该用户的聊天记录定位。
so, the MOU states that: 1) Iran will have administrative authority over Hormuz and provide services 2) Hormuz will be governed in line with international law 3) International law allows charging for services
so, the MOU states that: 1) Iran will have administrative authority over Hormuz and provide services 2) Hormuz will be governed in line with international law 3) International law allows charging for services
also to note, the MOU allows Iran to provide "maritime services". this is a very specific term. under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, coastal states may not charge tolls but they may charge for maritime services. see: https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf page 33 article 26
also to note, the MOU allows Iran to provide "maritime services". this is a very specific term. under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, coastal states may not charge tolls but they may charge for maritime services. see: https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf page 33 article 26
what about the fact that US endorsed iranian administration of hormuz? also this aligns with the reporting that US agrees to fees in the final hour to hold off iranian retaliation strikes for beirut
what about the fact that US endorsed iranian administration of hormuz? also this aligns with the reporting that US agrees to fees in the final hour to hold off iranian retaliation strikes for beirut
ISW also: https://x.com/TheStudyofWar/status/2067786454315536563 "The MoU allows for a resumption of fee collection after 60 days"
ISW also: https://x.com/TheStudyofWar/status/2067786454315536563 "The MoU allows for a resumption of fee collection after 60 days"
I'm starting to understand why he said based to this 💀
I'm starting to understand why he said based to this 💀
<:monkaMega:806906291594723340>
<:monkaMega:806906291594723340>
im scared to ask any more
im scared to ask any more
btw anybody know why his name is rememberamalek? is that just a joke or...?
btw anybody know why his name is rememberamalek? is that just a joke or...?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EYwdZut9e0Y
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EYwdZut9e0Y
ehh these meeting probably gonna end in failure too and vance is getting the blame
ehh these meeting probably gonna end in failure too and vance is getting the blame
any future meetings with iranians will probably be face to face, so less chance of cucks
any future meetings with iranians will probably be face to face, so less chance of cucks
here, some free alpha for you guys
here, some free alpha for you guys
meeting was a good buy anyway, iran is playing hardball but they still want this deal
meeting was a good buy anyway, iran is playing hardball but they still want this deal
imcrine. do you even understand the arguments being made here and why they are related? man today has really been blackpilling for me on the avg iq of this chat
imcrine. do you even understand the arguments being made here and why they are related? man today has really been blackpilling for me on the avg iq of this chat
I thought both enrichment markets should go Y imo, but it looks like they will probably both go N. unless trump has another trump moment I guess
I thought both enrichment markets should go Y imo, but it looks like they will probably both go N. unless trump has another trump moment I guess
exact same argument that was tried today vro. it's over lol. he has to say the words exactly
exact same argument that was tried today vro. it's over lol. he has to say the words exactly
which was the argument made today, freezing nuclear program = freezing enrichment but that was denied
which was the argument made today, freezing nuclear program = freezing enrichment but that was denied
he said they can have a nuclear program, you would need to read that implicitly as nuclear program = enrichment
he said they can have a nuclear program, you would need to read that implicitly as nuclear program = enrichment
today's clarif nukes the g7 statement tbh
today's clarif nukes the g7 statement tbh
what happens when theres no scams
what happens when theres no scams
now we're having disputes on what the clarifications mean <:ICANT:1055828905031909467>
now we're having disputes on what the clarifications mean <:ICANT:1055828905031909467>
i really hate to say this but car is right
i really hate to say this but car is right
for this round almost zero
for this round almost zero
talking about the nuclear program. it's close but it's a bit indirect
talking about the nuclear program. it's close but it's a bit indirect
N believers please fill me on Dec. 31 market
N believers please fill me on Dec. 31 market
This is where literacy becomes a handicap. This is technically true but in no world would that fly for the agreement
This is where literacy becomes a handicap. This is technically true but in no world would that fly for the agreement
N believers please fill me on Dec. 31 market I will buy in size
N believers please fill me on Dec. 31 market I will buy in size
Yeah I agree. I think reality is they are freezing for some years and then continuing with low grade, so I think both markets should go Y
Yeah I agree. I think reality is they are freezing for some years and then continuing with low grade, so I think both markets should go Y
Since you have not been following, what do you think about this clip as someone with no preconceptions? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czqP_rln8A&t=43s
Since you have not been following, what do you think about this clip as someone with no preconceptions? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czqP_rln8A&t=43s
I mean it is 1 minute clip. Anyone can watch it and see that it is not misquoted 🤷
I mean it is 1 minute clip. Anyone can watch it and see that it is not misquoted 🤷
I haven't blocked anyone so far
I haven't blocked anyone so far
No he blocked me on like day 1 that I was here 🤣
No he blocked me on like day 1 that I was here 🤣
Where is Vance being misquoted? Anyone can watch the video and judge for themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czqP_rln8A&t=43s He is asked about handshake agreements and he says: We don't trust words, we trust actions... so if Iran does what they have promised, they have promised not to enrich... then we will give them the benefits outlined in the deal. This is all past tense, he is saying they already made agreements and that's why they have written concessions into the deal for Iran because Iran has already made these commitments including not to enrich.
Where is Vance being misquoted? Anyone can watch the video and judge for themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czqP_rln8A&t=43s He is asked about handshake agreements and he says: We don't trust words, we trust actions... so if Iran does what they have promised, they have promised not to enrich... then we will give them the benefits outlined in the deal. This is all past tense, he is saying they already made agreements and that's why they have written concessions into the deal for Iran because Iran has already made these commitments including not to enrich.
What do you think of the vance clip? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czqP_rln8A&t=43s I kinda agree about the status quo, it's interpretation hell, but this statement seems in no need of interpretation to me.
What do you think of the vance clip? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czqP_rln8A&t=43s I kinda agree about the status quo, it's interpretation hell, but this statement seems in no need of interpretation to me.
alright well we're just going to go in circles there. I've said all I wanted to about this for now
alright well we're just going to go in circles there. I've said all I wanted to about this for now
also not required. stopping for any length of time is enough
also not required. stopping for any length of time is enough
please be clear about what the rules actually require. credible reporting of a promise is enough. it does not need to be public
please be clear about what the rules actually require. credible reporting of a promise is enough. it does not need to be public
troops precedent is that it counts even if it's contingent on the final deal. it does not need to actually happen, just a promise is enough.
troops precedent is that it counts even if it's contingent on the final deal. it does not need to actually happen, just a promise is enough.
He is reporting what an iranian official has said
He is reporting what an iranian official has said
<@886004822669664286> <@1428890877744644240> is asking if you can unblock him
<@886004822669664286> <@1428890877744644240> is asking if you can unblock him
I will just keep posting this clip because it is crystal clear. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czqP_rln8A&t=43s "If they do the things they have promised to do, **they have promised not to enrich**"
I will just keep posting this clip because it is crystal clear. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czqP_rln8A&t=43s "If they do the things they have promised to do, **they have promised not to enrich**"
Effendi is going to have to stay online 24/7 cause as soon as he leaves the level of argument drops substantially <:ICANT:1055828905031909467>
Effendi is going to have to stay online 24/7 cause as soon as he leaves the level of argument drops substantially <:ICANT:1055828905031909467>
He's publically announcing it right now. If they make a secret deal and it gets leaked by the news for example, that would clearly count.
He's publically announcing it right now. If they make a secret deal and it gets leaked by the news for example, that would clearly count.
It's in the MoU as well but it requires some interpretation you can check the UMA thread
It's in the MoU as well but it requires some interpretation you can check the UMA thread
He's saying they have... they made a backchannel promise
He's saying they have... they made a backchannel promise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czqP_rln8A&t=43s > If they do the things they have promised to do, **they have promised not to enrich**
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czqP_rln8A&t=43s > If they do the things they have promised to do, **they have promised not to enrich**
They don't need to be. Pretend the MoU doesn't exist and just take his comments in isolation
They don't need to be. Pretend the MoU doesn't exist and just take his comments in isolation
I don't know how anyone can watch the JD Vance clip and say that there is no pledge of stopping enrichment
I don't know how anyone can watch the JD Vance clip and say that there is no pledge of stopping enrichment
<@941405798096076880> <@1212792946341183578>
<@941405798096076880> <@1212792946341183578>
I don't think it is just cherrypicking though. Ok, reporting maybe. But JD Vance seems very clearly to be saying Iranian side made promises on enrichment. JD Vance surely knows details of the negotiations and is credible here.
I don't think it is just cherrypicking though. Ok, reporting maybe. But JD Vance seems very clearly to be saying Iranian side made promises on enrichment. JD Vance surely knows details of the negotiations and is credible here.
Polymarket