While the main elements of this story on unfreezing $1b in Iranian funds have since been denied, there'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

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'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'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're opposed to using the solution set up to address problems with humanitarian trade because that is 'leverage'".

7/7 No secret that DC sanx debate is a bitter one. But if this is anything to go by, discussions aren't based on merits or strategic interests; they're underpinned, at least among some, by an animus that leaves clear the exact number of sanctions they'd support lifting:

Zero.