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">https://twitter.com/rmslim/st...

Washington can& #39;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& #39;l credibility is damaged.

You can& #39;t rebuild bipartisanship by preaching to the converted. And you can& #39;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& #39;re stakeholders w/a say in foreign policy outcomes. Engage & find common ground, or don& #39;t--and find your signature diplomacy wrecked as soon as the White House or the Senate flips.

BTW: bipartisan foreign policy consensus can& #39;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& #39;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.