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

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


Skeptical this news is real, but sounds like capitulation if it is

NEW: Iran proposes a 3-stage plan to end the war.

Stage 1 (Now): End the war

— Turn ceasefire into permanent peace (≈30 days)
— Reopen Hormuz + lift US blockade (gradual)
— Mutual non-aggression (incl. Israel)

Stage 2 (mid-term): Nuclear deal

— Freeze enrichment up to 15 years
— Later cap at 3.6% (civilian level)
— No dismantling of nuclear sites
— Sanctions lifted step-by-step

Stage 3 (long-term): Region
— Launch Middle East security talks

Source: Al Jazeera

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


To me, this doesn't seem like a capitulation, but the Americans will not lift sanctions unless they are completely assured that Iran cannot develop nuclear weapons. A 15-year pause is not in the best interest of the US, in my opinion.

Once this nuclear issue is resolved, they will force you to abandon your allies. Subsequently, they will exert pressure on you to restrict your missile range, among other things.

The conditions set by Iran cannot be labeled as 'surrender' -that would be unfair- but they certainly do not safeguard Iran's long-term interests. I can envision countless scenarios where the Americans could rationalize a future war based on these very terms if they chose to. Any agreement must guarantee that this conflict does not recur.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


Skeptical this news is real, but sounds like capitulation if it is


Unless Iran wants to make a bomb, what does it matter ?!?!?! What is the point of enriching if you are not going to make the bomb? How much is a point of "principle" worth? Currently - Iran has incurred $250billion dollars of damage so far, how much more?
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Be careful with a bad deal from US to Iran

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


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

‘Double-dealing’ Pakistan plots windfall from Iran peacemaker role

Memphis Barker

13–16 minutes



Trump’s favourite field marshal takes centre stage in negotiations... but Islamabad’s motives may not be merely altruistic

Memphis Barker Senior Foreign Correspondent

Memphis Barker is a Senior Foreign Correspondent for The Telegraph and its former Foreign Editor. See more

Published 03 May 2026 6:00am BST

Last Saturday, Iran’s foreign minister flew out of Islamabad airport after the collapse of a proposed second round of peace talks with the United States.

Within 24 hours, he returned. But it was not the Pakistani prime minister whose company Abbas Araghchi sought.

Instead, he met for a second time with Field Marshal Asim Munir, the head of Pakistan’s armed forces, and – as it stands – the only man capable of ferrying messages between Tehran and Washington.

The negotiations have drawn back the curtain on Pakistan’s power structure. Ever since Pervez Musharraf, the country’s last military dictator, handed over to the civilians in 2008, “the establishment” – one of many code words for the army – has preferred to run the country from the shadows; rigging an election here (consider 2018, or 2024) or orchestrating the imprisonment of a prime minister (recall Nawaz Sharif, or the currently jailed cricket legend Imran Khan).

Field Marshal Munir, however, is now in the limelight. He may not speak in public like Shehbaz Sharif, Pakistan’s current prime minister. But he spends hours in one-on-one meetings with Donald Trump, Mr Araghchi and other world leaders.

Indeed, he has encouraged the inflation of his own profile, accepting first the title of “Field Marshal” – only given out once before to Ayoub Khan, the military dictator from 1958-1969 – and then creating (and filling) the new, long-term position of chief of defence staff.

Miftah Ismail, a former Pakistani finance minister in Mr Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League, said: “Trump writes his name before he writes the name of the prime minister. That reflects, to many Pakistanis, the reality of Pakistan, which is that the field marshal is more powerful than the prime minister, and has always made the final call.”

Field Marshal Munir’s role in negotiating the Iran-US ceasefire is widely celebrated, with many hoping it will boost the country’s status and prospects on the world stage Credit: Hamed Malekpour/Getty Images

In public life, the requirement to skirt around discussing the military’s dominant role in politics is fading. The “fiction” of civilian control has ended, added Mr Ismail. “If somebody wanted to believe this now, or just pretend to, that pretension has become even more difficult.”

What does Field Marshal Munir want? Army chiefs do not issue manifestos. In the near term, Islamabad needs an end to the war more than most.

Its economy relies on imports of oil and gas through the Strait of Hormuz, which Mr Trump promised last week to keep closed until Tehran agrees to give up its nuclear ambitions. The government has already been forced to impose sweeping austerity measures. Public-sector employees now work a four-day work week. Some schools have been closed. IMF bailouts and Gulf loans propped up Pakistan’s long-stuttering economy before the war.

Prolonged conflict could lead to “collapse”, said Farzana Shaikh, an associate fellow at the London-based Chatham House think tank.

Donald Trump with Shebaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister (left) and Field Marshal Munir (right) in the Oval Office in September 2025 Credit: AFP

High on the army chief’s wish list, it is said, is a new energy source.

US sanctions have prevented the full construction of an Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline, which would ease Islamabad’s reliance on seaborne supplies from the Gulf. Tehran built 684 miles of pipe on its side of the border but Pakistan has not started its connecting 435 miles. Iran is seeking damages of $18bn (£15bn), with a court ruling expected in the next two years.

Many hope that Field Marshal Munir will parlay his favoured status in the White House into a sanctions waiver on the project. Mr Ismail said: “I think the pipeline would be a good idea, provided we can renegotiate the price of the gas – the agreement says you have one more shot [at striking a price] before the gas actually flows.”

It would be, however, difficult to attract finance and insurance for the project, he cautioned, given the risk that the US would at some point reimpose sanctions on Iran.

In diplomatic terms, some gains for Pakistan are baked in, even without a resumption of the Islamabad-brokered peace process.

Pakistan’s role at the heart of international affairs “is important, from a psychological point of view”, said Mr Ismail. It changes narratives in the global media, which have historically covered Pakistan through the lens of terrorism. Not only that, Islamabad has foiled a key foreign policy goal of its arch-enemy, India, which is to “isolate Pakistan”.

In fact, the central role carries its own risks. Field Marshal Munir is driving efforts to deepen ties across the Middle East, picking his way through the complicated web of rivalries.

Last year, Field Marshal Munir signed a defence pact with Saudi Arabia, pitched as an “Islamic Nato” as it requires both countries to come to the other’s aid in the event of an attack.

The move bolstered Pakistan’s prestige – and reflected desires within the Gulf to gain access to the advanced Chinese weaponry possessed by Islamabad. (It was Chinese-made J-10C fighter jets that shot down India’s French Rafales in the brief war last year.)

The alliance, however, has drawn concern in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), another of the Gulf nations that have supplied large, economy-shielding loans to Pakistan.

Last month, Abu Dhabi suddenly requested repayment of a $3.5bn (£2.6bn) loan, in a move triggered partly by fears of Islamabad’s deepening bond with Riyadh, its chief regional rival. (Saudi Arabia stepped in to cover the loss.)

The spat also reflected UAE fears that Pakistan had grown too close to Iran through its role as mediator, the Financial Times reported. Mohammed bin Zayed, the UAE president, is said to abhor the prospect of a deal that could empower and enrich Tehran.

Pakistan’s foreign minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar and army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir welcome Abbas Araghchi upon his arrival in Islamabad Credit: Reuters

Into this dance folds Pakistan’s own relations with Iran. The neighbouring nations are both Islamic (the former largely Sunni, the latter Shia), and largely run by powerful armed forces. Relations tend to be wary rather than warm.

Pakistan’s Washington embassy hosts Iranian diplomats, providing a back-channel for talks since the US severed relations with Iran in 1980. The two share about 560 miles of border, riven by insurgencies on either side.

In January 2024, Iran fired missiles at Jaish Al-Adl, a Sunni militant group based in Pakistan’s border province of Balochistan. Islamabad hit back at targets across the Iranian frontier, but both sides de-escalated swiftly and, by the outbreak of the US war on Iran, the usual equilibrium was back in place.

The war changes everything, however. For Pakistan, “the biggest impact will be the emergence of Iran as a major power in the region, out from behind the wall of sanctions it has been bottled up in since the revolution”, said Khurram Husain, an economics-focused columnist with Dawn newspaper.

Last week, Islamabad announced the opening of six new trade routes for goods from third countries, such as China, to Iran. Islamabad is set to receive transit fees and Iranian goodwill.

Hawks in Washington (and India) have accused Field Marshal Munir of “double dealing”, casting the agreement as a route for Iran to circumvent the US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

Derek J Grossman, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for a New American Security, said: “Trump admin, you have a problem. Your good friend Pakistan… will help Iran to resist US pressure. Islamabad double deals America… AGAIN!” For now, the trade flows will be tiny, however.

Mr Husain said: “They aren’t in a position to make a meaningful dent in the blockade simply because the volume of cargo that can be handled by them is very small.”

In reality, the move is more likely to have been co-ordinated with Washington than not, added Mr Ismail, saying: “Pakistan doesn’t want to undermine its role as mediator.. [especially] when we are on the brink, hopefully, of getting some agreement.”

Moreover, Washington could help protect any Iran-Pakistan pipeline, if permission were granted. Any infrastructure of the sort risks demolition by Balochistan-based militants. In March, a gas pipeline was blown up. “Even if sanctions are lifted, Pakistan faces an immense security challenge in the region,” said Ms Shaikh. The military “has just one way of dealing with Balochistan”: through force.

Donald Trump has described Field Marshal Munir (third from left) as an ‘exceptional human being’ Credit: The White House

Field Marshal Munir, who embodies that hammer-like approach, will not pursue a diplomatic path aimed at alleviating the grievances of the local population, who feel exploited by the central government.

Already, the chief of defence staff has convinced the Trump administration to list the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) as a terrorist group. The army chief has built trust through putative deals on cryptocurrency and critical minerals.

In 2018, Mr Trump froze around $1.3bn (£956m) in US security assistance to Pakistan, intended to defray the cost of counter-terrorism operations.

Michael Kugelman, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank, said: “I think the Pakistanis will want to leverage the trust they’ve earned with the administration to try and get it to be more flexible on the matter.”

US investment in Balochistan – Pakistan’s most mineral-rich province – could be coupled with support, potentially even quiet co-operation, on military operations in the region.

For now, the peace process has stalled. Nor is Mr Trump the most reliable ally.

In 2029, Pakistan’s army chief will have to manage a difficult election, given the strong support for his long-jailed adversary Imran Khan.

Pride in Pakistan’s role as global peacemaker will last only so long as prices continue to rise. Actors know the risks well: when you step out from behind the curtain, the crowd can go either way.
One thing this article confirms is that J-10Cs shot down more than one Rafale last year....... :ROFLMAO:
 
Yeah bec two superpowers who have all the reasons to be covert about this scenario need to announce it to the world to prove they are helping their strategic ally right?
Man just ask any Iranian here on what help Russia or China have provided Iran and you’d just get humbled!
 
A 15-year pause is not in the best interest of the US, in my opinion.

A 15 year pause is basically a forever pause. They will never let Iran enrich again. And once the HEU is removed, Iran is no longer a threat for full invasion. Apparently no one here has learned anything from Ukraine, Iraq, and Libya giving up their nuclear programs.

Unless Iran wants to make a bomb, what does it matter ?!?!?! What is the point of enriching if you are not going to make the bomb? How much is a point of "principle" worth? Currently - Iran has incurred $250billion dollars of damage so far, how much more?

What kind of backwards logic is this?

Iran is in the process of building many civil nuclear power plants, Russia is building 3 more in Iran. The entire world needs power and is moving towards massive power generation. Iran is a power exporter.

Those nuclear power plants need fuel. If iran doesn’t have a large scale enrichment program it will have to rely on US or Russia to supply nuclear fuel — both unreliable countries that have historically blackmailed iran to get concessions.

Now think 25 years ahead, Iran gave up its nuclear enrichment and has 7+ nuclear reactors and suddenly U.S. comes up with new demands for Iran, Iran refuses and U.S. then bans any country from supply nuclear fuel. You know what will happen then? Then Iran will be facing an electrical grid nightmare problem of having to shut down all these nuclear plants because they are running out of fuel. And since it gave up its enrichment program like you advocate, it has no domestic capability to replace that fuel.

So yes there is a point to enrichment outside of nuclear weapons if you are not aligned with the West and a puppet.

Russia and China are not reliable enough to assume 25 years or 50 years later they will not be owned by the Zionists in some fashion or won’t bow to US pressure and comply with sanctions. A lot can change in the world in just 25 years.
 
Eastern European women behave much worse in Dubai and Qatar...Ukrainian women who long to be white liberals behave like this...

But Indian and Arab billionaires are favourite guests in London...it's not about racism, it's about money...


Ground reality in the uk is, NO-ONE gives a flying f**k about Arabs or indians be they billionaires or not.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


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


Skeptical this news is real, but sounds like capitulation if it is

it will take us 10-15 years to recover from this war, so I don't doubt it. a temporary and voluntary moratorium on enrichment (which we are not even doing now anyway) to help get primary sanctions relief to fund our reconstruction, is logical
 
The conditions set by Iran cannot be labeled as 'surrender' -that would be unfair- but they certainly do not safeguard Iran's long-term interests. I can envision countless scenarios where the Americans could rationalize a future war based on these very terms if they chose to. Any agreement must guarantee that this conflict does not recur.
how do you guarantee that another war won't happen? Trump is not exactly a rational or predictable leader who likes to respect agreements, even agreements very favourable to the US

sure there are some ideas of economic integration and giving the US a financial stake in Iranian projects, but those are politically difficult and still don't guarantee anything unless we give him half our economy.
 
You are mistaking Catholic nuns to Zionist evangelical nutjobs.
They are all the same, Catholics have been conspicuously muted in their criticism of zionist demons, the Catholic Church has a lot of resources clout and influence in western countries but have never used it for Palestinians advocacy. Their silence is equally complicit. I put them in the same category as deep state establishment of west while not outright fanatical zionist but every bit anti muslim bigot as any zionist out there and are bitterly opposed to Islam which they view as a threat.
 
NEW: Iran proposes a 3-stage plan to end the war.

Stage 1 (Now): End the war

— Turn ceasefire into permanent peace (≈30 days)
— Reopen Hormuz + lift US blockade (gradual)
— Mutual non-aggression (incl. Israel)

Stage 2 (mid-term): Nuclear deal

— Freeze enrichment up to 15 years
— Later cap at 3.6% (civilian level)
— No dismantling of nuclear sites
— Sanctions lifted step-by-step

Stage 3 (long-term): Region
— Launch Middle East security talks

Source: Al Jazeera

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


To me, this doesn't seem like a capitulation, but the Americans will not lift sanctions unless they are completely assured that Iran cannot develop nuclear weapons. A 15-year pause is not in the best interest of the US, in my opinion.

Once this nuclear issue is resolved, they will force you to abandon your allies. Subsequently, they will exert pressure on you to restrict your missile range, among other things.

The conditions set by Iran cannot be labeled as 'surrender' -that would be unfair- but they certainly do not safeguard Iran's long-term interests. I can envision countless scenarios where the Americans could rationalize a future war based on these very terms if they chose to. Any agreement must guarantee that this conflict does not recur.

Stupidest proposal If real........
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Back
Top