New Cases by the EU General Court Striking Down Iran Sanctions Listings




7 Comments on “New Cases by the EU General Court Striking Down Iran Sanctions Listings”

  1. yousaf says:

    Looks like EU has to pay Sharif University’s costs also.

    “Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Sharif University of Technology.”

    Can they get the money with sanctions on financial transactions in place?

  2. yousaf says:

    It’s too bad that the UNSC’s sanctions are not subject to a legal test.

    Else they would fail also.

    Ditto for US sanctions.

    We already saw how great the evidence against Iran is:

    • Nick says:

      Great points guys.

      Dan is absolutely right about the Congress lack of appetite for any meaningful enrichment Iran.

      So I don’t know how Burns and Sherman respond to Zarif and his team when they repeatedly bring up this issue in their meetings for dropping all the US unilateral sanctions?

      • Cyrus says:

        There are a variety of spins that they use — they claim that they will “allow” Iran the enrichmnt that they think Iran needs, and that they’re not really demading that Iran “give up” enrichment, rather that Iran “suspend” enrichment…indefinitely, until the US says otherwise.
        All of which of course is just pure baloney.

        What they don’t want to recognize is that Iran’s nuclear program is massively popular, and that Iranians have a long history of resentment against one-sided internationa agreements that robbed Iran of her sovereignty and rights, going back to the Turkamenchai deal and the Tobacco Concessions. They don’t seem to understand that the Iranian govt operates in an Iranian social/political context and has to answer to public opinion at home … OR, they’re making these demands on Iran specifically to (once again) torpedo the talks and try to paint Iran as “intransigent” for not giving into illegal US demands. This sadly seems to be the case. It was all yet another set-up, and the US was never going to accept a “yes” — just as in the Turkey/Brazil fiasco.

      • Cyrus says:

        BTW folks, lets remember that Iran similarly suspended enrichment as part of the Paris Agreement negotiations, for what was supposed to be just 3 months but was dragged out to 3 years when the EU-3 dragged their feet in making their “offer” to Iran — and when they finally did, they included the demand that Iran abandon enrichment contrary to all the assurances they had provided that they would NOT make such a demand. Subsequent disclosures showed that the EU3 were negotiating in bad faith with Iran, and that the Brits had already assured the US that they would NOT recognize Iran’s right to enrich contrary to what they were telling the Iranians. Peter Osborne has written about this

        That fiasco was one main factor why Ahmadinejad won and why the reformists had to sit back. They had cost Iran 3 years of progress, with nothing to show for it.

        If they try this again, the reformists can start packing

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s