Re: Iran's violations of Paris Agreement leads to breakoff in talks.


Count 1 wrote:
> > Excuse me? You don't even know why Iran objected to the E3/EU's
> > proposal, Count 1. I don't think you're in a position to tell me *I'm*
> > ignorant on the issue.
>
> I am after watching you demostrate so much ignorance. Now I'm watching you
> claim the EU-3 proposals are somehow relevant here. They aren't. The EU-3's
> proposals were part of the negotiating process that continued suspension of
> enrichment was dependent on.
>

Wasn't that kind of the point of the Paris Agreement: mutually
agreeable and long term solutions to Iran's fuel cycle needs? Don't
you think those were a requirement?

> > > If all you're saying is that you think it was
> > > > Iran, and not the E3/EU, that caused the breakdown in negotiations,
> > > > then you should've just said that and not used words like "violation"
> > > > which have legal connotations, words that nobody but you seems to want
> > > > to apply to Iran's actions, to describe how you feel about what
> > > > happens. You could've tried what the E3/EU have said about it: that
> > > > Iran was suspending the agreement. That's a lot more accurate, and
> you
> > > > would've saved a fair bit of time.
> > >
> > > You're just repeating already debunked material.
> >
> > What, that the E3/EU thinks Iran suspended the Paris Agreement by
> > resuming activities at Esfahan? That's actual, demonstrable fact, not
> > debunked material.
> >
> > > Iran suspended the PA
> >
> > Yes, according to the E3/EU. You as well, it would seem.
> >
> > > by
> > > violating its conditions.
> > >
> >
> > See, the E3/EU don't see it that way,
>
> Thats' exactly the way they see it. You just don't understand their
> language.
>
> When Mattei said Iran was 'outside' the agreement he was saying iran has
> violated the agreement. They violated the agreement on 8/8.
>

Then why didn't he say that?

>
> > > it's my opinion it's the other way
> > > > around: the E3/EU had a deadline to come up with a good-faith
> agreement
> > > > amenable to Iran and failed to do so. Iran got tired of waiting and
> > > > didn't see anything in the proposal they could work with because it
> > > > didn't contain elements they thought were essential (and stated were
> > > > essential).
> > >
> > > Like?
> > >
> >
> > You still don't know? And you call *me* ignorant...
>
> Yes, I do. And I reiterate...'Like?'
>

This is from Sirus Naseri, who delivered this speech at the IEAE
emergency meeting held August 10th 2005:

"The E3/EU has yet to honor its recognition, in the Paris Agreement of
November 2004, "Iran's rights under the NPT exercised in conformity
with its obligations under the treaty, without discrimination." The
Paris Agreement is founded on an equal exchange of objective and firm
guarantees between Iran and Europe to for the basis of a mutually
acceptable agreement. The recent proposal of the E3/EU never even
mentions the terms "objective guarantees", "firm guarantees" or "firm
commitments", thereby indicating the total departure of its authors
from the foundations of the Paris Agreement.

The proposal replaces "objective guarantees" with termination of Iran's
hard gained peaceful nuclear program. At the same time, it equates
"firm guarantees and firm commitments" with vague, conditional, and
partial restatements of existing obligations.

Iran's proposal to the E3/EU on objective and firm guarantees was fully
consistent with the terms of the Paris Agreement. The E3/EU rejected
that reasonable and generous proposal. This proposal, on the other
hand, was so inadequate and demeaning that could only be flatly
rejected. Therefore, it is not reasonable nor fair to expect Iran to
continue with its voluntary and non-legally binding suspension of
"enrichment-related activities" for much longer. Nothing in our current
and projected actions is illegal or contrary to any of Iran's
international legally-binding obligations."

You can find the text here:
<<http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/mehr080905.html>>

Iran found the to-date output of the Paris Agreement in the form of the
EU-3 proposal to be inadequate in the light of their voluntary efforts
and in the light of the language of the agreement itself--it was all
quid and no pro quo.

>
> > > > All this legal talk like "violation" etc. just confuses the issue.
> > >
> > > Actually its just confused you.
> >
> > Well, you too, but you haven't realised it yet. That's the problem
> > with unclear and imprecise language.
>
> Just how unclear and imprecise is 'To Wipe Israel from the Map", because
> you're having a hard time understanding what that means.

I know what it doesn't mean: that Iran is intent on building nuclear
weapons.

> Considering your
> inability with that rather simple one I dont' put a lot of value in your
> claims to not be confused on the legal standing of the Paris Agreement. :-)
>

It doesn't have one. More to the point, neither did Iran's voluntary
suspension of uranium conversion.

> > > The issue here is very clear. Iran violated
> > > the conditions of the PA.
> >
> > Why don't the E3/EU see things that way then?
>
> They do - you just don't understand what 'violation' means.

I understand exactly what it means. I just wouldn't use it to describe
what Iran did, nor what the EU-3 did. That's because it's a word
loaded with legal connotations.

--A

.

Relevant Pages