli leaders is to end Iranian threats and attacks against their countries (and the expatriates who live there). Their concerns are genuine. (1/6)
https://politi.co/2KHQyT0 via @politico
https://politi.co/2KHQyT0 via @politico
It is not unreasonable for the victims of Iran's ongoing regional aggression to ask what diplomatic or coercive levers will be retained following a return to a nuclear deal. Many in Congress will ask this same question. (2/6)
The U.S. should approach the Iran problem multilaterally, but the definition of multilateral must mean that those involved commit to responses to Tehran’s aggression that do not become hostage to the nuclear deal. (3/6)
National values and principles don’t vary by geography. Those threatened by Russia or China likely will assess next administration by its handling of Iran and the multilateral campaign against it. (4/6)
Further, we cannot ask partners to support diplomatic & economic campaigns against adversaries if we do not respect the core security concerns of countries so clearly under threat. (5/6)
Last, Tehran’s leadership must decide the path it will follow in the international community. The U.S. cannot encourage the rise of responsible voices in Iran unless it shows that there will be cost to behavior that threatens other countries and violates international laws. (6/6)
