Polymarketthis is practically the only source the no side has raised in the last 15 hours with any validity
this is practically the only source the no side has raised in the last 15 hours with any validity
Jaroslav参与话题 6消息总数 228
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 228 条，显示第 51-100 条Be that as it may the named Iranian officials were always for context rather than the core of the P2 case (we resolve on consensus of cred reporting)
Be that as it may the named Iranian officials were always for context rather than the core of the P2 case (we resolve on consensus of cred reporting)
There is minimal counterevidence to the nuclear freeze once you control for obvious sources of confusion
There is minimal counterevidence to the nuclear freeze once you control for obvious sources of confusion
No you don't lol
No you don't lol
I see no reason to assume that Reuters and the NYT quoted the same high official but that's beside the point
I see no reason to assume that Reuters and the NYT quoted the same high official but that's beside the point
On top of which we have like 9 sources affirmatively clarifying it is a nuclear program freeze or specifically an enrichment freeze
On top of which we have like 9 sources affirmatively clarifying it is a nuclear program freeze or specifically an enrichment freeze
We had quotes from Nabavian and Zohourian and high ranking officials to Reuters and the NYT (latter was re a recent draft but obviously nothing has changed)
We had quotes from Nabavian and Zohourian and high ranking officials to Reuters and the NYT (latter was re a recent draft but obviously nothing has changed)
> Reuters, CNN, WSJ, NYT, 4 Iranian officials, university professors, The Washington Examiner
> Reuters, CNN, WSJ, NYT, 4 Iranian officials, university professors, The Washington Examiner
mine, Reuters, CNN, WSJ, NYT, 4 Iranian officials, university professors, The Washington Examiner
mine, Reuters, CNN, WSJ, NYT, 4 Iranian officials, university professors, The Washington Examiner
well the argument is that the agreement is public and the agreement includes a pledge not to enrich. unambiguous in light of the reliable source explanations.
well the argument is that the agreement is public and the agreement includes a pledge not to enrich. unambiguous in light of the reliable source explanations.
we don't have to speculate what status quo is supposed to mean. we have 8 or so sources attesting that it means freezing the program at the current degraded state.
we don't have to speculate what status quo is supposed to mean. we have 8 or so sources attesting that it means freezing the program at the current degraded state.
it's been posted several times in this discussion
it's been posted several times in this discussion
I mean it's good background to know that no one thinks Iran is enriching currently But for the market, the key point is that Iran SAYS it isn't enriching and they also COMMIT to the status quo (i.e. no enrichment according to them).
I mean it's good background to know that no one thinks Iran is enriching currently But for the market, the key point is that Iran SAYS it isn't enriching and they also COMMIT to the status quo (i.e. no enrichment according to them).
"Pending the final deal," "pending a final agreement"
"Pending the final deal," "pending a final agreement"
https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/comprehensive-imagery-report-on-nuclear-enrichment-related-sites-post-april-ceasefire “It is important to remember that an enrichment capability requires significantly more than the existence of UF6 and centrifuges or centrifuge parts. Thus, the existence of the enriched uranium or centrifuge-related items should not be confused with** Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, a capability not now existing in Iran**.”
https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/comprehensive-imagery-report-on-nuclear-enrichment-related-sites-post-april-ceasefire “It is important to remember that an enrichment capability requires significantly more than the existence of UF6 and centrifuges or centrifuge parts. Thus, the existence of the enriched uranium or centrifuge-related items should not be confused with** Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, a capability not now existing in Iran**.”
corrected
corrected
i'm not sure what it is in practice the rules to me might require just one tiny step more than no stated end date
i'm not sure what it is in practice the rules to me might require just one tiny step more than no stated end date
How so?
How so?
we didn't really see the point of proposing more than 2x
we didn't really see the point of proposing more than 2x
which
which
Again Nabavian is one among several data points. He's even only one of 4 Iranian officials who've come up
Again Nabavian is one among several data points. He's even only one of 4 Iranian officials who've come up
well they are all indicating the status quo clause as freezing the nuclear program
well they are all indicating the status quo clause as freezing the nuclear program
Nabavian is one data point among many. The question is what do the data points together justify.
Nabavian is one data point among many. The question is what do the data points together justify.
so you claim that nabavian, brett mcgurk, the jhu prof, the nyt, and reuters are wrong?
so you claim that nabavian, brett mcgurk, the jhu prof, the nyt, and reuters are wrong?
<@831070869459566604>
<@831070869459566604>
It's helpful to understand the reuters language > MP Nabavian: > > Iran has pledged to maintain the nuclear status quo until a final agreement is reached, which means a complete halt to enrichment and no reconstruction of sites. > > CNN (Brett McGurk): > > There is an article, Article 9, which says that everything is ‘status quo.’ ... Iran is not enriching uranium, … this basically freezes that, so Iran can not enrich uranium. That’s not insignificant. And that’s different from when we were negotiating the JCPOA, when they were enriching > > Prof. Esfandyar Batmanghelidj (JHU): > > Clause 9 dictates that ... Iran will “maintain the status quo” on its nuclear program, meaning that it will not reconstitute its facilities or resume enrichment > > Iran has agreed to zero enrichment for the duration of negotiations. > > > NYT: > > For Iran, maintaining the “status quo” of its nuclear program amounts to leaving its bombed nuclear facilities in ruins and its uranium entombed beneath the rubble of air strikes.
It's helpful to understand the reuters language > MP Nabavian: > > Iran has pledged to maintain the nuclear status quo until a final agreement is reached, which means a complete halt to enrichment and no reconstruction of sites. > > CNN (Brett McGurk): > > There is an article, Article 9, which says that everything is ‘status quo.’ ... Iran is not enriching uranium, … this basically freezes that, so Iran can not enrich uranium. That’s not insignificant. And that’s different from when we were negotiating the JCPOA, when they were enriching > > Prof. Esfandyar Batmanghelidj (JHU): > > Clause 9 dictates that ... Iran will “maintain the status quo” on its nuclear program, meaning that it will not reconstitute its facilities or resume enrichment > > Iran has agreed to zero enrichment for the duration of negotiations. > > > NYT: > > For Iran, maintaining the “status quo” of its nuclear program amounts to leaving its bombed nuclear facilities in ruins and its uranium entombed beneath the rubble of air strikes.
are you completely disregarding, for example, Nabavian in resolving the minor ambiguity there?
are you completely disregarding, for example, Nabavian in resolving the minor ambiguity there?
the gentlemen's agreements cnn was talking about today are a separate matter from interim nuclear freeze
the gentlemen's agreements cnn was talking about today are a separate matter from interim nuclear freeze
i mean anything citing the unrelated paragraph mentioning enrichment would be a pretty horrible clari
i mean anything citing the unrelated paragraph mentioning enrichment would be a pretty horrible clari
eh it's a clear misinterpretation to think it means anything other than a full freeze imo. basically clear from the context that they're not enriching but you can look at all the other statements we gathered for context.
eh it's a clear misinterpretation to think it means anything other than a full freeze imo. basically clear from the context that they're not enriching but you can look at all the other statements we gathered for context.
not to mention high officials to reuters and the nyt these are not "random people's opinions"
not to mention high officials to reuters and the nyt these are not "random people's opinions"
no changes allowed to the current status of not enriching it's quite clear
no changes allowed to the current status of not enriching it's quite clear
there's clear consensus that they are discussing extended enrichment freezes going forward, so he is referring to the right to enrich, exercised later, and spinning
there's clear consensus that they are discussing extended enrichment freezes going forward, so he is referring to the right to enrich, exercised later, and spinning
who said that
who said that
One that some of y'all are familiar with: Reuters: > [A] senior Iranian official said pending a final agreement Iran would freeze its nuclear activity, **refraining from further uranium enrichment** or the expansion of nuclear facilities. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/what-us-iran-say-they-have-agreed-memorandum-end-war-2026-06-15/ An earlier Reuters article stated > Pending a final agreement, Iran would maintain the current status of its nuclear programme, refraining from further uranium enrichment and expansion of nuclear facilities. [citing the senior Iranian official] Note that Reuters itself, not the Iranian official equates “the current status of [Iran’s] nuclear programme” with “[Iran] freez[ing] its nuclear activity”, constituting **an outright assessment by Reuters that “nuclear status quo” means freeze, including enrichment**.
One that some of y'all are familiar with: Reuters: > [A] senior Iranian official said pending a final agreement Iran would freeze its nuclear activity, **refraining from further uranium enrichment** or the expansion of nuclear facilities. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/what-us-iran-say-they-have-agreed-memorandum-end-war-2026-06-15/ An earlier Reuters article stated > Pending a final agreement, Iran would maintain the current status of its nuclear programme, refraining from further uranium enrichment and expansion of nuclear facilities. [citing the senior Iranian official] Note that Reuters itself, not the Iranian official equates “the current status of [Iran’s] nuclear programme” with “[Iran] freez[ing] its nuclear activity”, constituting **an outright assessment by Reuters that “nuclear status quo” means freeze, including enrichment**.
I guess I start to post evidence in earnest now
I guess I start to post evidence in earnest now
This is actually a matter of fact not an edge case. There is a 60 day enrichment freeze.
This is actually a matter of fact not an edge case. There is a 60 day enrichment freeze.
The current memorandum involves an Iranian commitment to the "status quo", meaning a freeze of the nuclear program including enrichment. This is a historic concession which Iran has never offered before.
The current memorandum involves an Iranian commitment to the "status quo", meaning a freeze of the nuclear program including enrichment. This is a historic concession which Iran has never offered before.
If I can refer us to the chart
If I can refer us to the chart
Maybe it's a flaw in the system but it's a little crazy that one can request a clarification before evidence has been presented
Maybe it's a flaw in the system but it's a little crazy that one can request a clarification before evidence has been presented
They double down on the 15th after signing > The senior Iranian official said pending a final agreement Iran would freeze its nuclear activity, refraining from further uranium enrichment or the expansion of nuclear facilities. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/what-us-iran-say-they-have-agreed-memorandum-end-war-2026-06-15/ In any case this language was already in the draft by the 14th as witnessed by the Nabavian interview.
They double down on the 15th after signing > The senior Iranian official said pending a final agreement Iran would freeze its nuclear activity, refraining from further uranium enrichment or the expansion of nuclear facilities. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/what-us-iran-say-they-have-agreed-memorandum-end-war-2026-06-15/ In any case this language was already in the draft by the 14th as witnessed by the Nabavian interview.
I strongly disagree with ae's interpretation but i see the argument ig
I strongly disagree with ae's interpretation but i see the argument ig
The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during the negotiations.
The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during the negotiations.
frozen assets was not immediate under deal and resolved rules do not require immediacy at all
frozen assets was not immediate under deal and resolved rules do not require immediacy at all
<@941405798096076880>
<@941405798096076880>
no but the current deal requires it
no but the current deal requires it
no it doesn't not formally The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent.
no it doesn't not formally The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent.
> The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran **commit** to negotiating and **achieving** the final deal in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent. Can't remember if I got a straight answer. Do you view this particular clause as binding?
> The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran **commit** to negotiating and **achieving** the final deal in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent. Can't remember if I got a straight answer. Do you view this particular clause as binding?
there's no immediacy requirement, only definitiness
there's no immediacy requirement, only definitiness
Clarification: The Islamabad Memorandum establishes an overall binding framework for permanent peace between Iran and the US. The US commitment to "remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal" constitutes a definitive commitment as part of the phased implementation of the Memorandum.
Clarification: The Islamabad Memorandum establishes an overall binding framework for permanent peace between Iran and the US. The US commitment to "remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal" constitutes a definitive commitment as part of the phased implementation of the Memorandum.