D. John Trump
Registered Member
Name should not be a concern of anybody.until forum rules are not violated.Your name.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Name should not be a concern of anybody.until forum rules are not violated.Your name.
US doesn’t need a middle man - it is perfect capable of brokering “peace” by itself.
Iran has laid down the terms extremely clearly.
Iran cannot afford another meek “peace deal”.
Future of Muslims are at steak!!
Unfortunately China wont take that role then someone needs to but they need to be able to enforce peace.Any ceasefire will need a guarantor. Happy if Pakistan plays this role. If Israel breaches it we will have an excuse then....
Any more info, was it hit? were the ASBMs intercepted by accompanying destroyers?
It did sound like a rant. You started to talk about the role of Shiite people in the Pakistani system while I hadn't mentioned it or challenged it at all. Neither do I care about it. I don't care whether a person is Shiite, Sunni, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or of any other faith or religion. I judge them by their words and actions.First rule, when you post here, don't call what others post as "rants". Otherwise everything you post is no more than a silly rant. Hope you get the point.
Quite frankly, I don't remember when Iran asked you to solve this war for us. It's our war and we have to fight it, we never asked you to "solve" it for us. It was your own initiative because you are also being affected by this war, particularly economically.Second, there aren't that many brokers in this space. You can question our government's motivations till kingdom come, they won't solve this war for you.
Well, a messenger does not draft a proposal after a meeting. Oman was a broker in the US-Iran nuclear talks. Did it draft a plan of its own?Third, not a single one of your point stands to the test of time and previous mediation efforts.
All countries that "broker" are essentially messengers. Unless Iran had a diplomatic presence in the US or vice versa, you do need messengers to get things started.
Refer to my earlier point. A broker does not draft a solution of its own. It just facilitates indirect exchanges, but it doesn't propose a framework for the two parties to agree upon.Pakistan does not need to have "military weight". That is not the job of the broker/messenger. What weight did Qatar have brokering peace in Gaza? Or Turkey brokering Russia-Ukraine war? These are all efforts from "neutral" entities. Pakistan's own military weight is of no consequence here. The only question that matters is are both sides ok enough to use the good offices of Pakistan to relay messages. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less.
No, it did not take the list from both sides. You seem to be gravely misinformed and yet you pretend to be an expert on it. Pakistan came up with its own "two-phase truce" solution which both parties rejected immediately and had never even talked about a two phase deal. Iran had made it quite clear that any truce must be final and have guarantees. Iran had already rejected the idea of a ceasefire. So, your proposal, or whatever it is called in technical terms, directly went against Iran's stated stance.That speaks to your lack of understanding/information. Pakistan did NOT propose anything. It took the list from both sides and conveyed them. This happened before the lists were made public on social media by both sides. Iran is obviously going to get NOTHING from the deal because the deal has to be negotiated. The basics of negotiating are that both sides come with their maximal positions and then some mediator/broker tries to help bridge the difference. So not sure where you got this "one-sided deal" story from. There is nothing factual in it.
The Persian Gulf. Iran is quite fine with absorbing damages. It's a small cost that Iran has to pay for securing its national interests and security.At the end of the day, Iran is taking damage, as is the Gulf, Israel and the US. Maybe they will avail of the good offices offered by Pakistan, and maybe they won't. I just mentioned that Pakistan's motivation is to see this war end and it is not out of concern for the US.
how about sabotage missions ?Unlikely - Iran lacks the ability to protect any meaningful concentration of troops or armour in the open right now. It will turn into Highway of Death very quickly.
![]()
Highway of Death - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
No, there is no ground invasion happening of Arab countries by Iran. Makes zero sense and Iran doesn’t have the ability to provide logistics to those forces across the Persian Gulf.
The sentiment is nice and all, but Pakistan can't guarantee shit against Israeli belligerence.