该用户的聊天记录定位。
Yes permanent peace yes troop withdrawal no would be quite inconsistent. Both rely on the text of the agreement as opposed to the extraneous vibes from the final deal being uncertain even if a binding commitment. <@941405798096076880>
Yes permanent peace yes troop withdrawal no would be quite inconsistent. Both rely on the text of the agreement as opposed to the extraneous vibes from the final deal being uncertain even if a binding commitment. <@941405798096076880>
well there can be restrictions besides fees or numerical limits
well there can be restrictions besides fees or numerical limits
It needs to be definitive, not for immediate implementation of contained to a single clause.
It needs to be definitive, not for immediate implementation of contained to a single clause.
<@252215153305583616>
<@252215153305583616>
I don't think that's what the "expression of openness" clause was meant to capture at all. They agreed to a binding conditional. (And they also agreed to bind themselves to finishing the final agreement so it's a chain of binding commitments) You didn't really respond to how you view this clause. > 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. Is this not a binding agreement to complete the final agreement?
I don't think that's what the "expression of openness" clause was meant to capture at all. They agreed to a binding conditional. (And they also agreed to bind themselves to finishing the final agreement so it's a chain of binding commitments) You didn't really respond to how you view this clause. > 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. Is this not a binding agreement to complete the final agreement?
they might have a few centrifuges in a closet somewhere but consensus they're not being used
they might have a few centrifuges in a closet somewhere but consensus they're not being used
he just says the same stuff on repeat tho
he just says the same stuff on repeat tho
hormuz transit fees
hormuz transit fees
maybe a bit irrelevant
maybe a bit irrelevant
quite bad for uranium market
quite bad for uranium market
the rules kinda say they have to accept
the rules kinda say they have to accept
<@941405798096076880> <@1212792946341183578>
<@941405798096076880> <@1212792946341183578>
I see where you're coming from so I avoid repeating myself too much. In terms of the obligations under the deal, the text is clear that a final deal is **obligatory** and withdrawal after is obligatory. I understand that intuitively withdrawal feels conditional because a final deal is **uncertain** but the question concerns what obligations have been incurred in the contract.
I see where you're coming from so I avoid repeating myself too much. In terms of the obligations under the deal, the text is clear that a final deal is **obligatory** and withdrawal after is obligatory. I understand that intuitively withdrawal feels conditional because a final deal is **uncertain** but the question concerns what obligations have been incurred in the contract.
a final deal is **obligated** under the current deal. of course it is not **certain** that it will happen.
a final deal is **obligated** under the current deal. of course it is not **certain** that it will happen.
I don't see how that's good for N It's just a breezy discussion of the provisions of the deal (alluding also to the possibility that they could breach the deal if the Iranians do). The deal actually spells out their obligations formally, and that's what the bet is about. We are interested in what > is included as part of a treaty or deal that is formally established between the United States and Iran, either through signing or other formal means.
I don't see how that's good for N It's just a breezy discussion of the provisions of the deal (alluding also to the possibility that they could breach the deal if the Iranians do). The deal actually spells out their obligations formally, and that's what the bet is about. We are interested in what > is included as part of a treaty or deal that is formally established between the United States and Iran, either through signing or other formal means.
Not really. NOTAM specified a kind of closure, could be due to weather or not according to the message afaiu
Not really. NOTAM specified a kind of closure, could be due to weather or not according to the message afaiu
Embedded thunderstorm warning for Iran and Tehran approach with same time range as NOTAM
Embedded thunderstorm warning for Iran and Tehran approach with same time range as NOTAM
I'm preparing an argument. Woke up about 1h50m into the dispute period lol.
I'm preparing an argument. Woke up about 1h50m into the dispute period lol.
And Iran and the US denied essentially
And Iran and the US denied essentially
twice
twice
I can assure you I did read the rules
I can assure you I did read the rules
Wow you're gunning for me today
Wow you're gunning for me today
Basically they all confirm that the US circulated a draft, not that the draft is the correct version. Iran is circulating slightly different info.
Basically they all confirm that the US circulated a draft, not that the draft is the correct version. Iran is circulating slightly different info.
This leak isn't really credible tho. The alternative version emanating from Iran is equally if not more plausible
This leak isn't really credible tho. The alternative version emanating from Iran is equally if not more plausible
The resolution sources will be official information from the United States and Iran and a consensus of credible reporting.
The resolution sources will be official information from the United States and Iran and a consensus of credible reporting.
Iran and US are resolution source
Iran and US are resolution source
Particularly with the White House disowning the draft, Iran's insistance that that Lebanon clause was in the signed version seems more likely than ever
Particularly with the White House disowning the draft, Iran's insistance that that Lebanon clause was in the signed version seems more likely than ever
I like how the US and Iran explicitly denied and we're still discussing it somehow
I like how the US and Iran explicitly denied and we're still discussing it somehow
which would make it non-qualifying
which would make it non-qualifying
i'm pretty sure it's the previous draft
i'm pretty sure it's the previous draft
other than iran and the us denying? it's actually a somewhat ironclad p1 now iran + us is a resolution pathway
other than iran and the us denying? it's actually a somewhat ironclad p1 now iran + us is a resolution pathway
flip twice + inexplicably profit the D. E. N. I. Z. Z. system
flip twice + inexplicably profit the D. E. N. I. Z. Z. system
pure gravitas
pure gravitas
I'm not so sure. It seems like pure he said, she said between Iran and the US, with no particular reason to prefer one account over the other. If anything the last minute modifications to the MOU are plausible because they were supposedly the price of Iran not attacking Israel that day.
I'm not so sure. It seems like pure he said, she said between Iran and the US, with no particular reason to prefer one account over the other. If anything the last minute modifications to the MOU are plausible because they were supposedly the price of Iran not attacking Israel that day.
the missing clauses from the circulating draft are exactly what was supposedly added on the last day
the missing clauses from the circulating draft are exactly what was supposedly added on the last day
According to an informed source speaking to Tasnim, one of the main amendments was an addition to a clause guaranteeing “sovereignty and respect for the territorial integrity of Lebanon” in the first article, a provision initially opposed by U.S. President Donald Trump. The report added that Iran and Oman introduced an additional phrase concerning “the management of maritime navigation services in the Strait of Hormuz” into the fifth clause of the memorandum, marking another point of adjustment during the talks.
According to an informed source speaking to Tasnim, one of the main amendments was an addition to a clause guaranteeing “sovereignty and respect for the territorial integrity of Lebanon” in the first article, a provision initially opposed by U.S. President Donald Trump. The report added that Iran and Oman introduced an additional phrase concerning “the management of maritime navigation services in the Strait of Hormuz” into the fifth clause of the memorandum, marking another point of adjustment during the talks.
"not accurate and has several deficiencies"
"not accurate and has several deficiencies"
Tasnim and Amwaj (technically British but Iran-adjacent)
Tasnim and Amwaj (technically British but Iran-adjacent)
and this draft we keep seeing is neither the signed version nor a successor version, according to seemingly correct Iranian claims
and this draft we keep seeing is neither the signed version nor a successor version, according to seemingly correct Iranian claims
for this market it has to actually be the signed version or a successor version
for this market it has to actually be the signed version or a successor version
This turned into completely he said she said, Iran vs. US I don't see how we can say consensus when it's that way FWIW the Iran-linked sources seem correct that this Western media draft is non-final as it lacks in particular the new lebanon clause
This turned into completely he said she said, Iran vs. US I don't see how we can say consensus when it's that way FWIW the Iran-linked sources seem correct that this Western media draft is non-final as it lacks in particular the new lebanon clause
It makes no sense to put the Lebanon clause in at great cost and immediately take it out
It makes no sense to put the Lebanon clause in at great cost and immediately take it out
Of course but the point is there’s not consensus one way or the other. It’s quite strongly conflicting reporting
Of course but the point is there’s not consensus one way or the other. It’s quite strongly conflicting reporting
They’re about to enter a 60 day freeze
They’re about to enter a 60 day freeze
This was the scoop of the month
This was the scoop of the month
If they’re not credible how come they were the first outlet in the world to report the agreement https://amwaj.media/en/media-monitor/iran-war
If they’re not credible how come they were the first outlet in the world to report the agreement https://amwaj.media/en/media-monitor/iran-war
Only 2 sources claim it as authentic -- Al arabiya and BBG, and there is enough conflicting info to say that's not a consensus.
Only 2 sources claim it as authentic -- Al arabiya and BBG, and there is enough conflicting info to say that's not a consensus.
I think unfortunately a partial leak should be authenticated as coming from the signed document itself or a true successor doc. The fact that there are a bunch of unauthenticated drafts circulating with overlap is not dispositive as to the authenticity of the overlapping parts being in a genuine version.
I think unfortunately a partial leak should be authenticated as coming from the signed document itself or a true successor doc. The fact that there are a bunch of unauthenticated drafts circulating with overlap is not dispositive as to the authenticity of the overlapping parts being in a genuine version.
the problem is any alleged text needs to be authenticated by consensus under the rules
the problem is any alleged text needs to be authenticated by consensus under the rules
if they're literally the same up to translation differences then it's a bit implausible that the bbg draft is the proper one. considering the late concessions by trump on lebanon are omitted
if they're literally the same up to translation differences then it's a bit implausible that the bbg draft is the proper one. considering the late concessions by trump on lebanon are omitted
Polymarket