Read on Twitter
As someone who routinely receives abuse because of my proximity to people on the other side of the Iran policy debate, let me just say that anyone who vilifies @RichardMNephew or others for engaging across the aisle is actively contributing to bad policy outcomes. https://twitter.com/rmslim/status/1314585717863927809
Washington can't devise effective policy on Iran or any other issue until & unless we rebuild bipartisan consensus. Diplomacy requires broad domestic support re goals & means. Without it, US agreements & alliances are inherently ephemeral & our internat'l credibility is damaged.
You can't rebuild bipartisanship by preaching to the converted. And you can't address the most urgent threats facing the world today by refusing to listen to other points of view. Dialogue among antagonists is an essential part of diplomacy, both at home & around the world.
The counterargument insists that the other side is unreasonable or worse. Maybe so, but they're stakeholders w/a say in foreign policy outcomes. Engage & find common ground, or don't--and find your signature diplomacy wrecked as soon as the White House or the Senate flips.
BTW: bipartisan foreign policy consensus can't be done solely w/moderate Rs & centrist Ds. Energy in both parties is gravitating toward opposing ideological poles. For more sustainable US policy on Iran & other big issues, progressive Ds & Cotton/Cruz Rs must be at the table too.
Final point: even where the domestic divisions can't be bridged, both sides of these important foreign policy debates need to find more avenues for engagement. Civil argumentation does a lot more to improve ideas than groupthink.
