Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds

[ghazi52]

​

محمدباقر قالیباف | MB Ghalibaf
@mb_ghalibaf


Translated from Persian
1/Before the negotiations, I emphasized that we have the necessary good faith and will, but due to the experiences of the two previous wars, we have no trust in the opposing side.My colleagues on the Iranian delegation Minaab168 raised forward-looking initiatives, but the opposing side ultimately failed to gain the trust of the Iranian delegation in this round of negotiations.

2/ America has understood our logic and principles, and now it's time for it to decide whether it can earn our trust or not?

3/ We consider every mirror to be another method of authority diplomacy, alongside military struggle, for upholding the rights of the Iranian nation, and we will not for a moment cease our efforts to consolidate the achievements of the forty days of Iran's national defense.

 

[ghazi52]

محمدباقر قالیباف | MB Ghalibaf
@mb_ghalibaf

Translated from Persian
4/ I am also grateful for the efforts of our friendly and brotherly country, Pakistan, in facilitating the process of these negotiations, and I send my regards to the people of Pakistan.

5/ Iran is a body with 90 million souls, from all the heroic people of Iran who, following the advice of the Supreme Leader and by taking to the streets, supported their children and sent us on our way with their blessings—for this, I am grateful, and to my colleagues in these intense 21-hour negotiations, I say: well done, God strengthen you.Long live and enduring be our dear Iran!
Rate this translation:

4:56 AM · Apr 12, 2026

 

[ShapurII]

I didn't say it won't have a negative impact, but you said "nothing will enter Iran or leave Iran". Oil is smuggled through fishing boats on the Persian Gulf every day. And other goods will certainly enter through land borders, so it is not correct to say nothing will enter or leave Iran.

Not a negative impact, a crippling impact. They will enter or leave Iran with a significant drop in volume. Last time the British tried a similar thing on Iran during the period of oil nationalization, it bankrupted our economy. I expect you to know our history better than foreigners at least.

What are you talking about? It seems you are switching between various arguments without ending the topic you initiated.

You brought up the issue of pharmaceuticals, food, and goods being restricted from entering the Iranian market. In response, I argued how Washington plans to close the borders of Pakistan and Turkey with Iran to successfully enforce such a blockade.

What's narcissistic about that?

The first and foremost was Iran's oil exports. Read again. Without oil exports, Iran will have no money to begin with. Not to mention that large cargos are transported on the sea, including chemicals, agricultural products, etc.

 

[Bengal71]

Think of this as a political win for Iran. If the war dragged on for years, eventually people would have become weary and called for ceasefire and blamed the government for not going for a ceasefire with US. The Zionists are waiting to cause a civilian uprising which is why they have been targeting civilians from day 1.

But, that is out of the picture now. Iran government demonstrated once again that they went to negotiations in good faith and it is US who didn't negotiate in good faith.

This political stunt bought support and time from the people of Iran. This is important because in the coming days the Zionists will be like mad dogs and attack more civilian infrastructure to turn people against the government.

Yeah, but Iran did this too many times, it's bordering on stupidity now. They really need to do away with this nonsense and build the freaken nukes.

حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ، حَدَّثَنَا اللَّيْثُ، عَنْ عُقَيْلٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنِ ابْنِ الْمُسَيَّبِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنَّهُ قَالَ ‏ "‏ لاَ يُلْدَغُ الْمُؤْمِنُ مِنْ جُحْرٍ وَاحِدٍ مَرَّتَيْنِ ‏"‏‏.‏

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "A believer is not stung twice (by something) out of one and the same hole."

Sahih al-Bukhari 6133

Sahih al-Bukhari 6133 - Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab) - كتاب الأدب - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) in English and Arabic

sunnah.com

 

[ghazi52]

Iran arrests 50 for sharing locations, information with ‘enemy’​

Iranian authorities have arrested at least 50 people for alleged “mercenary” activities, Al Jazeera reports, citing state-linked SNN news agency.

The group was accused of collaborating with the US and Israel by sharing sensitive locations, including service facilities and infrastructure. Authorities also seized electronics, satellite equipment and weapons, SNN said.

A recently enhanced espionage law allows those accused of spying to face the death penalty and confiscation of property.

 

[ShapurII]

I think what you might be really saying is you are of the view that you either win as absolutely as possible, or if you do not then you are content with starting again as the losing side but an opportunity to effectively have an improved social contract between the Iranian people and whoever the new leadership is


and then that really means coming into the Israeli orbit geopolitically, after all netanyahu has stated he believes Iran and Israel will eventually become great friends, and it's not as if there is not a pro Western faction somewhere in the Iranian polity

Obviously. The worst possible scenario for the people of Iran is to get stuck in the middle of this cycle of war, negotiations, few more years of the same and repeat. Rinse and repeat until Iran is sent back to the stone age and is kept back for an unknown amount of time. That's the worst situation for Iranians and our national interests.

Turkey and Pakistan in this context have remained, by in large, passive with no hint of confrontation

I never said Turkey and Pakistan were belligerents. I just pointed out the fact that they have no weight on global affairs like the US and China, or even Russia, the UK or France. Not even as much as tiny Israel that controls the Western world.

but every neighbor is theoretically consequential to another neighbor so I disagree with you there, you say what you say above based on the current balance of equations. But is one aspect dramatically changes then so will the rest.

inherently they both have equities with the current state of world affairs so they need to keep an eye out on their own perspective if suddenly equations change on their own borders, Israel would then consider confrontation with turkey or Pakistan using Iran as its new ally

You're discussing a different issue now. Anyway, as I said, on the greater scheme of things, neither Pakistan nor Turkey have the means of changing anything on the ground.

You ought to note that you were able to accuse Pakistan of "treachery" in the last two weeks yet if you theoretically accept the possibility to start again, I.e. not winning , then invariably you will likely become hostile to Pakistan, and maybe China as you go fully into the Israeli and American orbit, in which case I am sure the response will be Iran must pursue its national interest, I am just theoretically speaking

I accused China of betraying us. I have previously said that Pakistan was not to blame because it doesn't have the weight to influence things. I said Pakistan was just the executioner of decisions made by the US and China about the ceasefire. No blame on Pakistan for any of this.

These blockades are most affecting second and third world countries and they are counting costs, this is not a value judgment just a basic reality

By the way this is just all gaming out different scenarios and so it is just somewhat theoretical and abstract

Yes. Fortunately, we will get to witness what will happen in the not too distant future. This whole thing will be resolved by the end of 2026 and if nothing bad happens to us by the grace of God, we will be here to see the outcomes.

 

[ghazi52]

No deal in Islamabad - but could negotiations resume in future?

Sebastian Usher
BBC Global affairs correspondent

Hopes that had been raised during the marathon talks in Islamabad have for now been put on hold.

The trust needed between the two long-time enemies has not been established, it seems. The key sticking points have not been overcome.

But as the Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson has pointed out, no one realistically expected a deal to be done in one session, no matter how serious, high level and lengthy it was.

What is unknown for now is whether any kind of foundation has been laid for continuing the negotiations during the remaining time of the two week ceasefire - as well as how far each side may be prepared to make concessions to secure a deal that still appears to be in the interests of both, as well as that of the rest of the world.

 

[ShapurII]

Its possible to make deals without the US afterall.

How? Other than the US, who do you want to make a deal with that can guarantee the US will not attack Iran again?

 

[Ali_Baba]

"USA lost the war, but cannot accept defeat"....

That is the best way to describe the talks and the eventual outcome when you listen to the language used by JD Vance.

 

[ghazi52]

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

 

[mangekyo]

How? Other than the US, who do you want to make a deal with that can guarantee the US will not attack Iran again?

Im not talking about the war. We can make deals over Hormuz with or without the US. It will help legitimize our claims and strengthen our position in the future.

 

[KingQamaR]

Anyone who has been monitoring the political developments in our region for over a month would not have expected these negotiations to result in a peace agreement, especially one that includes Lebanon. You should know better. You're a smart guy.

This entire topic, particularly our friends from Pakistan,went overboard with such enthusiasm that any form of criticism or pessimism was perceived as an act of betrayal. Being realistic should nit be seen as taking a side.

Iran must fight in this conflict until it reaches a point of no return. There are no conditions or exceptions here. It is a matter of fighting to survive or facing extinction.

I also believe that any lasting peace agreement in future will include the Arab states and Turkey. So, any serious negotiation will see other major players at the table.

Who would have credibility in your opinion ? Turkey? It has to be a country that is willing , Pakistan had enough cred to get the shaky “ceasefire “.

 

[Persian Gulf]

Not a negative impact, a crippling impact. They will enter or leave Iran with a significant drop in volume. Last time the British tried a similar thing on Iran during the period of oil nationalization, it bankrupted our economy. I expect you to know our history better than foreigners at least.

We already survived < 1m bpd oil exports before and worse things, up until now Iran is still exporting oil. My point is that you cannot claim nothing will leave or enter Iran just because of a naval blockade. That is simply not true.

 

[r3alist]

never said Turkey and Pakistan were belligerents. I just pointed out the fact that they have no weight on global affairs like the US and China, or even Russia, the UK or France. Not even as much as tiny Israel that controls the Western world.

It is not about being a global power, it is about the current equations for Iran.
Right now Turkey in particular has been a non-beligerant, obviously Pakistan as well, this then allows you to focus on the gulf Nations, are you taking this for granted as a constant?
As things are right now

accused China of betraying us

I'm pretty sure you also accused Pakistan of the same, but I also do not see how you can blame China for betrayal, what was the agreement and expectations? I do not know

If you had an expectation for China to become involved then this is a miscalculation, the Chinese are if anything consistent ultimately they have no particular compulsion for Iran without the appropriate mutual infrastructure
.

 

[Oldenwisdom...قول بزرگ]

In fact, neither the United States nor Iran has the sincerity to hold peace talks, and neither of them has the popular support for peace talks domestically.

The reason why they went to Pakistan is just to strive to perform in front of people all over the world, and to make their opponents bear the responsibility of destroying peace and the world economy. So Trump said negotiations were based on Iran's 10 conditions, while the Iranian government said the United States asked them to surrender unconditionally.

Isn't this the result we guessed from the beginning?

The war is not popular in the US... however, negotiations were sold as an off ramp. They have been used as a change of strategy and reorient posture. There are real weaknesses and this war exposed US ability to impose will by force.

A grinding war is simply not possible for the US to ship tens of thousands of men to their deaths in the middle east for a failed objective of a lame duck president who'll leave a quagmire for the incoming. Something which zion will seek outside of their inability to directly bring in another AIPAC lackey. However, the negotiations or the pause was not in Iranian favor... as once they've eaten the blows... their war effort and doctrine is set for a long grinding war where they maintain their asymmetric edge over the opponent. The US is running critically low on precision munitions and interceptors... with a seeming infinite supply of dumb bombs...
The thing is Orange got his break... Now What?
He still doesn't have a strategy, lost twice and now bumbling as a genocidal maniac.