Islamabad Talks - News & Discussions

[Mav3rick]

The fissile material were not a major issue in Oman. The deal breaker in the Oman negotiations were the caps on the missile programs. If Iran had agreed with that then, after getting rid of the long range missiles, Israel would find a toothless Iran and would have attacked anyway. So Iran could not agree with that.
I absolutely see no reason why Iran would concede the caps on the missiles program now that it has:
1) Proven to be able to control the Strait
2) Destroyed much of the local American bases
3) Able to majorly hurt the global economy
4) Finds Trump in a very unpopular war
5) American offensive capabilities majorly depleted (NY Times' main news today)

Anyway, enough talking with you about it. You keep repeating the same without any data or logic to backup your claim of Iran's surrender. Ain't happening!

1. Iran, or for that matter, any of the regional countries could have taken control of the strait of Hormuz with threats or through deployment of mines/naval forces. The question is, can Iran continue to hold on to it if the US, Gulf and other countries decide to free it militarily?
2. They may have done some damage to the US bases in the region but destroying much of the bases is a big exaggeration.
3. Yes, which is why the world at large would not hesitate for too long if Iran continues to inflict pain on the world, especially those countries which have nothing to do with the conflict.
4. Rather irrelevant. Still, for the sake of argument, If Trump can sell a win to his voters, he will win big.
5. That is just nonsense by NYT. The US has stockpiles that can last years, let alone months. The US has not been a military super power for cenuries by being hollow inside.

 

[mythbuster]

1. Iran, or for that matter, any of the regional countries could have taken control of the strait of Hormuz with threats or through deployment of mines/naval forces. The question is, can Iran continue to hold on to it if the US, Gulf and other countries decide to free it militarily?
2. They may have done some damage to the US bases in the region but destroying much of the bases is a big exaggeration.
3. Yes, which is why the world at large would not hesitate for too long if Iran continues to inflict pain on the world, especially those countries which have nothing to do with the conflict.
4. Rather irrelevant. Still, for the sake of argument, If Trump can sell a win to his voters, he will win big.
5. That is just nonsense by NYT. The US has stockpiles that can last years, let alone months. The US has not been a military super power for cenuries by being hollow inside.

Well enunciated , however the Iranian fanboys like to live in the lala land.... reality is a bitch with a vicious bite.

 

[Meengla]

1. Iran, or for that matter, any of the regional countries could have taken control of the strait of Hormuz with threats or through deployment of mines/naval forces. The question is, can Iran continue to hold on to it if the US, Gulf and other countries decide to free it militarily?
2. They may have done some damage to the US bases in the region but destroying much of the bases is a big exaggeration.
3. Yes, which is why the world at large would not hesitate for too long if Iran continues to inflict pain on the world, especially those countries which have nothing to do with the conflict.
4. Rather irrelevant. Still, for the sake of argument, If Trump can sell a win to his voters, he will win big.
5. That is just nonsense by NYT. The US has stockpiles that can last years, let alone months. The US has not been a military super power for cenuries by being hollow inside.

The terms of any deal, if and when agreed upon during the next Islamabad Talks will reveal who had gained more from this war compared with the Oman negotiations. Dismissing credible sources like Trita Parsi, Ali Vaiz who say Iran has gained more or dismissing reports of major destruction to the American bases or dismissing a credible source like NY Times about the weapons depleted is an easier way to make your point.
It will be interesting to see what the outcome will be when compared with the Oman negotiations.
BTW, I am no Iran fanboi. I know and said so it is the Iranian policies of the past 47 years which have landed them in this situation. But I also know the importance of stable, unified Iran for Pakistan's own sake and I also know how to connect the dots instead of just dismissing what most credible analysts are saying about where this war has landed: Given Iran the upper hand. Even John Bolton had predicted this outcome, much to his disappointment.

 

[RescueRanger]

1. Iran, or for that matter, any of the regional countries could have taken control of the strait of Hormuz with threats or through deployment of mines/naval forces. The question is, can Iran continue to hold on to it if the US, Gulf and other countries decide to free it militarily?
2. They may have done some damage to the US bases in the region but destroying much of the bases is a big exaggeration.
3. Yes, which is why the world at large would not hesitate for too long if Iran continues to inflict pain on the world, especially those countries which have nothing to do with the conflict.
4. Rather irrelevant. Still, for the sake of argument, If Trump can sell a win to his voters, he will win big.
5. That is just nonsense by NYT. The US has stockpiles that can last years, let alone months. The US has not been a military super power for cenuries by being hollow inside.

A logical post on my online meme simulator.

 

[Fatman17]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Meengla]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Some sources saying it is just bilateral talks as part of the Iranian delegation going to Moscow after Islamabad. If so then why travel to Islamabad when already an apparent hotline of communication between Pakistan and Iran.
It will be very interesting to see what, if any, news of American delegation departing to Pakistan comes up.

 

[EugeneP]

I have not seen anything that suggests any leaderlessness… other than the muttering of the orange idiot, no one else is suggesting this either.

Just look at the communication technology they have to use now for the new leader to accept or deny terms of negotiation:

Messages to him are handwritten, sealed in envelopes and relayed via a human chain from one trusted courier to the next, who travel on highways and back roads, in cars and on motorcycles until they reach his hide-out. His guidance on issues snakes back the same way.

On one side you have J.D. Vance with his entourage with their secure SATCOM and snail mail on the other side.

 

[Trailer23]

It will be very interesting to see what, if any, news of American delegation departing to Pakistan comes up.

Negative . . .

 

[Mav3rick]

The terms of any deal, if and when agreed upon during the next Islamabad Talks will reveal who had gained more from this war compared with the Oman negotiations. Dismissing credible sources like Trita Parsi, Ali Vaiz who say Iran has gained more or dismissing reports of major destruction to the American bases or dismissing a credible source like NY Times about the weapons depleted is an easier way to make your point.
It will be interesting to see what the outcome will be when compared with the Oman negotiations.
BTW, I am no Iran fanboi. I know and said so it is the Iranian policies of the past 47 years which have landed them in this situation. But I also know the importance of stable, unified Iran for Pakistan's own sake and I also know how to connect the dots instead of just dismissing what most credible analysts are saying about where this war has landed: Given Iran the upper hand. Even John Bolton had predicted this outcome, much to his disappointment.

Bro, we all want the best for the region, for Iran, for Pakistan, for all Muslim countries and for the rest of humanity as well. It is not a competition either, we are all trying to find the hidden truth and to isolate fact from fiction and a lot of misinformation out there.

 

[Ali_Baba]

Just look at the communication technology they have to use now for the new leader to accept or deny terms of negotiation:

Messages to him are handwritten, sealed in envelopes and relayed via a human chain from one trusted courier to the next, who travel on highways and back roads, in cars and on motorcycles until they reach his hide-out. His guidance on issues snakes back the same way.

On one side you have J.D. Vance with his entourage with their secure SATCOM and snail mail on the other side.

That is the sign of a common sense and not leadershipness. Iran has slower comms lines, but there is only one authoritative decision maker in Iran.

On the counter point, who is the decision maker in the USA? Trump or Netanyahu or the Christian zealots wanting end of times? Vance cannot decide anything, he has to “report” to Netanyahu every day on what he has been up to…..

 

[maxpane]

1. Iran, or for that matter, any of the regional countries could have taken control of the strait of Hormuz with threats or through deployment of mines/naval forces. The question is, can Iran continue to hold on to it if the US, Gulf and other countries decide to free it militarily?
2. They may have done some damage to the US bases in the region but destroying much of the bases is a big exaggeration.
3. Yes, which is why the world at large would not hesitate for too long if Iran continues to inflict pain on the world, especially those countries which have nothing to do with the conflict.
4. Rather irrelevant. Still, for the sake of argument, If Trump can sell a win to his voters, he will win big.
5. That is just nonsense by NYT. The US has stockpiles that can last years, let alone months. The US has not been a military super power for cenuries by being hollow inside.

excelleny post and that reality wnt be accepted by fan boys

 

[Meengla]

Bro, we all want the best for the region, for Iran, for Pakistan, for all Muslim countries and for the rest of humanity as well. It is not a competition either, we are all trying to find the hidden truth and to isolate fact from fiction and a lot of misinformation out there.

Right.
The Litmus Test for who came out ahead will be a comparison between what was offered in Oman and what will be offered in the Islamabad Talks, if anything materializes. The terms of the Oman negotiations were clear and much talked about before this war. If Iran even retains its ability to have its long range missiles then that will be enough to know who gained the upper hand.
Facts will speak for themselves.

 

[mythbuster]

Right.
The Litmus Test for who came out ahead will be a comparison between what was offered in Oman and what will be offered in the Islamabad Talks, if anything materializes. The terms of the Oman negotiations were clear and much talked about before this war. If Iran even retains its ability to have its long range missiles then that will be enough to know who gained the upper hand.
Facts will speak for themselves.

It's time for you get lesson 101 on such deals / treaties ! You won't get all the info about it , certain parts will be kept secret for some time....

 

[Cipher212]

Anyone who works for the interest of his / her own country and not Iran is compromised ? Why should Arabs give two hoots about Iran...if Iran has the capacity and balls then they shall conquer the Arabs...

They work primarily for the interests of Israel. UAE Qatar and Saudi in particular are bad apples. Each is funding or fighting a dirty conflict.

They also host multiple US military units. They are allowing the Americans and Israelis to use their land sea and air to launch attacks on Iran. This war would be nigh difficult to even conduct if all Arab countries refused to be a part of it. Not supporting Iran of course, just insisting on being neutral. However they cannot do that as they are compromised.

If this is in their interest, chalay theek hay. Pursue it. Fight Iran, that is your right. But don't cry when Iran fires back, and do not cry when the Americans or Israelis don't come and protect your oil fields.



Edit: also Arabs definitely do not have that dog (of war) in them. Only the UAE showed some balls and sent it's fighters to bomb iran baaqi sab bacho ki tarha roray hay mujhe Kyu maara lol. They can't fight. They should look into hiring foreign mercenaries to fly their jets for them.

 

[mythbuster]

They work primarily for the interests of Israel. UAE Qatar and Saudi in particular are bad apples. Each is funding or fighting a dirty conflict.

They also host multiple US military units. They are allowing the Americans and Israelis to use their land sea and air to launch attacks on Iran. This war would be nigh difficult to even conduct if all Arab countries refused to be a part of it. Not supporting Iran of course, just insisting on being neutral. However they cannot do that as they are compromised.

If this is in their interest, chalay theek hay. Pursue it. Fight Iran, that is your right. But don't cry when Iran fires back, and do not cry when the Americans or Israelis don't come and protect your oil fields.



Edit: also Arabs definitely do not have that dog (of war) in them. Only the UAE showed some balls and sent it's fighters to bomb iran baaqi sab bacho ki tarha roray hay mujhe Kyu maara lol. They can't fight. They should look into hiring foreign mercenaries to fly their jets for them.

If the Arabs can use mercenaries to do their dirty work for them.... kudos to them, why hold it against them.