You can measure the weakness of an argument by the number of lies and obfuscations it takes to make it. Here, almost everything Brian Hook writes in @WSJopinion in order to defend the U.S. "snapback" threat is false. https://www.wsj.com/articles/were-ready-to-snap-back-sanctions-11589410620

2/ He wants to argue that the embargo is essential to limiting Iranian arms transfers to its proxies, giving a specific example of an interdicted shipment to Yemen in February. But there is a separate embargo on Yemen:

https://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc11859.doc.htm

3/ Why didn't he mention a specific case related to Syria or another conflict without its own embargo? Because we cannot effectively use them for interdiction. We have embargos where they are practically important.

4/ Similarly, Hook's list of what Iran might start buying after the arms embargo sunset is totally misleading:

He says it will "strengthen its ability to...shoot down aircraft." That would be a big deal! But, air defense systems are *specially excluded* from the embargo.

5/ If anything, Russia is more likely to loosen its scruples about selling the advanced S400 system in response to the U.S. playing the cowboy in NY.

6/ He talks about ballistic missiles, but sunsets on that trade do not end until 2023. That's an issue, but it is not an immediate crisis. Pretending otherwise shows how little confidence Hook has in the case he actually has to work with.

7/ He tries a big lie about the #JCPOA, saying "under the nuclear deal....Iran built out a 'Shiite crescent' in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain and Yemen, arming its proxies to the teeth." Which would be a laughable ordering of recent history if it weren't so very not funny.

8/ He calls snapback a "legally available option," neglecting the fact that this is a *political* question, not a legal one, and that attempting a disputed snapback would pose massive risks to the Security Council.

9/ He claims that a bipartisan majority in the House supports @SecPompeo's "diplomacy to extend the arms embargo," insinuating support for snapback but @RepEliotEngel specifically explained that democrats were calling for an effort to extend the embargo "not through snapback.."

10/ The snapback threat isn't about the arms embargo. If the Trump Administration were worried about Iranian arms trade, this kind of showy unilateralism would be exactly the wrong thig to do. It is about creating a crisis to tie a potential President Biden's hands.

11/ Hard to know how worried we should be. The Administration's intentions are dangerous and dishonest, but on the other hand their schemes so often fail...

12/ More detail on all of this in my piece last week in @RStatecraft: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/05/07/can-pompeo-trap-a-future-president-biden-in-trumps-self-imposed-iran-crisis/