While the main elements of this story on unfreezing $1b in Iranian funds have since been denied, there& #39;s a detail in here that speaks volumes about how deeply toxic and broken Iran policy debates have gotten. [thread] https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1390438421756317697">https://twitter.com/CNN/statu...

2/ Sanctions, even those as sweeping as those put in place over past few years, are meant to have humanitarian exemptions. The problem is that even trade that& #39;s permitted is still impacted, as documented by NGOs on the ground & acknowledged by governments like Switzerland:

3/ In response to bottlenecks, the Swiss govt worked with Trump admin to develop a mechanism (SHTA) that would facilitate humanitarian trade - as the Treasury Dept put it - "upmost transparency". In other words, due diligence ensuring appropriate oversight. Here& #39;s USG:

4/ Even so, SHTA deliverables were few and far between beyond trial run with cancer drugs, and when COVID-19 pandemic struck, slowed down even further:

5/ Fast fwd to today, and Iran hawks cited by CNN opposed principle of facilitating even a transaction that would entail:

* Unfreezing funds that are *Iranian*
* Using a channel developed *by the Trump admin*
* To allow *humanitarian transfers*
* In the *middle of a pandemic*

6/ In other words, the argument has gone from "there are no problems with humanitarian trade" to "we& #39;re opposed to using the solution set up to address problems with humanitarian trade because that is & #39;leverage& #39;".

7/7 No secret that DC sanx debate is a bitter one. But if this is anything to go by, discussions aren& #39;t based on merits or strategic interests; they& #39;re underpinned, at least among some, by an animus that leaves clear the exact number of sanctions they& #39;d support lifting:

Zero.