Iran's second military satellite launched to "LEO" orbit (500km)

[Dariush the Great]

"Properly signed" or not, Zarif's signature is in fact right there, which was the initial point of the discussion So, none of the things you said matter as that was the initial claim and it is indisputable that Zarif did sign the agreement.

Nevertheless, this "improperly signed" document has shut down our nuclear program for 10 years already and if it gets revived as it is discussed on social media and official newspapers, it's the same terrible deal for Iran extended for another 3 years. Meanwhile, Trump can get elected back into office in 2024 and this time he can simply go for the trigger mechanism in the JCPOA, officially reimposing all UN Security Council sanctions on Iran just a year before the expiration date of the JCPOA. So, good job defending the restoration of the JCPOA.

Also, even the parliament is constantly voicing their concern over the revival of the JCPOA. Just today:

بیانیه ۱۶۰ نماینده خطاب به تیم مذاکره کننده با اشاره به بحران اوکراین: نیاز آمریکا به کاهش قیمت نفت، نباید بدون توجه به خواسته‌های تهران، تأمین شود / درمورد رفع تحریم‌ها، بهانه‌هایی مثل داشتن موارد غیرهسته‌ای یا غیربرجامی بودن عناوین تحریمی را پذیرفت

۱۶۰ نماینده مجلس در بیانیه‌ای درباره مذاکرات هسته‌ای به تیم مذاکره‌کننده تأکید کردند که اکنون که بحران اوکراین نیاز غرب را به عرصه انرژی ایران افزایش داده است، نباید بدون توجه به خواسته‌های به حق ایران، نیاز آمریکا به کاهش قیمت نفت تأمین شود.

www.entekhab.ir

Here's a photo for you:

View attachment 823755​

Defending agreement with the ''sheytan'' if it fits their narrative. Where have we seen this before?

 

[QWECXZ]

Defending agreement with the ''sheytan'' if it fits their narrative. Where have we seen this before?

Glad to see you're back, bro.

 

[SalarHaqq]

"Properly signed" or not, Zarif's signature is in fact right there, which was the initial point of the discussion So, none of the things you said matter as that was the initial claim and it is indisputable that Zarif did sign the agreement.

Law is an extremely precise domain, with very specific and detailed rules to follow. From the legal point of view, it represents a decisive difference whether signatures are placed on the cover page (!) of a document as mere souvenirs (even with souvenir sentences added to them) - in which case they are deprived of legal value, or at the end of a text, with printed references to the official functions of the signatory, to the place and date of signature. When the latter are missing as with the JCPOA, then that document is simply not a legally binding agreement in the sense of international law.

This is confirmed by scholars of international law at respectable universities the world over.

Nevertheless, this "improperly signed" document has shut down our nuclear program for 10 years already and if it gets revived as it is discussed on social media and official newspapers, it's the same terrible deal for Iran extended for another 3 years. Meanwhile, Trump can get elected back into office in 2024 and this time he can simply go for the trigger mechanism in the JCPOA, officially reimposing all UN Security Council sanctions on Iran just a year before the expiration date of the JCPOA. So, good job defending the restoration of the JCPOA.

Also, even the parliament is constantly voicing their concern over the revival of the JCPOA. Just today:

بیانیه ۱۶۰ نماینده خطاب به تیم مذاکره کننده با اشاره به بحران اوکراین: نیاز آمریکا به کاهش قیمت نفت، نباید بدون توجه به خواسته‌های تهران، تأمین شود / درمورد رفع تحریم‌ها، بهانه‌هایی مثل داشتن موارد غیرهسته‌ای یا غیربرجامی بودن عناوین تحریمی را پذیرفت

۱۶۰ نماینده مجلس در بیانیه‌ای درباره مذاکرات هسته‌ای به تیم مذاکره‌کننده تأکید کردند که اکنون که بحران اوکراین نیاز غرب را به عرصه انرژی ایران افزایش داده است، نباید بدون توجه به خواسته‌های به حق ایران، نیاز آمریکا به کاهش قیمت نفت تأمین شود.

www.entekhab.ir

Here's a photo for you:

View attachment 823755​

It wouldn't be the same deal because Iran is demanding from the US and Europeans the addition of concrete guarantees ensuring that they would abide by their commitments. Previously this was missing, hence why the JCPOA could in effect turn into a one-sided affair, with only a single party implementing its engagements.

As for a future US president managing to trigger sanctions snap back at the UNSC, the difference between the Rohani and Raisi administrations is that the former put all its eggs in the JCPOA basket, while the current one is prepared to work without it i.e. with UNSC sanctions in place. Hence why it is standing firm in current talks and refusing to accept a return to previous conditions, even if this should lead to no deal being struck at all, which is entirely possible as we speak.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Defending agreement with the ''sheytan'' if it fits their narrative. Where have we seen this before?

Assorted academics are not necessarily shayatin.

I cited US officials to debunk Zarif's claim that the US regime was considering the JCPOA as a binding document, which in fact as per its own statement it never did.

My setting straight a technicality about the deal has nothing to do with defending or rejecting it. And the fact in question is that the JCPOA doesn't constituted an actual international treaty or agreement in the legal sense because it is not properly signed by participants - suggesting otherwise is like signing a transfer order form on the backside rather than where it's supposed to be signed, and expecting it to go through with the bank. If anything, this diminishes the value of the JCPOA.

 

[drmeson]

BT thinks that with Qassed's 100 % success rate, it is an actual 3 staged IRBM/ICBM on a TEL.