The end of the deal, hopes, delusions and treasons

[arashkamangir]

Erdogan has Europe by the balls because of the Syrian refugees. Iran should start to make such threats explicit if the EU follows through with its stated intention to refer Iran's non-compliance with the JCPOA to the UNSC in early November if Iran takes the 4th step to reduce commitments (which would re-instate all UNSC sanctions).

Iran's roll back is within JCPOA framework and is compliant. Compliance is require participation by parties involve, since EU cannot guarantee Iran's economic benefit, the measures Iran has taken are valid.

 

[mohsen]

Iran's roll back is within JCPOA framework and is compliant. Compliance is require participation by parties involve, since EU cannot guarantee Iran's economic benefit, the measures Iran has taken are valid.

The thing is if you say these commitment reductions are within the JCPOA framework, then Europeans can say the same thing about sending their complaint to UNSC, the truth is that traitors have signed such a nasty one-sided deal that only they can complain and get benefit.

 

[Saddam Hussein]

The great Mahmoud Ahmedinejad must be appointed as chief negotiator

 

[Battle of Waterloo]

Iran's roll back is within JCPOA framework and is compliant. Compliance is require participation by parties involve, since EU cannot guarantee Iran's economic benefit, the measures Iran has taken are valid.

Not true... That is just what Zarif says, and he always mentions Article 25 and 36 JCPOA, but they don't permit Iranian countermeasures like Zarif says they do. And also it doesn't matter, even if it did, if even one other party wants to they can unilaterally force all UNSC sanctions to be re-imposed against Iran.

NB. Technically they need 'significant' breach by Iran to do so, but there is no definition of this so any country can impose their own definition of significant against Iran... For example, even if Iran fully returned to the JCPOA to avoid this, the US (or any other original party) could find some small 'violation' and argue this is 'significant' and boom - all UNSC sanctions returned and JCPOA destroyed.

One of the most interesting things is that Trump didn't do this, but it is something the Zionist lobby have been calling for the Europeans to do lately.

 

[arashkamangir]

The thing is if you say these commitment reductions are within the JCPOA framework, then Europeans can say the same thing about sending their complaint to UNSC, the truth is that traitors have signed such a nasty one-sided deal that only they can complain and get benefit.

It's about Iran's intention. Iran is the victim here. Iran's behaviour is a response to non-compliance by other parties. In fact, Iran by not immediately withdrawing has demonstrated the following: "Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA,..." - Article 37

Not true... That is just what Zarif says, and he always mentions Article 25 and 36 JCPOA, but they don't permit Iranian countermeasures like Zarif says they do. And also it doesn't matter, even if it did, if even one other party wants to they can unilaterally force all UNSC sanctions to be re-imposed against Iran.

NB. Technically they need 'significant' breach by Iran to do so, but there is no definition of this so any country can impose their own definition of significant against Iran... For example, even if Iran fully returned to the JCPOA to avoid this, the US (or any other original party) could find some small 'violation' and argue this is 'significant' and boom - all UNSC sanctions returned and JCPOA destroyed.

One of the most interesting things is that Trump didn't do this, but it is something the Zionist lobby have been calling for the Europeans to do lately.

Wait, in the Article 36 & 37:

36. If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level - either the complaining participant or the participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant nonperformance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.

37. Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA, the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise. In such event, these provisions would not apply with retroactive effect to contracts signed between any party and Iran or Iranian individuals and entities prior to the date of application, provided that the activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are consistent with this JCPOA and the previous and current UN Security Council resolutions. The UN Security Council, expressing its intention to prevent the reapplication of the provisions if the issue giving rise to the notification is resolved within this period, intends to take into account the views of the States involved in the issue and any opinion on the issue of the Advisory Board. Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.


We see that there are built in protocols to formally submit complaint. In the end of Article 37, Iran has specifically opened the option: "Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part."


Am I missing something here?

 

[mohsen]

It's about Iran's intention. Iran is the victim here. Iran's behaviour is a response to non-compliance by other parties. In fact, Iran by not immediately withdrawing has demonstrated the following: "Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA,..." - Article 37





Wait, in the Article 36 & 37:

36. If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level - either the complaining participant or the participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant nonperformance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.

37. Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA, the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise. In such event, these provisions would not apply with retroactive effect to contracts signed between any party and Iran or Iranian individuals and entities prior to the date of application, provided that the activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are consistent with this JCPOA and the previous and current UN Security Council resolutions. The UN Security Council, expressing its intention to prevent the reapplication of the provisions if the issue giving rise to the notification is resolved within this period, intends to take into account the views of the States involved in the issue and any opinion on the issue of the Advisory Board. Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.


We see that there are built in protocols to formally submit complaint. In the end of Article 37, Iran has specifically opened the option: "Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part."


Am I missing something here?

Iran has destroyed it's nuclear infrastructure, broke the chain of supply, fired it's scientists, wasted 6 years in nuclear and space sector and even in its industry, suspended and limited these fields in universities and lost lots of brains, while other JCPOA parties did nothing.

So now if any members of JCPOA complain to UNSC, U.S gains the right to officially snap back all the UNSC sanctions. who was good guy, who had good faith efforts, ..., are empty rhetoric and good for night stories and nothing more.

 

[arashkamangir]

Iran has destroyed it's nuclear infrastructure, broke the chain of supply, fired it's scientists, wasted 6 years in nuclear and space sector and even in its industry, suspended and limited these fields in universities and lost lots of brains, while other JCPOA parties did nothing.

So now if any members of JCPOA complain to UNSC, U.S gains the right to officially snap back all the UNSC sanctions. who was good guy, who had good faith efforts, ..., are empty rhetoric and good for night stories and nothing more.

Actually what is the difference between UNSC sanctions and the current sanctions? Do we even have anything to lose? We are facing the toughest sanctions on all sectors, arent we?

 

[mohsen]

Actually what is the difference between UNSC sanctions and the current sanctions? Do we even have anything to lose? We are facing the toughest sanctions on all sectors, arent we?

Yes, definitely there was no difference in sanctions, but we lost all that I mentioned.

Look at those lines again, it says "Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated ...", it doesn't say Iran has the right, or Iran could, it's an informing sentence, it's existence makes no difference, this line is only for internal consumption, the only legal part is the one which sends the complaint to UNSC so that U.S could decide on its fate! (the treason)

JCPOA is dead, was born dead, so even talking about acting in it's framework is a pure lie and treason. when Zarif says we are acting in its framework, he is just trying to fool the Iranian again to hide all the harm which these traitors and their JCPOA have done to Iran, don't play in his game.

 

[Battle of Waterloo]

Wait, in the Article 36 & 37:

36. If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level - either the complaining participant or the participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant nonperformance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.

37. Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA, the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise. In such event, these provisions would not apply with retroactive effect to contracts signed between any party and Iran or Iranian individuals and entities prior to the date of application, provided that the activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are consistent with this JCPOA and the previous and current UN Security Council resolutions. The UN Security Council, expressing its intention to prevent the reapplication of the provisions if the issue giving rise to the notification is resolved within this period, intends to take into account the views of the States involved in the issue and any opinion on the issue of the Advisory Board. Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.

We see that there are built in protocols to formally submit complaint. In the end of Article 37, Iran has specifically opened the option: "Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part."

Am I missing something here?

Iran did not follow the procedure outlined in Article 36. Because that procedure was never created for Iran to use but was only designed to ensure 'snapback' sanctions in case Iran breached the deal.

What Iran thinks constitutes non-compliance by the EU/US is important, but the procedure clearly described in para. 36 (for what Iran should do if it believes that a party is not complying, such as in this case) has not been followed (because of what I wrote above).

 

[arashkamangir]

Iran did not follow the procedure outlined in Article 36. Because that procedure was never created for Iran to use but was only designed to ensure 'snapback' sanctions in case Iran breached the deal.

What Iran thinks constitutes non-compliance by the EU/US is important, but the procedure clearly described in para. 36 (for what Iran should do if it believes that a party is not complying, such as in this case) has not been followed (because of what I wrote above).

I don't read this in such way, maybe I am wrong but the text explicitly outlines dispute mechanisms for all sides. Iran may not have triggered dispute mechanism perhaps to exhaust all options and similarly, EU has not triggered dispute mechanism yet [Everything Iran has done is reversible]. This means that in order to proceed to snap back sanctions, all sides have to follow through the explicitly outlines dispute mechanisms in articles 36 & 37. Of course I could be wrong here but let me know.

Yes, definitely there was no difference in sanctions, but we lost all that I mentioned.

Look at those lines again, it says "Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated ...", it doesn't say Iran has the right, or Iran could, it's an informing sentence, it's existence makes no difference, this line is only for internal consumption, the only legal part is the one which sends the complaint to UNSC so that U.S could decide on its fate! (the treason)

JCPOA is dead, was born dead, so even talking about acting in it's framework is a pure lie and treason. when Zarif says we are acting in its framework, he is just trying to fool the Iranian again to hide all the harm which these traitors and their JCPOA have done to Iran, don't play in his game.

The research done may have slowed down but work is nevertheless done as R&D. Yes, we have gave up so much but also got billions of our assets unfreezed. Yes, we gambled and we literally negotiated in a hostage like scenario where we gave away things to receive our own stuff back. There is no denying in that but we also negotiated to bring foreign investment and open doors for external market for our products and services which in long term would have increase our economy's size and well weing of our public.

There is no denying in the damages done to Iran but at least we tried that route. It is clear that Iran should completely focus on Asian and African market, Africa is emerging, so as many Asian countries. Iran needs to focus on developing internal products and services for export and move away from carbon economy while we have time.

Also, Iran's statement has been agreed by as part of JCPOA which means it is a condition that is viewed by Iran as a non compliance. It is part of the agreement. I am no legal expert so please layout how the alternative is true.

 

[Battle of Waterloo]

I don't read this in such way, maybe I am wrong but the text explicitly outlines dispute mechanisms for all sides. Iran may not have triggered dispute mechanism perhaps to exhaust all options and similarly, EU has not triggered dispute mechanism yet [Everything Iran has done is reversible]. This means that in order to proceed to snap back sanctions, all sides have to follow through the explicitly outlines dispute mechanisms in articles 36 & 37. Of course I could be wrong here but let me know.

The issue with the bit in bold is that the sanctions are one-sided (can only be re-imposed against Iran, not against the EU or US lol).

For Iran to cease performing it has to follow through with the procedure, including the joint commission, but it has not done this. For the EU/US to re-instate sanctions only one of them has to be stubborn and follow the entire procedure and then the sanctions automatically are re-applied. This procedure is very one-sided so Iran's options are limited.

 

[zectech]

The Chinese type 035g may be coming up for retirement soon. When Iran is able to purchase military weapons, a quick buy of these for 25m to 50m each would not be a bad idea.

 

[yavar]

Iran Atomic Energy Organization AEOI 4th reduction of commitments under JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal ) new Generation of Uranium enrichment centrifuge with power 72 Separative work units (SWU) in next few days

 

[QWECXZ]

Iran Atomic Energy Organization AEOI 4th reduction of commitments under JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal ) new Generation of Uranium enrichment centrifuge with power 72 Separative work units (SWU) in next few days

A useless, insignificant step. I can't wait to see Rouhani out of the office.

 

[zectech]

A useless, insignificant step. I can't wait to see Rouhani out of the office.

The zionists war on the moderates is going to produce another traditionalist, which is what they want when war starts. For years Iran has had the chance to develop nukes, and if war broke out only cheap old tomahawks would be used. By the time Rouhani is out of office, there could be newer weapons that can knock out the ADS of Iran.

So don't expect a war in the Rouhani term as President. He has wasted Iran's time to defend herself with nukes as a deterrent. By the time Iran has a willing President to defend Iran permanently with nukes, not temporarily with Bavar 373s, it's too late.