Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds
- Thread starter Khorasan Black Flags
- Start date
Persian Gulf
INT'L MOD
enroger
Registered Member
As other saids, 0.5m is open to public.
吉林一号网
生态开放商城为您提供“吉林一号”全球海量卫星遥感影像数据查询订购服务，可按需搜索高分辨率推扫（普通光学、多光谱）、视频、夜光、立体多个类型的高清卫星地图卫片图像，支持调动卫星拍摄的编程摄影服务。
www.jl1mall.com
It is actually pretty inexpensive, problem is update time and potential censorship. You can check out their app in the site
Bharatah
SpeedLimited
What you are talking about is if the treaty had been fully complied with during the period, but it was not because in 2018, the US withdrew from it, so... there's a political problem:
Iran claims that its violations of the agreement (enrichment above the limit, stockpiles above the permitted level) are a response to the initial US violation (reimposition of sanctions in 2018).Therefore, if Europe tried to trigger snapback, Iran would argue that it cannot be punished alone, since the US also breached the agreement first.
→ In international law, there is a concept called the "exception of default" (inadimplementi non est adimplendum):
If one side breaches the agreement first, the other side can suspend its obligations. In other words, Iran would try to defend itself by claiming:
"I'm not violating unilaterally—I only suspended my commitments in response to the US breaching the agreement."
This would be Iran's legal defense against a potential European snapback.
Relevant article:
Article 60 of the Vienna Convention – "Termination or Suspension of the Operation of a Treaty as a Consequence of Its Breach"A State party may invoke a substantial breach of the treaty by another party as grounds for suspending its obligations.
A substantial breach includes: Failure to comply with a provision essential to the achievement of the purpose of the treaty.
In other words:
If the US reimposed sanctions(2018) in violation of the core JCPOA, Iran could claim that this constitutes a substantial breach.Therefore, according to Article 60 of the Vienna Convention, Iran is legally authorized to suspend its obligations, such as:
- Uranium enrichment limits
- Fissile material stockpiles
- Inspector access
This does not constitute a unilateral violation, but rather a proportionate response to the US's previous non-compliance.This type of response is precisely what is called a legitimate countermeasure in international law.
# According to the Convention on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001, UN International Law Commission):
A State that violates an international obligation (such as respecting an agreement validated by a UN resolution) incurs international responsibility.
The injured State (Iran) may, under certain conditions:
- Suspend compliance with related obligations
- Take legal retaliatory measures ("countermeasures")
ShapurII
Trusted Member
There is no political problem. None of the things you said are relevant to the JCPOA as it is a UNSC resolution with defined terms and conditions. And even if Iran wants to object to it, we have to go to the ICJ whose final verdict is non-binding without a UNSC resolution. And there is no way for Iran to pass the ICJ final verdict as a UNSC resolution.What you are talking about is if the treaty had been fully complied with during the period, but it was not because in 2018, the US withdrew from it, so... there's a political problem:
Iran claims that its violations of the agreement (enrichment above the limit, stockpiles above the permitted level) are a response to the initial US violation (reimposition of sanctions in 2018).Therefore, if Europe tried to trigger snapback, Iran would argue that it cannot be punished alone, since the US also breached the agreement first.
→ In international law, there is a concept called the "exception of default" (inadimplementi non est adimplendum):
If one side breaches the agreement first, the other side can suspend its obligations. In other words, Iran would try to defend itself by claiming:
"I'm not violating unilaterally—I only suspended my commitments in response to the US breaching the agreement."
This would be Iran's legal defense against a potential European snapback.
Relevant article:
A State party may invoke a substantial breach of the treaty by another party as grounds for suspending its obligations.
A substantial breach includes: Failure to comply with a provision essential to the achievement of the purpose of the treaty.
In other words:
Therefore, according to Article 60 of the Vienna Convention, Iran is legally authorized to suspend its obligations, such as:
- Uranium enrichment limits
- Fissile material stockpiles
- Inspector access
This does not constitute a unilateral violation, but rather a proportionate response to the US's previous non-compliance.This type of response is precisely what is called a legitimate countermeasure in international law.
# According to the Convention on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001, UN International Law Commission):
A State that violates an international obligation (such as respecting an agreement validated by a UN resolution) incurs international responsibility.
The injured State (Iran) may, under certain conditions:
- Suspend compliance with related obligations
- Take legal retaliatory measures ("countermeasures")
The EU legally can and will trigger the snapback mechanism. And it will happen soon, probably in late July or early August. And when that happens, China will use that as an excuse not to sell Iran J-10Cs.
Khorasan Black Flags
Trusted Member
- Thread starter
- #50,767
Satellite images show that Iran has taken out the US military's primary Communications Radome in Qatar
The second Radome is located in Kuwait
These Radomes provide the US military with crucial communications capabilities in the Middle East
Iran stands proudly as the only country to have directly attacked U.S. military bases since World War II
The second Radome is located in Kuwait
These Radomes provide the US military with crucial communications capabilities in the Middle East
Iran stands proudly as the only country to have directly attacked U.S. military bases since World War II
Persian Gulf
INT'L MOD
JCPOA is not a treaty.What you are talking about is if the treaty had been fully complied with during the period, but it was not because in 2018, the US withdrew from it, so... there's a political problem:
Iran claims that its violations of the agreement (enrichment above the limit, stockpiles above the permitted level) are a response to the initial US violation (reimposition of sanctions in 2018).Therefore, if Europe tried to trigger snapback, Iran would argue that it cannot be punished alone, since the US also breached the agreement first.
→ In international law, there is a concept called the "exception of default" (inadimplementi non est adimplendum):
If one side breaches the agreement first, the other side can suspend its obligations. In other words, Iran would try to defend itself by claiming:
"I'm not violating unilaterally—I only suspended my commitments in response to the US breaching the agreement."
This would be Iran's legal defense against a potential European snapback.
Relevant article:
A State party may invoke a substantial breach of the treaty by another party as grounds for suspending its obligations.
A substantial breach includes: Failure to comply with a provision essential to the achievement of the purpose of the treaty.
In other words:
Therefore, according to Article 60 of the Vienna Convention, Iran is legally authorized to suspend its obligations, such as:
- Uranium enrichment limits
- Fissile material stockpiles
- Inspector access
This does not constitute a unilateral violation, but rather a proportionate response to the US's previous non-compliance.This type of response is precisely what is called a legitimate countermeasure in international law.
# According to the Convention on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001, UN International Law Commission):
A State that violates an international obligation (such as respecting an agreement validated by a UN resolution) incurs international responsibility.
The injured State (Iran) may, under certain conditions:
- Suspend compliance with related obligations
- Take legal retaliatory measures ("countermeasures")
US is not a member of JCPOA but European members can invoke snapback and nothing can stop them. Not imaginary Russian/Chinese vetos and not random legal rules you cite without fully understanding them.
OldTwilight
Registered Member
The level of treason was done by Zarif and Rouhani is beyond imagination ...
People don't remember but the reformist propaganda was so high that few even dare to question JCPOA back then ...
I was 20s years old back then and I could see the danger of snapback but reformist didn't listen (there were few places you could talk about it, and they simply banned me multiple times) ...
there was hot debate here, you can see there was people who criticize this snapback mechanism (look like the reformist moderator completely ruined the forum so no one can reference it )
انجمن میلیتاری
MILITARY.IR First Iranian Online Community & Think Tank for Defense, Security & Military Analyses
www.military.ir
Mighty_Dragon_Strike
Trusted Member
false positive, fame seeking
Persian Gulf
INT'L MOD
I can't really tell what is in the video but seems to be more intelligence activities
ShapurII
Trusted Member
+Marg bar Amreeka in their gatherings
He missed the opportunity to add "nuclear bomb is haram"
Khorasan Black Flags
Trusted Member
- Thread starter
- #50,774
These reformists should never deal about security of their country [Khatami, Rohani, Zarif, Pezeshkian]
They might not realize the threat until the enemy forces them to wake up, and unfortunately our people have to pay
Hassan Al-Somal
Elite Member
Iran can invoke Chapter VII under article 15 since it came under attack where its civilian nuclear program were attacked and its nuclear scientists, military commanders, and over 1000 Iranians were killed.
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
If Iran accepts inspections back to its nuclear installations, it can deny the entry of any inspector from any hostile state.
Frankly, this is a repeat of what the West did to Iraq in the 1990s. All of these inspections mean 1 thing: Removing all of Iranian nuclear and missile capabilities.
Users who are viewing this thread
Pakistan Defence Latest
-
-
Bangladesh PM’s adviser returns from Delhi airport; says he was ‘humiliated’ by immigration (7 Viewers)
- Latest: Al-Zakir
-
-
-
Country Watch Latest
-
Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds (286 Viewers)- Latest: Jagga Badmash
-
-
-
-
Latest Posts
-
Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds (286 Viewers)
- Latest: Jagga Badmash
-
-
-
-
Air India lobbies to use airspace in China’s Xinjiang as financial woes from Pakistan ban mount (13 Viewers)- Latest: Musings