Iranian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

good luck. But that’s a load of horse piles. The UN is not a global government and its edicts are not enforceable without the UNSC. However the US is a permanent member with Veto power.
In fact this whole issue was hashed out at the start of the UN, the UN cannot overrule domestic foreign policy. It can only voluntarily enact policy. The UNSC cannot override a ratification. It cannot override domestic foreign policy and it shouldn’t.

Click to expand...

What you are saying is basically, International law and treaty that the US signed up are load of horse piles, US will enforce it selectively and only upon others, but will fxxk it whenever want.

Everybody knows very well the importance of enforcement, that is the brutal force. Nobody here dreams of US being self-restraint. What you have just said will wake up anyone (if there is still some) who may still have the faintest belief that US is the upholder and defender of international law that it tries to pretend.

And lastly, it is not just US having the brute force to break or enforce, there may be times (and more and more) that you may wish others to abide something agreed, to get that you have to show respect to agreement today. Nothing is free.

As the gloves are off, there is nothing more to debate.

The JCPOA was not a treaty the JCPOA was not a Law, it was a deal. The JCPOA was entirely Voluntary without an enforcement mechanism.
For the Iranians there was supposed to be such international sanctions for the US and others there was not.
The US withdrew from the JCPOA as a policy choice, yet it only enacted sanctions on Iran. Seven wavers were issued to nations like Russia to allow JCPOA approved actions, those being conversion of Iranian Nuclear technology to a civil function.
Those wavers stop the US from sanctioning those actions.

For anyone interested to understand whether UNSC is legally binding on all member states. I advice reading this wiki article
If still in doubt, check the UN charter at . But please don't make up things based on personal favour.

Here are a few key quotes:

The UN Charter is a multilateral treaty.
...
Article 25 of the Charter says that "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter".
...
Resolutions by the Security Council are legally binding. If the council cannot reach consensus or a passing vote on a resolution, they may choose to produce a non-binding

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

instead of a Resolution.

Click to expand...

Here is the chain of logics, hope it is not so difficult to understand.

• UN charter is a treaty.
• UNSC resolution is legally binding to all members according to UN charter article 25. A treaty obligation.
  
• JCPOA is part of UNSC resolution 2231, NOT a (UNSC) presidential statement. Therefore treaty obligation.
• USA is a founding member of UN, therefore legally obliged itself (the state as a whole, not just part of its institutions) to follow UNSC resolution.

The only way to legally withdraw from JCPOA is to FIRST leave UN, therefor be relieved of the obligation imposed by charter article 25. Otherwise, it is a rogue action.

The Horse is dead quit beating it.

The UN is a Treaty the JCPOA is not.
Even if enacted by the security council it was never a treaty. The UN is not a global government.
The Group that assembled it wrote a plan of action in which Iran promised to behave in a set way and would be rewarded.
The other members said they would basically give up the right to have a domestic sanctions regime something that is not lawful. And impose mechanisms to encourage a peaceful nuclear program.

The UN cannot trump Domestic governments.

The US said no we don’t trust Iran and enacted a sanctions regime, but simultaneously issued wavers so as to allow the Other members of the JCPOA to maintain their investment.
The European members basically admitted they couldn’t fulfill their end of the retaliatory sanctions if Iran broke its end of the bargain.
And Iran has announced they they broke the limit on nuclear materials production.
JCPOA was a joke from day one. End run around domestic nations ratification to force it in place by use of the UNSC, to prevent a veto.

Fact of the matter remains that when an agreement is made, to go back on it, is a sign that the one who goes back on it is unreliable and discredited. Further agreements or proposed agreements are by default, a non-starter. And so far, America's track record in terms of agreements or deals is dismal at best.

Rules are clear now:
1. there is no freedom of navigation on the world oceans, that exist only if you have guns to enforce it.
2. If a country sanction another country then it is legal to confiscate any ships belonging to the sanctioned country .


LOL

Iran fury as Royal Marines seize tanker suspected of carrying oil to Syria


Iran summons UK ambassador over incident off Gibraltar as tensions escalate over nuclear deal

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Fri 5 Jul 2019 04.31 BSTFirst published on Thu 4 Jul 2019 09.01 BS
An image issued by the Ministry of Defence of the supertanker Grace 1, believed to be carrying 2m barrels of crude oil. Photograph: MoD/PA
Royal Marines have helped seize an Iranian supertanker suspected of carrying oil to Syria off the coast of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, escalating tensions between the UK and Tehran as the agreement aimed at halting Iran’s nuclear programme unravels.

A detachment of nearly 30 British troops working with the Gibraltarian police intercepted the vessel, believed to be carrying 2m barrels of oil, in a dramatic manoeuvre Spain said had been conducted at the request of the US.

Tehran responded by summoning Britain’s ambassador to its foreign ministry to explain what it described as an “illegal seizure”, which had been earlier described by the UK as enforcing the EU’s sanctions regime against

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Click to expand...

Iranian official threatens to seize British oil tanker

An Iranian official has said a British oil tanker should be seized, if a detained Iranian ship is not released.

British Royal Marines helped officials in Gibraltar to seize the super-tanker Grace 1 on Thursday, after it was suspected of carrying oil from Iran to Syria, in breach of EU sanctions.

A court in Gibraltar has ruled the ship can be detained for a further 14 days.

Iran later

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to complain about what it said was a "form of piracy".

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Russia doesn’t want a war on their boarder. China wants secure oil in their future. But so far neither is selling the most advanced anything to Iran.

Click to expand...

Russian Nebo-M and Nezonans-N radars are not among "the most advanced" radars?

TerraN_EmpirE said:

the UN doesn’t make laws it depends on the nations involved agreeing to support its actions.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

The UNSC has power to create binding resolutions. Article 25 UN Charter: "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter".

Lack of enforcement mechanism ≠ lack of ability to create binding resolutions.

Always hiding behind technicalities. The US rips away treaties all the time.
They did it with the ABM Treaty, the INF Treaty, and now unilaterally imposing sanctions on China. Before that they did the same on Canada and Mexico.

Who cares what was the manner of speech behind it. It was signed by the US Secretary of State and the rest of the UN Security Council members. The US creates institutions like the UN and then applies its rules against other countries, but ignores the rules whenever it benefits it.
The US Congress repealed it you say. The President is helpless against it you say. Well, the US Congress voted against US support on the War on Yemen and weapons sales to Saudi Arabia. Yet the US President just steamrolled over Congress! Weapons sales to Saudi Arabia continue! So don't blame US Congress. Especially when it is controlled by Republicans. There is no excuse. There is one culprit alone for leaving the JCPOA and it is the Trump administration.

Trump thinks he can continuously and unilaterally change the terms of deals all the time.
This is US naked aggression and anyone will see it like that.

gelgoog said:

So it is a treaty after all.

If the US did not want it to be considered a treaty, they should have vetoed the security council motion to approve the JCPOA.

Click to expand...

The JCPOA itself is not a treaty. Its legal status under US law is disputed. Some (such as Stephen Mulligan) believe it is a purely political sole-executive agreement (meaning a future POTUS can unilaterally violate it without breaching US law) whilst others (such as Golove and Ackerman) contend it is a congressional-executive agreement in light of INARA. However, most agree that the US violation of the JCPOA and re-imposition of sanctions did not violate US law.

The legality of the JCPOA under international law is a different matter as a result of UNSCR 2231. It is widely accepted that UNSCRs can create binding international law. Even pro-US legal commentators (such as John Bellinger) concede that many paragraphs of UNSCR 2231 create binding obligations, they just contest the binding nature of the rest of the resolution.