Islamabad Talks - News & Discussions

The deal was important, more so for Pakistan, India, East Asia and rest of the world than US and Iran.

It’s unfortunate that poor people will continue to suffer with inflation and shortages.



OFC , this war has pushed up oil prices and now having a big negative impact on our economy & energy. More importantly. we have to remain involved in resolving this crisis we share the same border with iran. The fallout from Iran war if it goes bad away will be a disaster for Pakistan security. For generations 😔.
 
Factual and reasonable response.

I don’t know anyone personally who was not happy that Pakistan could potentially broker a peace deal.

More on the topic I think Pakistan missed a golden opportunity to get this deal done. None of us were in the room so we can’t which party Americans or Iranians were being unreasonable.

However, and this is a bit of a stretch but plausible, there are some benefits to Pakistan not being involved in a brokered deal (especially where Pakistan would be guarantors of parts of the deal)

Suppose a deal was struck and later it was found Iran violated terms in partnership with Pakistan that would give Israel the perfect green flag to bomb Pakistan as well.
Pakistan acted as facilitator only. Getting US and Iran on the table face-to-face was a massive achievement. The onus lies with the warring participants to cut a deal. Obviously 21 hours wasn't enough 🙄
 
I could be wrong, but those with deep insight into Pakistan’s local politics may see it this way:
1. The deal is likely already finalized behind the scenes.
2.This situation follows a familiar Pakistan political playbook.
3.JD Vance’s departure appears designed to signal to the American public that the U.S. walked away from negotiations and applied enough pressure for Iran to accept terms favorable to Washington — which may explain why he focused only on the nuclear issue, despite widespread awareness that Iran maintains it does not seek nuclear weapons.
4. Supposedly the story about
'Abbas Araghchi and Witkoff were on the verge of getting into a physical fight during the talks about the Strait of Hormuz"
Is exaturated to show a certain affirmed ness from both sides .

So the deal is done probably..
 
From @14:00 onwards. "Chichorapan" of muneer/PMLN regime. Can't help it can they?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
I could be wrong, but those with deep insight into Pakistan’s local politics may see it this way:
1. The deal is likely already finalized behind the scenes.
2.This situation follows a familiar Pakistan political playbook.
3.JD Vance’s departure appears designed to signal to the American public that the U.S. walked away from negotiations and applied enough pressure for Iran to accept terms favorable to Washington — which may explain why he focused only on the nuclear issue, despite widespread awareness that Iran maintains it does not seek nuclear weapons.
4. Supposedly the story about
'Abbas Araghchi and Witkoff were on the verge of getting into a physical fight during the talks about the Strait of Hormuz"
Is exaturated to show a certain affirmed ness from both sides .

So the deal is done probably..
Wishful thinking
 
After 21 hours of talks between the US and Iran ended with no agreement, CNN's Clarissa Ward looks at what this means for the the Gulf region.

Follow live updates https://cnn.it/3QzGtJB
 
Sorry, just catching up on things.

This is not a disaster, it took 18 months to negotiate JCPOA, one positive from this is that although both sides left and publicly stated they had disagreements, there has been no real acrimony here, in fact Vance stated Iranians positions were understood, juts not agreeable and vice versa. To me there seems to be some flex moving forward
 
They already had a solution to the nuclear problem, the Iran Nuclear deal which was working perfectly fine until Trump pulled out it.
The problem was also the fact that he pulled the nuclear deal, and didn't replace it with anything.

I mean he should have at least tried to replace it with something else or at the very least add or subtract from the existing deal.
 
I think both parties could have agreed to meet again in Islamabad or Istanbul or Cairo. They should have left space to manoeuvre. The abrupt ending doesn't bode well.
 
I think both parties could have agreed to meet again in Islamabad or Istanbul or Cairo. They should have left space to manoeuvre. The abrupt ending doesn't bode well.

It is not an abrupt ending, there was disagreements but no acrimony, my guess is they will meet again sooner rather then later, stakes have also increased massively.

Global economy is still nervous and Pakistani jets in Saudi show Iran that if things flare u again this time we have made a decision....
 
Vance only mentioned nuclear program before he left Islamabad. The rest don't have much importance. 99% is about nuke.
According to the information I have, there are three main issues of conflict between the two sides.

First, the nuclear issue. The United States requires Iran to hand over all nuclear materials, and Iran needs to give up its nuclear enrichment capabilities. The United States agrees to lift most sanctions. Iran demands the release of frozen funds and full support, as well as compensation for economic losses. The two sides have not reached an agreement.

Second, a ceasefire in the Middle East. Iran requires that the ceasefire include Lebanon, and the United States has the responsibility to stop Israel's acts of aggression. The United States demands to reach a separate agreement with Iran, and the ceasefire does not include Lebanon. The two sides have not reached an agreement.

Third, the Strait of Hormuz. Iran demands that the United States recognize Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz. The United States requires the establishment of a joint company to manage it, and a portion of the fees collected needs to be given to the United States. The two sides have not reached an agreement.
 
Third, the Strait of Hormuz. Iran demands that the United States recognize Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz. The United States requires the establishment of a joint company to manage it, and a portion of the fees collected needs to be given to the United States. The two sides have not reached an agreement.

LOL - LOL - LOL at this point. So, they don't mind a toll, they just want a cut of the action. This totally undermines any pretence the USA has on the global stage(not that it matters or cares it seems).
 

Trump has a stark choice - escalate or negotiate​

Lyse Doucet
BBC Chief international correspondent, in Islamabad

The US Vice-President called it good news and bad news. Good news that they had substantive discussions with the Iranians. Bad news that they have not reached an agreement.

He called that bad news for Iran.

The length of this single negotiating session was significant and surprising.

But it’s not surprising that a deal wasn’t reached.

The Americans came to Pakistan with a view that Iran had suffered so badly in this war that quick compromises were possible.

"They have not chosen to accept our terms," Vance announced.

But Iran also has its own red lines.

It approached these negotiations believing it had a strong hand. Despite major damage to its military capabilities, it’s still able and willing to keep fighting.

And it still has significant leverage especially in its control over the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

The last time Tehran and Washington reached a nuclear deal a decade ago it took 18 months of breakthroughs and breakdowns.

Trump now has confronts a stark choice – escalate or negotiate.
This was such a nothing burger 🍔 article …. She is deserving of the title “captain obvious “ …..
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top