Michael Rubin takes issue today with this post.

I took issue with the idea he expressed in this oped, which can be summarized by these sentences:

Iran’s responsiveness to diplomacy is a mirage. After two years of talks following exposure of its Natanz facility, Tehran finally acquiesced to a temporary enrichment suspension, a move which Secretary of State Colin Powell called “a little bit of progress,” and the EU hailed.

The only point I was trying to make is that Iran did compromise during its 2003-2005 negotiations with the E3. I provided some evidence which, I think, is relevant to the above point. Rubin says it’s not relevant, so maybe I’m missing the point of his article. In any case, he doesn’t refute it.

I also disagree that the interview with Rowhani supports his article’s contention. I still think that’s the case.

I will address his comments about my employer and my integrity in another post.