What's new

Iran’s Parliament approves outlines of strategic action plan to counter sanctions

I think the test should not take longer than 5 months from when Biden becomes president (till half of 2021). Full sanction removal or Iran should leave NPT. The army should from now on be prepared for total war if enemy attacks us after this decision. As Zarif said, all the sanction can be removed by 3 executive orders by Biden. If they want to play, new president (Dehghan or Fereydoon Abbasi-Davani) should make it clear that Iran will leave NPT. No jcpoa+ or ++

In theory you are right, but I personally do not see them rushing it, not during Rouhani's term anyway. Iran will certainly get quick benefits when it regains access to the global finance systems. We have many billions frozen in foreign banks alone. One thing we will not see is any major investments from companies that would have liked to invest, for obvious reasons.
I let you decide on your own:

Explain how this addresses the point:

"they did not reinstate the same crushing, economical sanctions, you replied by showing some sporadic sanctions that targeted mostly individuals, even if we assume that in some way effected Iran's economy, do you really believe that had any major effect?"

More-over, these sanctions you're referring to, in practise only ended up effecting mostly individuals, and if we considered non individuals, they were against Iran's missile, IRGC etc. Read your own link.

You're comparing apples and oranges.
Khamenei gave the green light for the first JCPOA and we all saw what happened. So it is treason to go back in the JCPOA and ''see what happens'' for the next 4 years.

Who determines whether it is treason exactly? So If Mr Khamenei gives the go ahead for Iran to rejoin the JCPOA for the next 4 years, that is treasons according to who?
 
Last edited:
I don’t know how idiots on here and in Iran look at Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and think “ maybe the West really just wants to negotiate with us and be our friend”.

That’s like negotiating with a lion to not eat you when your sleeping.

Amazes me. When Iran is Balkanized those individuals will be no where to be found or fleeing to Western countries while there country burns.

If Iran falls it will not be because it didn’t have enough missiles, weapons, or soldiers. It will fall because it was naive to trust the West and its leadership became incompetent and made critical errors in its decision making process.

Negotiate and Iran will fall. Writing is on the wall. Iran and Russia are being boxed in each and every passing year. The last country in the world that is against Western led order is China and unlike Russia and Iran first spent time growing its economy to be to “big to sanction” then grew its military.
 
In theory you are right, but I personally do not see them rushing it, not during Rouhani's term anyway. Iran will certainly get quick benefits when it regains access to the global finance systems. We have many billions frozen in foreign banks alone. One thing we will not see is any major investments from companies that would have liked to invest, for obvious reasons.


Explain how this addresses the point:

"they did not reinstate the same crushing, economical sanctions, you replied by showing some sporadic sanctions that targeted mostly individuals, even if we assume that in some way effected Iran's economy, do you really believe that had any major effect?"

More-over, these sanctions you're referring to, in practise only ended up effecting mostly individuals, and if we considered non individuals, they were against Iran's missile, IRGC etc. Read your own link.

You're comparing apples and oranges.
You just want to repeat yourself, thinking that it makes a difference. Obama allowed ISA to get extended after the JCPOA for another 10 years. List of corporations and entities targeted by the ISA (formerly known as the ILSA, before the fall of Ghaddafi in Libya):

بانک کشاورزی ایران[۱۲]
بانک سرمایه‌گذاری امین[۱۳]
شرکت پتروشیمی شازند[۱۴]
شرکت پتروشیمی بندر امام خمینی[۱۵]
بانک مرکزی جمهوری اسلامی ایران[۱۶]
بانک مسکن[۱۷]
بانک ملت[۱۸]
بانک ملی[۱۹]
بانک مشارکت ایران و ونزوئلا[۲۰]
بانک صنعت و معدن[۲۱]
بانک رفاه[۲۲]
بانک سپه[۲۳]
بانک تجارت[۲۴]
بانک توسعه صادرات ایران[۲۵]
بانک دی[۲۶]
بانک اقتصاد نوین[۲۷]
بانک گردشگری[۲۸]
بانک قرض الحسنه مهر ایران[۲۹]
بانک حکمت ایرانیان[۳۰]
بانک ایران زمین[۳۱]
بانک کارآفرین[۳۲]
بانک پارسیان[۳۳]
بانک پاسارگاد[۳۴]
بانک سامان[۳۵]
بانک سرمایه[۳۶]
بانک شهر[۳۷]
بانک آینده[۳۸]
بانک توسعه تعاون[۳۹]
بیمه ایران[۴۰]
شرکت پتروشیمی برزویه[۴۱]
شرکت پتروشیمی بوعلی سینا[۴۲]
بانک EIH[۴۳]
ستاد اجرایی فرمان امام
شرکت سرمایه‌گذاری غدیر[۴۴]
شرکت پتروشیمی قائد بصیر[۴۵]
بانک قرض الحسنه رسالت[۴۶]
بانک قوامین[۴۷]
گروه توسعه ساختمانی تدبیر[۴۸]
سازمان گسترش و توسعه صنایع ایران[۴۹]
سازمان توسعه و نوسازی معادن و صنایع معدنی ایران[۵۰]
شرکت لیزینگ ایران وشرق[۵۱]
شرکت سرمایه‌گذاری‌های خارجی ایران[۵۲]
شرکت بازرگانی پتروشیمی[۵۳]
شرکت کالای نفت[۵۴]
بانک خاور میانه[۵۵]
ماشین سازی اراک[۵۶]
شرکت مهندسی مشاور مهاب قدس[۵۷]
شرکت پتروشیمی مبین[۵۸]
شرکت سرمایه‌گذاری مدبر یا شرکت هولدینگ صنعتی تدبیر[۵۹]
شرکت ملی نفت ایران[۶۰]
شرکت ملی نفتکش ایران[۶۱]
شرکت ملی صنایع پتروشیمی[۶۲]
شرکت پتروشیمی نوری[۴۱]
شرکت سرمایه‌گذاری صنعت نفت[۶۳]
شرکت سرمایه‌گذاری پردیس[۶۴]
شرکت نفت پارس[۶۵]
شرکت پارس ام سی اس[۶۶]
شرکت پتروشیمی پارس[۶۷]
شرکت توسعه صنعت نفت و گاز پرشیا[۶۸]
شرکت توسعه پتروایران[۶۹]
شرکت پتروپارس[۷۰]
شرکت نفت و گاز پارس[۷۱]
پست بانک ایران[۷۲]
شرکت سیمان زرین رفسنجان[۷۳]
شرکت سرمایه‌گذاری ری[۷۴]
شرکت مهندسی ری نیرو[۷۵]
شرکت تولید و صادرات ریشمک[۷۶]
شرکت پتروشیمی شهید تندگویان[۷۷]
شرکت کارگزاری تدبیرگران فردا[۷۸]
مجتمع پتروشیمی تبریز[۷۹]
گروه توسعه اقتصادی تدبیر
گروه توسعه انرژی تدبیر[۸۰]
شرکت سرمایه‌گذاری تدبیر[۸۱]
شرکت توسعه اقتصاد آینده سازان​

So, yeah. The ISA does target Iran's banking sector, energy sector. Not only that, it also targets our mining sector and industry.
 
You just want to repeat yourself, thinking that it makes a difference. Obama allowed ISA to get extended after the JCPOA for another 10 years. List of corporations and entities targeted by the ISA (formerly known as the ILSA):



So, yeah. The ISA does target Iran's banking sector and energy sector.

Repeating the same thing, just in different ways does not strengthen your argument. Those sanctions targeted bodies associated with the sanctioned entities, they were banks in some cases. My points to you, had nothing to do with any of this. I have asked you to explain to me if these sanctions are in anyway comparable to the crushing sanctions Iran was under before the deal.

I never made the statement they did not put sanction on Iran after the deal, I told you they did not reinstate the same financial, economical sanctions. You have made the statement:

The initial temporary reduction in sanctions was to motivate Iran to finish all its obligations under the JCPOA. Let's not forget that once Iran finished its commitments under the JCPOA, Iran gained nothing from the deal after that point.

And I gave you 3 points to explain why Iran's growth stagnated. Your only answer so far is using some small secondary sanctions as an argument.
 
Repeating the same thing, just in different ways does not strengthen your argument. Those sanctions targeted bodies associated with the sanctioned entities, they were banks in some cases. My points to you, had nothing to do with any of this. I have asked you to explain to me if these sanctions are in anyway comparable to the crushing sanctions Iran was under before the deal.

I never made the statement they did not put sanction on Iran after the deal, I told you they did not reinstate the same financial, economical sanctions. You have made the statement:

The initial temporary reduction in sanctions was to motivate Iran to finish all its obligations under the JCPOA. Let's not forget that once Iran finished its commitments under the JCPOA, Iran gained nothing from the deal after that point.

And I gave you 3 points to explain why Iran's growth stagnated. Your only answer so far is using some small secondary sanctions as an argument.
Stop embarrassing yourself and making a fool out of yourself. You are only losing your reputation by insisting on an argument that cannot be won.
I believe this discussion is done. So, I see no need for discussing the obvious while it has already been proved that Obama extended the Iran Sanctions Act for another 10 years (targeting Iran's banking system, energy sector and mining sector) and also directly targeted Iran's tourism industry. If you think those sanctions are "small" only because they don't directly target Iran's oil exports, then there's no point in continuing this discussion with you.

Now do both of us a favor and stop quoting me please.
 
Stop embarrassing yourself and making a fool out of yourself. You are only losing your reputation by insisting on an argument that cannot be won.

Try to relax. Either learn the basics of a discussion, or refrain from getting involvement. Strawman arguments are a common and fallacious ways to do so, and frankly that's all I have seen from you so far.


I believe this discussion is done. So, I see no need for discussing the obvious while it has already been proved that Obama extended the Iran Sanctions Act for another 10 years (targeting Iran's banking system, energy sector and mining sector) and also directly targeted Iran's tourism industry. If you think those sanctions are "small" only because they don't directly target Iran's oil exports, then there's no point in continuing this discussion with you.

Small is a relative term. This is perhaps, the 5th time I have asking you to do a basic comparison between these sanctions you're referring to, and the multi-lateral sanctions that were placed on Iran prior to the deal. Your argument is basically not a answer to the problem you yourself mentioned. You seem somehow obsessed to try and make people believe as if the Americans reinstated the same sanctions but in a different way. Yes, they continued to sanctions, but Iran stayed with the deal but what it was gaining from it was far better than the alternative of ripping it. If your interest is purely in terms of economy, then I gave you your reasons as to why Iran did not bear the fruits it expected. So avoid creating a storm in a tea cup.
Guardian Council approved the draft against the bold opposition of traitor reformist government.
The only change was increasing the one month respite to two months before quitting the additional protocol.
second reactor will be run by defense ministry!

Any clarification regarding the NPT issue? Have they also demanded Iran leave the NPT or is that still just an option?
 
Last edited:
I read all the posts of today's discussion...the discussion is on the "grass" level and becomes a shouting match.....let's fly over the trees and look at it again:

Gaddafi of Lybia....gave up his nuclear stuff..paid two billion ransom and even got to set-up his tent in the middle of Paris ...we know things did not end well for him and his country.

Kim yum yum of North Korea.....the 30 year old son of a gun built his bomb, and his ICBM and even his hydrogen bomb....he got two royal visits from Trump and they both fell in love with each other...he lives happily

The moral of the stroy:
Do not threaten zionist ...but if you do..they NEVER ever going to forgive you (ask Saddam!)
They will sanction you, disarm you, and give you some sweets ...and then they will dismember you so you never be a threat to them.

FU*K the JCOPA ..make iran sanction proof and sharpen you weapons..or they will come for you.
 
FU*K the JCOPA ..make iran sanction proof and sharpen you weapons..or they will come for you.

Lets keep in mind that Iran did not enter the deal because it liked the idea of restraining its nuclear program. The question is, at the time of crippling sanctions, what would have been in Iran's best interest? Of course it was to get sanctions relief. Regarding becoming "sanction proof", that is a correct desire, however, how do you achieve it? What's the practical strategy? The idea behind this "resistant economy" is to create a more insulated economical environment for Iran against sanctions but mismanagement amongst other factors is one of the major hindrances. JCPOA should have been a relief until Iran is ready to withstand enemy sanctions. JCPOA and any other such deals should never be allowed to restrain Iran's nuclear program in perpetuity.

All of the above is going by the assumption that Iran's overt nuclear program is all there is, however if like me you believe there is a covert program going on as well, then this restraining of the open program in return for sanctions relief is not as a bitter pill to swallow. If in the next 4 years Iran cannot reap enough benefits from this deal, then it will truly die.
 
Its absolutely hilarious...this line of reasoning. So Iran is facing maximum pressure by those who are putting every effort to undermine the JCPOA. The right response, according to some, is to give the Israeli First camp exactly what they want by tearing apart the agreement that obviously provides strategic benefits to Iran.

That the opponents of the JCPOA in the US are behind the so-called maximum pressure campaign does not imply that the long term goals of JCPOA proponents are any less hostile.

I cannot find the reference right now, but there was an open letter addressed to Trump by leading Democrat figures in which the latter explicitly stated that their final objective with regards to Iran is identical with Trump's. But that it is in the means to attain said objective where they differ. Which should be an eye opener to us all.

It really boils down to this: both Democrats and Republicans, both hawks and doves in Washington are pursuing one same aim, and that is the destruction and balkanization of Iran. Have no doubt about it. What sets them apart, is solely their differing appreciation as to what constitutes the best way forward on the path to that objective.

The liberal side will stress that all out pressure on Iran is likely to rally the population behind its political leadership. The conservarive side will argue that the revolutionary core of the system including the IRGC might benefit as much from sanctions relief as western-apologetic reformists and moderates. But none will fundamentally take issue with the other side's underlying end goal. They will only claim that the plan of action advocated by their counterparts is unlikely to bear fruit and will thus push for the opposite strategy.

We should not entertain any notion that the Democrats feel somehow comfortable with the idea of Iran pursuing its rise a major regional if not global power, and that they'd even be willing to lend Iran a helping hand in this. Likewise, we can rest assured that these same Democrats are intelligent enough not to propose a nuclear deal to Iran that would be guaranteed to defeat their own above stated goal.

In other words, the JCPOA is conceived by its American authors (in fact the Rockefeller-funded International Crisis Group think tank, over 80% of whose draft for a nuclear deal with Iran ended up being adopted, word for word, by the parties who simply re-labelled it "JCPOA") as a trap for Iran.

What this trap consists in, I tried to outline in another post:

Also keep in mind Biden too is an Isra"el"-firster, like the rest of the contemporary, bipartisan US elite.

Here are some statements made by Biden in relevant contexts:

"The truth is that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such an essential part of who we are that it’s fair to say that Jewish heritage is American heritage."

"If there were not an Israel, we would have to invent one to make sure our interests were preserved ... America’s support for Israel’s security is unshakable, period."

As far as the zionists are concerned, while Likudniks around Mileikowsky ("Netanyahu") and certain other elements of the regime might adopt the blatant hard line against Iran, others, particularly in the higher ranks of Isra"el"'s security apparatus (including "I"DF and "Mossad") have on several occasions expressed views more in line with the US Democrats' outwardly appeasing but inherently hostile scheme.

A second issue to pay attention to is the identity of political currents in Iran that pressed for and negotiated the JCPOA, namely reformists and moderates. These currents in fact adhere to principle of engagement and "normalization" with America - principle which goes far beyond the idea of negotiating temporary sactions relief while strengthening one's resilience, and is actually not in tune with this idea.

Indeed, to the mentioned reformists and moderates, much like their Democrat American counterparts, the JCPOA was to be the first chapter in a series of similar agreements, where the follow-on ones would limit Iran's ballistic missile power and regional alliances, and thereby directly jeopardize the country's deterrence and its ability to defend against foreign aggression. Reformists and moderates want to engage Iran on the path which Gaddafi treaded before them. We know how badly that ended for Libya.

Even if one rejects any negotiations on missiles and regional policy while advocating full reinstatement of the nuclear deal - the problem is that in case the liberals manage to convince the Iranian public that their material situation improved as a result of Biden returning to the JCPOA, this will help those same liberals not only to have their candidate elected as president in 2021, but it will allow them to pressure if not blackmail the Supreme Leader, the IRGC and the revolutionary factions into ceding against their will on missile and regional policy deals with the west (read: sharp restrictions on Iran's missiles and regional allies). I think we know what would come next if liberals had their way and made Iran accept such deals.

_____


I would like to invite everyone to watch ostad Raefipour's latest analysis, at least the part that deals with the JCPOA. It's about 30 minutes long, but perfectly and comprehensively summarizes all aspects of the issue in my opinion:


Thanks to @Hormuz for posting it first.

Please people, watch the last 30 minutes of the above video if you have time!
 
Last edited:
Leader Permits Expediency Council to Procced with Work on FATF Bills

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei has approved the administration’s proposal for the extension of a process that authorizes the Expediency Council to review the remaining bills regarding the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) requirements, a VP said.

Iranian Vice President for Legal Affair Laya Joneidi announced on Monday that Ayatollah Khamenei has agreed on the extension of work on reviewing the FATF bills.
In a recent letter to the Leader, the administration had put forward legal proposals to address a series of concerns of the Expediency Council’s members and has explicated Iran’s current action plan and a number of other developments, such as amendments to a series of recommendations made by the Financial Action Task Force, she added.
Ayatollah Khamenei has approved the administration’s proposal for the extension of period for working on the remaining bills relating to the FATF commitments, and referred the case to the Expediency Council, Joneidi noted.
The FATF voted on February 21 to keep Iran on its blacklist for what it said failing to comply with international anti-terrorism financing norms.
In October 2019, Iran’s parliament approved four bills put forward by the government to meet standards set by the FATF.
Only two of them have so far gone into effect and the fate of the two others, one on Iran’s accession to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the other one a bill amending Iran’s Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) law, is still in limbo.
FATF’s proponents have said the measure would smooth the path for Iran’s increased financial transactions with the rest of the world and help remove the country from investment blacklists.
Opponents, however, say membership in the FATF will only make the country vulnerable to outside meddling.
They say Iran’s implementation of FATF standards so far has not only failed to attract investment, but it has also exposed various institutions to extraterritorial regulations and penalties.
The FATF cannot impose sanctions, but individual states that are its members have used the group's reports to take punitive measures against their adversaries.
Iran has already been implementing a domestic anti-money laundering law as part of its efforts toward financial transparency. Additionally, it has long been combating terror financing.


 
Yeah in 2 months when the law is still not in force, then what will you say?

2 months have passed since the parliament adopted this law and a little over a month has passed since the law came into force and as we can see, at the moment, it is being implemented in full. The Fordow plant in full force is enriching uranium to 20%, while the new IR-2M and IR-6 centrifuges are being installed at the Natanz and Fordow plants.
 
The country is full of infiltrators and conspirators. We are facing our most critical time since the revolution. This is not the time for chest thumping and blame games. Soleimani is gone, Khamenei is old. One small miscalculation, and there might not be an Iran left.

Sanctions have crippled our economy. You are talking as if we have the luxury of time and choice.
Do you guys really think they will lift the sanctions if we continue to increase our uranium stockpile? Lets face it, even if we were to test a nuke and an ICBM, they still wouldn't lift a single sanction. Its not like we are ISIS or Al-Qaida. Everyone knows we would never nuke anyone. Besides, they already called our bluff multiple times.
 
The country is full of infiltrators and conspirators. We are facing our most critical time since the revolution. This is not the time for chest thumping and blame games. Soleimani is gone, Khamenei is old. One small miscalculation, and there might not be an Iran left.

Sanctions have crippled our economy. You are talking as if we have the luxury of time and choice.
Do you guys really think they will lift the sanctions if we continue to increase our uranium stockpile? Lets face it, even if we were to test a nuke and an ICBM, they still wouldn't lift a single sanction. Its not like we are ISIS or Al-Qaida. Everyone knows we would never nuke anyone. Besides, they already called our bluff multiple times.
I understand your point, but we will continue to "destabilize" the region and their backyards (South America for the United States and North Africa for Europe) against their interests until they succumb and accept that they need to reach a fair agreement with us and we can do all that a lot better with nuclear impunity.
 
I understand your point, but we will continue to "destabilize" the region and their backyards (South America for the United States and North Africa for Europe) against their interests until they succumb and accept that they need to reach a fair agreement with us and we can do all that a lot better with nuclear impunity.

Unfortunately, we do not have that kind of power projection to launch operations that far away from our borders. Military hardware worth billions of dollars are being sold to the region every single year. UAE and Saudi Arabia has an economy that is combined 3x ours, with less than half our population. The region is progressing, and has access to whatever they need, meanwhile we are being held back by sanctions. Our reputation and image have been badly damaged too. Especially after the Soleimani assassination.

Yes, for now, no one can touch us in the region. But we must not be naive and think we will have the upper hand in the region for eternity. Just look to the left, there you have a country that has the potential to cause us severe problems if they manage to lock us within our western borders.
 
Unfortunately, we do not have that kind of power projection to launch operations that far away from our borders. Military hardware worth billions of dollars are being sold to the region every single year. UAE and Saudi Arabia has an economy that is combined 3x ours, with less than half our population. The region is progressing, and has access to whatever they need, meanwhile we are being held back by sanctions. Our reputation and image have been badly damaged too. Especially after the Soleimani assassination.

Yes, for now, no one can touch us in the region. But we must not be naive and think we will have the upper hand in the region for eternity. Just look to the left, there you have a country that has the potential to cause us severe problems if they manage to lock us within our western borders.
And yet that's our only option. Our other option is to give up what we have achieved, return to where we were in 2003, and still everything you said will continue to remain intact against us.

And we can build that kind of power projection when we have nuclear impunity. One of the reasons that we have allies in the region today is our ballistic missiles. Gaining access to nuclear technology and other technologies will find us new allies in the world.
 
Back
Top Bottom