Read on Twitter
I am skeptical about the idea that "regional issues" should be included in any new round of negotiations between the US and Iran, for a few reasons... 1/
First, it is not clear to me that US involvement in disputes between Iran and our partners makes them easier to resolve; indeed, the opposite may be true. I wrote about this a bit here: 2/ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/north-america/2020-08-12/conflict-small-powers-derails-us-foreign-policy
Second, for this likely paltry return we may nevertheless pay dearly - in my view, the optic of Iran and the US sitting together to hash out regional disputes benefits Tehran, and undermines the US and our partners. 3/
Third, from our partners' perspective, there's risk in bringing int'l parties (e.g. Europe) whose primary interest wrt Iran is nonpro into a discussion of regional issues, as their incentive will be to trade Iranian concessions on the former for accommodations on the latter. 4/
This is a version of the principal-agent problem common to negotiations - when negotiating through an agent, you may gain expertise and leverage, but rarely do the "agent's" interests coincide perfectly with the principal's, giving rise to a tradeoff. 5/
Thus, even if such talks end in stalemate they could result in the shift of int'l positions on issues like Iraq, Syria, etc. in an effort to wring nuclear/missile concessions out of Iran, which will be difficult to reverse once offered. 6/
Better, I think, that any "JCPOA Plus" stick to nuke/missile issues, and regional matters be handled separately - including not just or primarily thru talks, but via a firm US/allied policy aimed at deterring Iran, enforcement of UN resolutions on Lebanon and Yemen, etc. /End
PS - I hasten to add that none of this means that we should not consider including partners in nuke/missile talks w/Iran, which is a different question that Halley Toosi just wrote about here: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/22/arab-states-israel-say-they-want-in-on-future-iran-talks-449763
