Iranian Chill Thread

[Tehrani021]

and you don't get it . when it come to vote only a single permanent member including usa can veto it , how hard its to understand it

I dont mind babysitting you through this, common theme with you. So if E3 put a motion for snapback, then Russia and China can veto it. Remember what you wrote, you said that:

the snap-back mechanism work as this
one party make complain . they provide their evidence , they made a vote on if the deal continue .
if one permanent member veto it , then there is no deal and article 7

So one party has made a complaint, lets say E3. They provide their evidence, they vote (ie Russia, China, E3, US). So if Russia or China veto it then there wont be snapback sanctions.

This is what I got from what you wrote.

 

[Tehrani021]

let make it sensible to you.
in USA senate they asked the vice president hopeful Mike Pence if there is conflict of interest between USA and Israel which side you choose and the correct answer which he gave was Israel.
now if the same situation happen in China or Russia and the correct answer be Iran not china or Russia . then you can make that statement

I still dont understand? You're expecting Russia and China to forego their own national interest for Iran, yet would you expect Iran to forgo its own national interests for Russia and China? Mike Pence is an idiot for saying what he did and I'm sure he angered many of his own voter base for saying that.

 

[Persian Gulf]

I dont mind babysitting you through this, common theme with you. So if E3 put a motion for snapback, then Russia and China can veto it. Remember what you wrote, you said that:

So one party has made a complaint, lets say E3. They provide their evidence, they vote (ie Russia, China, E3, US). So if Russia or China veto it then there wont be snapback sanctions.

This is what I got from what you wrote.

"they made a vote on if the deal continue .
if one permanent member veto it , then there is no deal and article 7"

read this part again. but very very slowly and carefully

 

[Tehrani021]

by not acting on its duty in jcpoa , removing the heart of arak reactor was iran duty then china was to develop a new one for it and they didn't do that . aka they are like usa and others didn't honor their duty.

You dont just make reactors over night, Hack! I think by the time something was designed the deal was falling apart and Iran was happy to keep its own reactor. I say that's a good thing.

 

[Tehrani021]

"they made a vote on if the deal continue .
if one permanent member veto it , then there is no deal and article 7"

read this part again. but very very slowly and carefully

Read this even slower, maybe get some help: This would have been done long ago if it was that simple.

 

[Persian Gulf]

Read this even slower, maybe get some help: This would have been done long ago if it was that simple.

don't change the topic, we can fill a long book with all your misunderstandings about the snapback mechanism.

"if E3 put a motion for snapback, then Russia and China can veto it."

WRONG

"So one party has made a complaint, let's say E3. They provide their evidence, they vote (ie Russia, China, E3, US). So if Russia or China veto it then there wont be snapback sanctions."

WRONG

"There won't be any snapback UNSC sanctions without Russian or Chinese support"

WRONG

you're really embarrassing yourself. please stop. the basic concepts of how snapback works has been explained to you by multiple members many times. I am almost convinced you are trolling at this point.

 

[Persian Gulf]

Dispute Resolution Mechanism (JCPOA):

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 – 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 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.

--

edited slightly for brevity. there are no more excuses for misrepresenting how this mechanism works.

note that this entire process could take up to 65 days (possibly shorter if they are in a rush). so the real deadline is c. 2 months before 18 October 2025 (c. August 2025 instead)

 

[Tehrani021]

Dispute Resolution Mechanism (JCPOA):

36. If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA,

And here lies the caveat, Mr PG! It was the Americans and the E3 who have not been meeting their commitments long before Iran began scaling back its own commitment in response. Iran never stopped complying with the JCPOA until the deal was in effect over when US left. The scenario that you paint would only work if Iran was the first to noncompliance when the other participants where adhereing to the deal. This is why it is not as simple as you paint it.

So please, if you think I'm trolling or whatever, do whatever you want. And please let's see you write your "long book" of three very short paragraphs which are basically saying the same thing.

 

[Khorasan Black banners]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Khorasan Black banners]

Must Watch

 

[muhammed45]

thanks to china as it was them who supposed to design the new Arak

Now blame China. Blame Iranian leader, blame everyone except Zarif.

You piss on your own asset and then expect China to come and clean your own mess.
Why?

China is not your lackey or babysitter

 

[Hack-Hook]

I dont mind babysitting you through this, common theme with you. So if E3 put a motion for snapback, then Russia and China can veto it. Remember what you wrote, you said that:

at this time I'm sure you pretend you don't understand .
there is no motion for snapback , the motion will be to continue JCPOA and the one who veto it will be the one who put it forward or USA .
but I'm sure again you will continue this nonsense with another ridiculous post . It seem you just like spamming

 

[Hack-Hook]

So one party has made a complaint, lets say E3. They provide their evidence, they vote (ie Russia, China, E3, US). So if Russia or China veto it then there wont be snapback sanctions.

This is what I got from what you wrote.

no they don't vote on throwing away the deal , they vote on continuing the deal in unsc so it will be a vote on continuing the deal with veto in the hand of 5 countries

 

[Hack-Hook]

I still dont understand? You're expecting Russia and China to forego their own national interest for Iran, yet would you expect Iran to forgo its own national interests for Russia and China? Mike Pence is an idiot for saying what he did and I'm sure he angered many of his own voter base for saying that.

Iran already did that . and when you suggested Iran reliance on goodwill of Russia and china (pretty ridiculous as they are not our allies but our competitors in middle east) and for example you brought out Israel . I bring that out to show you Israel don't rely on USA , Israel own USA elite as that example was what really happens in USA a politician if want to get elected must accept to put Israel interest above USA interest

 

[Hack-Hook]

You dont just make reactors over night, Hack! I think by the time something was designed the deal was falling apart and Iran was happy to keep its own reactor. I say that's a good thing.

how many years it past , the deal was to do it in 1 or 1.5 year. and the problem is not built it, they didn't even design it