Nabavian refers to the management of the Strait of Hormoz, which Oman and Iran had agreed falls under Iran’s umbrella.

🇺🇸🇮🇷| Trump is claiming the deal will be signed tomorrow, and once signed, the Strait of Hormoz will be open.

He also claims the US will later retrieve and destroy/downblend Iran’s buried “nuclear dust,” possibly in Iran or elsewhere.

— Note: Trump likes to add extra non-existing flavours to his tweets.

@FotrosResistancee

— 🇮🇷 NEW: Some Iranians have gathered outside the foreign ministry chanting ‘Death to Araqchi, the dishonorable compromiser’

@Middle_East_Spectator

He openly lied on TV last night, and is repeating the same traitor mistake from 2015. Iranians are expressive of their feelings towards their nation.

You wouldn’t understand if you’re not an Iranian.

https://xn--r1a.website/FotrosResistancee/22131?comment=1564230

🇮🇷🇺🇸🇰🇼| Iran also published satellite images of a confirmed missile/drone strike on a 1000-ASR Early-Warning Radar system at the Ali Al Salem Air Base, in Kuwait.

The radar system has been destroyed.

@FotrosResistancee

This is from the recent attacks.

🇮🇷🇺🇸| Nabavian: My objection to Clause 6 is that it talks about “reconstruction and economic development”, not damages, compensation, or reparations.

The Leader clearly said to collect compensation for damages to Iran, but those words are missing from the text.

The $300 billion is also vague. It says America will work with its “regional partners,” meaning countries like Saudi Arabia or the UAE may be expected to pay. But what if they refuse? America can simply say, “We asked them, they didn’t pay.”

Even if the money comes, its spending must be agreed by both Iran and America.

That means America could interfere in where the money goes, block projects linked to the IRGC, or force certain contractors.

So in my view, Iran may neither receive guaranteed money nor control how it is spent… and all of this is delayed until the unclear “final agreement.”

@FotrosResistancee

🇮🇷🇺🇸| Nabavian: Even if all the sanctions mentioned in the text are supposedly removed, the sanctions will 100% effectively remain because the text does not prevent America from imposing new sanctions the next day.

Also, America cannot by itself cancel UN Security Council resolutions or IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, because other countries must agree too. And many US sanctions are congressional laws, which Trump cannot simply remove by himself.

@FotrosResistancee

N.B.: This is effectively what happened with the 2015 JCPOA agreement… Obama imposed fresh new sanctions right after Iran signed the deal.

🇮🇷🇺🇸| ❗️Nabavian: My objection is that in the nuclear section, Iran keeps giving America written guarantees, but America does not give equal guarantees on future sanctions.

I’ll read it. Honestly, this is where a person becomes very upset.

And this too was the proposal of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Because I have several versions; it kept going back and forth. They say, “None of these is the final version you have.” Fine… but I compared them. Every time we submitted it and it changed, we retreated.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America agree to resolve all nuclear-related issues, including the commitment not to build nuclear weapons, enrichment, highly enriched materials, and the options related to them, during negotiations over the final agreement.”

They asked us to explicitly say we will not build a bomb. We said: “Here, fine, we’ll do it quickly.”

Nonetheless, we should not have done this, Why? Because on paper, America’s concerns about the future have been addressed. But why did they not come and address our concerns about sanctions… future sanctions?

In the previous draft version, it said:

“The Islamic Republic of Iran once again emphasizes that it will never produce nuclear weapons.”

We gave this to America. They said: “This is not enough. This is not what we want.”

So what else should we write?

They said: “You must write that you will neither produce it, nor acquire it, nor buy it, nor should it ever come into your hands.”

We said: “Fine, put it in.”

Now I’ll read this clause:

“The Islamic Republic of Iran once again emphasizes that it will never produce or acquire nuclear weapons.”

This is the Islamic Republic’s proposal.

Then…

“The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America have agreed… to resolve the status of the stockpiles of HEU through a mechanism agreed upon by both parties, and to determine the fate of enrichment and other nuclear-related issues agreed upon by both sides, including by taking into account the needs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, based on a satisfactory framework in an agreement.”

What does this mean?

It means the fate of enrichment and other nuclear-related matters must be placed inside a framework that satisfies America. We must have America’s satisfaction.

My question is: what are “nuclear-related matters”? Radiopharmaceuticals? Medicine? Desalination plants? … nuclear agriculture? The industries we have in the nuclear field? Electricity production? We have electricity shortages now and want to build reactors…. But here, we have committed that all of these must be within a framework that has America’s approval.

Even more concerning, America added that Iran’s enriched material must at minimum be diluted under IAEA supervision and American considerations.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran once again emphasizes that it will never produce or acquire nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the USA have agreed to resolve the status of the stockpiles of enriched materials through a mechanism agreed upon by both parties…

…which will at minimum involve the dilution of all nuclear material on site, under the supervision of the IAE and under American considerations.”

This is exactly America’s demand.

These are things Araghchi should explain to the people: Why are America’s demands being presented in the language of the Islamic Republic of Iran?

@FotrosResistancee

🇱🇧🇮🇱| Hezbollah published footage of the moment when they shot down for the first time ever an Heron-1 drone at a hight of 7km.

@FotrosResistancee

🇮🇷| Protests have also erupted in front of the MFA building in Tehran.

Iranian protesters say: “Araghchi, have shame, leave America alone [as in: stop fangirling]”

@FotrosResistancee

TEHRAN—A speech from 2013 by Martyr Seyyed Ali Khamenei:

"Negotiations with the US never solves a problem. For 60 years, since the 1953 coup, whenever Iranian officials, trusted Americans on any issue, they have suffered a blow.”

With subtitles.

@IranArchiveVideos

🇮🇷| Powerful message on a placard from Iranian potesters in front of the MFA building in Mashad:

“Reopen the parliament. And if they bomb the building, as Araghchi said, we’ll find a replacement.”

@FotrosResistancee

🇮🇷🇺🇸| Nabavian: There is a difference between blocked assets & frozen assets.

The assets we are discussing is frozen, like funds in South Korea or Qatar, not court-blocked assets.

In our earlier proposal, America had to release $12 billion immediately after signing, and the rest within 30 days. But after America rejected that, the new text became much weaker: it says the assets will be made available based on progress in negotiations.

That is vague. What counts as “progress”?

Iran and America may define it differently. And even if progress happens, the text no longer says how much money must be released… $1, $1,000, or more… So the clear guarantee of $12 billion immediately has disappeared.

@FotrosResistancee

🇮🇷🇺🇸| Nabavian: Clause 14 of the agreement text is very bad.

They say our “guarantee” is a UNSC resolution,

The final agreement, under a binding UN Security Council resolution, is not a real guarantee for Iran.

We already experienced this with the JCPOA and Resolution 2231: America withdrew, but Iran remained trapped under international obligations, and snapback became possible.

Once the agreement goes to the Security Council, Iran does not control the text. America and other members can add extra restrictions, just like they added missile, arms, and inspection-related issues around the JCPOA.

So the guarantee should not be a UN resolution. The guarantee should be clear consequences if America violates the deal: Iran leaves the NPT, fully closes the Strait of Hormoz, resumes enrichment at any level and stockpiles it, and America must first get congressional approval.

Also, if the deal is supposed to end war on all Resistance fronts, Iran’s allies must be removed from terrorist lists.

@FotrosResistancee

🇮🇷🇺🇸| Nabavian: Iran should not solve pressure by giving concessions.

If Iran cannot sell oil, then no country in the region should be allowed to sell oil either. That’s how you pressure to break the blockade quickly.

Negotiations with the US does not remove the threat of war, Iranian power does.

@FotrosResistancee

🇮🇷🇺🇸| Tasnim’s editor-in-chief in an interview with IRIB

He says Iran should not trust the US, and the people being worried [and protest] about negotiations is actually a healthy sign of resistance. People warning negotiators not to give concessions should be welcomed, not dismissed.

He also says technical criticism is useful as long as it does not break national unity.

According to him, the MoU draft has already changed 6-7 times, including changes made by Iran’s own negotiating team, such as wording around the Strait of Hormoz. So proper criticism can improve the final text.

The responsibility for the text of the possible agreement and its implementation lies with the negotiation team & the government.

@FotrosResistancee

🇮🇷| Iranians from Khorramabad, in reaction to negotiations with the US:

“The slogan of the whole country; only the Leader's pre-conditions.”

@FotrosResistancee

🇮🇷| Take a big distance from the people who’re trying to frame the opposition to the bad agreement as “elements close” to certain factions, especially Paydari.

As a matter of fact, I haven’t read that word in so long, and its clear that this agenda of “Jalili vs everyone else” is being pushed together with labels such as “hardliner” to push a narrative that it’s the followers of Saeed Jalili who are preventing a deal, mainly published by reformist outlets such as Entekhab.

This is not the case, and far from it. There are supporters of Jalili, Ghalibaf, and even Pezeshkian who are against the current draft of a potential deal (and vice versa).

Many people have experienced a decade long fault and are not willing to repeat that same mistake again, hence the anger among people tonight.

So be very careful of individuals who are blaming certain individuals or groups, and I suggest to distance yourself from them.

@FotrosResistancee