Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif got into a bit of a flame war with President Trump on Thursday. It began with this threat:

Tagging President Trump in a Twitter post entitled “misconceptions endanger peace,” Zarif offered the following reply:

Zarif is an apex Twitter troll. But let’s take each claim in turn.

For a start, even if Zarif says they “ARE” so, sanctions are clearly not war. They are calibrated mechanisms of economic power short of lethal action. As the great Carl von Clausewitz taught us, “war is an act of violence to compel the enemy to fulfill our will.” Sanctions are thus political acts short of violence to compel the enemy to fulfill our will. The distinction is the means of a sought political remedy.

Second, it seems pretty clear that when Trump says “obliteration” he’s not referring to the Iranian civilian population.

Moreover, a short war is not necessarily an illusion. Indeed, it is more likely than a long war. Were the U.S. and Iran to engage in a military conflict, the most likely outcome would be escalating one-sided destruction. The U.S. could quickly impose air superiority over Iran and then use that space to launch relentless air strikes against regime ground targets. Iran would face incredible pressure to come to the table — or perish.

Then there’s Zarif’s ,”Whoever begins war will not be the one ending it.” This is a fatuous threat requiring no rebuke.

How about the final point? “Negotiations and threats are mutually exclusive.” This is clearly untrue. The Obama administration only brought Iran to the table to negotiate its 2015 nuclear deal by virtue of international sanctions pressure and the threat of increased sanctions in the absence of an alleviating deal. Threats and negotiations go hand in hand.

Once again, Zarif deludes himself. He is simply angry over his regime’s growing crisis.