The original AGM paradigm focuses only on one-step belief revision and leaves open the problem of revising a belief state with whole sequences of evidence. Darwiche and Pearl later addressed this problem by introducing extra (intuitive) postulates as a supplement to the AGM ones. A second shortcoming of the AGM paradigm, seemingly unrelated to iterated revision, is that it is too liberal in its treatment of the notion of relevance. Once again this problem was addressed with the introduction of an extra (also very intuitive) postulate by Parikh. The main result of this paper is that Parikh postulate for relevance-sensitive belief revision is inconsistent with each of the Darwiche and Pearl postulates for iterated belief revision.