"He" is Trump. Just as good and verifiable explanation as the "Deep State".Riklin: I don’t know what motivated him. You know he is a Gemini? Geminis are not really ones to say the same things a lot. They change their minds. You know Geminis?
West Asia Crisis — Discussion, Developments, and Bharat’s Strategy
Re: West Asia Crisis — Discussion, Developments, and Bharat’s Strategy
Shimon Riklin, a presenter on Israel’s Channel 14:
Re: West Asia Crisis — Discussion, Developments, and Bharat’s Strategy
https://sundayguardianlive.com/editors- ... st-210522/
The Islamabad Memorandum: Why Trump’s Iran deal is unlikely to last
Savio Rodrigues, June 21, 2026
The real test of the Islamabad Memorandum will not be the photographs, signatures, or press conferences. It will be what happens in the months that follow.
History has a peculiar habit of repeating itself, not as tragedy or farce, but as carefully choreographed diplomacy wrapped in grand declarations. The recently announced “Islamabad Memorandum” between the United States and Iran, brokered by Pakistan, is being hailed by some as a breakthrough in one of the most volatile geopolitical confrontations of the 21st century.
Yet beneath the celebratory headlines is a more fundamental question: can any agreement between Washington and Tehran survive if Israel believes it threatens its national security?
The answer, in all probability, is no.
The memorandum , signed by U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, with Pakistan acting as mediator and witness, commits both nations to a temporary cessation of hostilities and a framework for future negotiations. It is being presented as a diplomatic triumph for all involved. Trump claims credit for avoiding war. Iran portrays it as proof that American pressure failed to break its resolve. Pakistan celebrates its emergence as a major diplomatic player capable of bringing adversaries to the same table.
When every participant declares victory simultaneously, it is often a sign that the real battle has merely shifted from the battlefield to the negotiating table.
What makes the Islamabad Memorandum particularly intriguing is not the agreement itself, but the decision to place Pakistan at the centre of a diplomatic process involving some of the world’s most consequential security concerns.
For decades, Middle Eastern diplomacy has largely been shaped by regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and, increasingly, the United Arab Emirates—nations that possess both economic weight and strategic influence across the region.
Pakistan’s emergence as mediator raises more questions than it answers.
A country grappling with economic instability, political uncertainty, internal security challenges and a limited ability to shape outcomes beyond its immediate neighbourhood is an unlikely guarantor of a lasting agreement between the United States and Iran.
Mediation is not merely about bringing parties to a table; it is about possessing the credibility, leverage and strategic influence necessary to ensure commitments are honoured long after the cameras have departed.
While Islamabad maintains relations with Washington, Tehran and Beijing, relationships alone do not translate into influence.
The real question is whether Pakistan possesses the diplomatic capital to manage the inevitable crises that will emerge once disagreements resurface.
There is little evidence that it does.
This is why the Islamabad Memorandum appears jinxed from the very beginning. A deal is only as strong as the confidence its guarantor inspires. Pakistan may have facilitated a conversation, but facilitating a conversation and securing a durable peace are two entirely different achievements. If the agreement encounters turbulence—as most agreements involving Iran eventually do—Islamabad is unlikely to possess either the influence or authority required to keep the parties aligned.
In that sense, the choice of mediator may ultimately become one of the agreement’s greatest weaknesses. The memorandum was presented as a diplomatic breakthrough, but from its very inception it carried the burden of being anchored to a mediator whose capacity to sustain such a complex geopolitical arrangement remains deeply questionable.
In this crisis, Pakistan assumes that it successfully transformed those relationships into diplomatic leverage. But diplomacy and durability are two very different things.
The biggest weakness of the Islamabad Memorandum is that it postpones rather than resolves the issues that have driven tensions for decades. Iran’s nuclear programme remains a source of deep concern. Tehran’s ballistic missile capabilities remain intact. Its relationships with regional proxies continue to influence conflicts across the Middle East. Sanctions relief remains conditional. Regional security arrangements remain uncertain. In essence, the agreement addresses symptoms while leaving the underlying disease untouched.
And that disease has a name: trust. Or more accurately, the complete absence of it.
But there is an even larger obstacle standing between the memorandum and long-term success.
......
Gautam
The Islamabad Memorandum: Why Trump’s Iran deal is unlikely to last
Savio Rodrigues, June 21, 2026
The real test of the Islamabad Memorandum will not be the photographs, signatures, or press conferences. It will be what happens in the months that follow.
History has a peculiar habit of repeating itself, not as tragedy or farce, but as carefully choreographed diplomacy wrapped in grand declarations. The recently announced “Islamabad Memorandum” between the United States and Iran, brokered by Pakistan, is being hailed by some as a breakthrough in one of the most volatile geopolitical confrontations of the 21st century.
Yet beneath the celebratory headlines is a more fundamental question: can any agreement between Washington and Tehran survive if Israel believes it threatens its national security?
The answer, in all probability, is no.
The memorandum , signed by U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, with Pakistan acting as mediator and witness, commits both nations to a temporary cessation of hostilities and a framework for future negotiations. It is being presented as a diplomatic triumph for all involved. Trump claims credit for avoiding war. Iran portrays it as proof that American pressure failed to break its resolve. Pakistan celebrates its emergence as a major diplomatic player capable of bringing adversaries to the same table.
When every participant declares victory simultaneously, it is often a sign that the real battle has merely shifted from the battlefield to the negotiating table.
What makes the Islamabad Memorandum particularly intriguing is not the agreement itself, but the decision to place Pakistan at the centre of a diplomatic process involving some of the world’s most consequential security concerns.
For decades, Middle Eastern diplomacy has largely been shaped by regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and, increasingly, the United Arab Emirates—nations that possess both economic weight and strategic influence across the region.
Pakistan’s emergence as mediator raises more questions than it answers.
A country grappling with economic instability, political uncertainty, internal security challenges and a limited ability to shape outcomes beyond its immediate neighbourhood is an unlikely guarantor of a lasting agreement between the United States and Iran.
Mediation is not merely about bringing parties to a table; it is about possessing the credibility, leverage and strategic influence necessary to ensure commitments are honoured long after the cameras have departed.
While Islamabad maintains relations with Washington, Tehran and Beijing, relationships alone do not translate into influence.
The real question is whether Pakistan possesses the diplomatic capital to manage the inevitable crises that will emerge once disagreements resurface.
There is little evidence that it does.
This is why the Islamabad Memorandum appears jinxed from the very beginning. A deal is only as strong as the confidence its guarantor inspires. Pakistan may have facilitated a conversation, but facilitating a conversation and securing a durable peace are two entirely different achievements. If the agreement encounters turbulence—as most agreements involving Iran eventually do—Islamabad is unlikely to possess either the influence or authority required to keep the parties aligned.
In that sense, the choice of mediator may ultimately become one of the agreement’s greatest weaknesses. The memorandum was presented as a diplomatic breakthrough, but from its very inception it carried the burden of being anchored to a mediator whose capacity to sustain such a complex geopolitical arrangement remains deeply questionable.
In this crisis, Pakistan assumes that it successfully transformed those relationships into diplomatic leverage. But diplomacy and durability are two very different things.
The biggest weakness of the Islamabad Memorandum is that it postpones rather than resolves the issues that have driven tensions for decades. Iran’s nuclear programme remains a source of deep concern. Tehran’s ballistic missile capabilities remain intact. Its relationships with regional proxies continue to influence conflicts across the Middle East. Sanctions relief remains conditional. Regional security arrangements remain uncertain. In essence, the agreement addresses symptoms while leaving the underlying disease untouched.
And that disease has a name: trust. Or more accurately, the complete absence of it.
But there is an even larger obstacle standing between the memorandum and long-term success.
......
Gautam
Re: West Asia Crisis — Discussion, Developments, and Bharat’s Strategy
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/ ... uz-lebanon
US-Iran talks strained as Trump threats spark Iranian walkout
Talks expected to continue for rest of the week despite disruption caused by US president’s threat to bomb Iran and kidnap negotiating team
Patrick Wintour, Sun 21 Jun 2026
High-stakes talks between the US and Iran are expected to continue for the rest of the week in Switzerland, after a tense start that saw Iranian negotiators walk out in protest at a stream of threats issued by Donald Trump on social media.
The US president had threatened to bomb Iran and even to kidnap the Iranian negotiating team unless the strait of Hormuz was reopened, forcing mediators Qatar and Pakistan to continue negotiations in the background.
Iranian state media said the talks had entered a “difficult phase” and recessed after the “publication of an insulting message by the US president”. It also said the Iranian delegation met Qatari mediators and then left the negotiating site.
But high-level negotiations continued before concluding in the early hours of Monday, with Pakistan and Qatar saying technical talks between the two sides would continue for the rest of the week.
Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, praised Pakistan and Qatar for their mediation early on Monday, saying that they “delivered major progress”.
A joint statement from Qatar and Pakistan said the US and Iran agreed to set up a “communication line” to avoid incidents in the strait of Hormuz and to set up a “de-confliction cell” with Lebanon’s government to ensure the “adherence of the termination of military operations in Lebanon”.
In his message, Araghchi said the first real test of the understandings reached would be this deconfliction method created due to the fighting between Israel and the Iranian-backed militia Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Iran and the US last week signed a memorandum of understanding designed to lift the blockade on the strait of Hormuz, leading to 60 days of talks on Iran’s civil nuclear programme.
Trump’s stream of aggressive threats on social media and in TV interviews filtered across the Atlantic to the negotiating site, causing anger among the Iranian negotiating team, who said they represented an unacceptable threat to their personal safety. They pointed out the memorandum signed by Trump last week included a non-aggression pact.
Trump’s threats contrasted with the tone adopted by his vice-president, JD Vance, who said he had been asked by the president to use the talks to turn over a new leaf with Iran.
Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said: “Don’t they think to themselves that if their threats had any effect, they wouldn’t have reached the desperation they face today? We don’t take the Americans’ threats into account at all.”
But the delegation felt compelled to walk out in protest partly because there is domestic political pressure on the negotiators to show they distrust the Trump negotiating team.
Vance and US negotiators including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, had met Ghalibaf and Araghchi for what Iranian state media said was about 80 minutes.
Iran said it had remounted its blockade in the strait of Hormuz in protest at the continued Israeli attacks in Lebanon and said Trump was allowing Israel to breach the memorandum of understanding signed by the US president and his Iranian counterpart, Masoud Pezeshkian, last week. The memorandum clearly calls for a ceasefire on all fronts, but Israel killed more than 30 people in attacks on Saturday in central and southern Lebanon.
“Iran must immediately stop their highly paid proxies in Lebanon from causing trouble,” Trump wrote on social media. “If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again.”
.......
Gautam
US-Iran talks strained as Trump threats spark Iranian walkout
Talks expected to continue for rest of the week despite disruption caused by US president’s threat to bomb Iran and kidnap negotiating team
Patrick Wintour, Sun 21 Jun 2026
High-stakes talks between the US and Iran are expected to continue for the rest of the week in Switzerland, after a tense start that saw Iranian negotiators walk out in protest at a stream of threats issued by Donald Trump on social media.
The US president had threatened to bomb Iran and even to kidnap the Iranian negotiating team unless the strait of Hormuz was reopened, forcing mediators Qatar and Pakistan to continue negotiations in the background.
Iranian state media said the talks had entered a “difficult phase” and recessed after the “publication of an insulting message by the US president”. It also said the Iranian delegation met Qatari mediators and then left the negotiating site.
But high-level negotiations continued before concluding in the early hours of Monday, with Pakistan and Qatar saying technical talks between the two sides would continue for the rest of the week.
Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, praised Pakistan and Qatar for their mediation early on Monday, saying that they “delivered major progress”.
A joint statement from Qatar and Pakistan said the US and Iran agreed to set up a “communication line” to avoid incidents in the strait of Hormuz and to set up a “de-confliction cell” with Lebanon’s government to ensure the “adherence of the termination of military operations in Lebanon”.
In his message, Araghchi said the first real test of the understandings reached would be this deconfliction method created due to the fighting between Israel and the Iranian-backed militia Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Iran and the US last week signed a memorandum of understanding designed to lift the blockade on the strait of Hormuz, leading to 60 days of talks on Iran’s civil nuclear programme.
Trump’s stream of aggressive threats on social media and in TV interviews filtered across the Atlantic to the negotiating site, causing anger among the Iranian negotiating team, who said they represented an unacceptable threat to their personal safety. They pointed out the memorandum signed by Trump last week included a non-aggression pact.
Trump’s threats contrasted with the tone adopted by his vice-president, JD Vance, who said he had been asked by the president to use the talks to turn over a new leaf with Iran.
Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said: “Don’t they think to themselves that if their threats had any effect, they wouldn’t have reached the desperation they face today? We don’t take the Americans’ threats into account at all.”
But the delegation felt compelled to walk out in protest partly because there is domestic political pressure on the negotiators to show they distrust the Trump negotiating team.
Vance and US negotiators including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, had met Ghalibaf and Araghchi for what Iranian state media said was about 80 minutes.
Iran said it had remounted its blockade in the strait of Hormuz in protest at the continued Israeli attacks in Lebanon and said Trump was allowing Israel to breach the memorandum of understanding signed by the US president and his Iranian counterpart, Masoud Pezeshkian, last week. The memorandum clearly calls for a ceasefire on all fronts, but Israel killed more than 30 people in attacks on Saturday in central and southern Lebanon.
“Iran must immediately stop their highly paid proxies in Lebanon from causing trouble,” Trump wrote on social media. “If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again.”
.......
Gautam
Re: West Asia Crisis — Discussion, Developments, and Bharat’s Strategy
https://medium.com/@arunpkashyap/paradi ... 4e543852ab
"The present war initiated by USA-Israel Combine against Iran, is perhaps the ‘death knell’ of the ‘Western’ hegemony & establishment of the new world order with ‘Bharat’ that is India occupying its old position in the world. This blog traces the similarities between the two ‘catastrophic’ wars resetting the World-Order for at least next 300 years. In 1761, Third War of Panipat, the main protagonist were ‘Ahmad Shah Durrani’ with his Kingdom extending from Iran to borders of ‘Bharat’ & the ‘Balaji BajiRao Peshwa’ head of Maratha Confederacy ruler of almost the entire United India or ‘Bharat’. The emerging power which did not participate in the said conflict but benefited the maximum was ‘Protestant’ England with its permanent colonies of ‘Catholic’ Scotland & Ireland. In the present conflict the mainly ‘Protestant’ confederacy of USA-Israel (both born through England) is engaged with Iran with the powers not participating but are likely to benefit the maximum are ‘Bharat’ that is India & of course Russia. The ‘circle of power’ continuous with a fixed cycle of 300–400 years between the ‘civilization States’ with history running for thousands of years based on concept of ‘sustained economy’ & the ‘Usurper States’ based on the concept of economy called ‘Capitalism’ & its inverted mirror image ‘Communism’ wherein both exploit the ‘ many’ (workers & third world) for the ‘few’ ( Corporate/ Communist Leaders). Enjoy the read.
(Part-I of total-5"
"The present war initiated by USA-Israel Combine against Iran, is perhaps the ‘death knell’ of the ‘Western’ hegemony & establishment of the new world order with ‘Bharat’ that is India occupying its old position in the world. This blog traces the similarities between the two ‘catastrophic’ wars resetting the World-Order for at least next 300 years. In 1761, Third War of Panipat, the main protagonist were ‘Ahmad Shah Durrani’ with his Kingdom extending from Iran to borders of ‘Bharat’ & the ‘Balaji BajiRao Peshwa’ head of Maratha Confederacy ruler of almost the entire United India or ‘Bharat’. The emerging power which did not participate in the said conflict but benefited the maximum was ‘Protestant’ England with its permanent colonies of ‘Catholic’ Scotland & Ireland. In the present conflict the mainly ‘Protestant’ confederacy of USA-Israel (both born through England) is engaged with Iran with the powers not participating but are likely to benefit the maximum are ‘Bharat’ that is India & of course Russia. The ‘circle of power’ continuous with a fixed cycle of 300–400 years between the ‘civilization States’ with history running for thousands of years based on concept of ‘sustained economy’ & the ‘Usurper States’ based on the concept of economy called ‘Capitalism’ & its inverted mirror image ‘Communism’ wherein both exploit the ‘ many’ (workers & third world) for the ‘few’ ( Corporate/ Communist Leaders). Enjoy the read.
(Part-I of total-5"
Re: West Asia Crisis — Discussion, Developments, and Bharat’s Strategy
^^^ it may be amusing to see the Trump and his cult doing one idiotic thing after another. Of course, it is also very evil and brought so much *unnecessary* death and destruction over the world. No one Iran or US even India, got anything net positive.
Hopefully more and more people here in US, realize the brainwashing.. and stop being cultish and continue\to be fooled by this.
JD now thinks his wife (who is US citizen by birth) is not 'American' but just and 'Indian' and 'Munir' the Pakistani terrorist is his hero.
disgusting character
---again
But some Maga bhakts - even here in BRF - are calling this evil person their nuclear experts waiting to clean up the 'nuclear dust' ..
Meanwhile current news/rewport is - Iran has thrown now Terristan under the Bus .. while JD Vance is all praising Munir and Pakistan ..Iran's official statement gives little credit to Pakistan and credit Qatar.:
Iran's Fars News Agency says "Pakistan currently plays no significant role in mediating. Shehbaz Sharif’s statements appear to...exaggerate Pakistan’s role as a mediator, while in reality, Qatar is currently playing the most effective and prominent role
Hopefully more and more people here in US, realize the brainwashing.. and stop being cultish and continue\to be fooled by this.
JD now thinks his wife (who is US citizen by birth) is not 'American' but just and 'Indian' and 'Munir' the Pakistani terrorist is his hero.
disgusting character
---again
[/quote]Amber G. wrote: ↑21 Jun 2026 23:30 For all those who are doing idiotic "equal-equal" - or just shameless trolling by pretending (and lecturing others about 'neutrality' equating Trump with "democrats'
Can learn learn from the their Master ..JD Vance's recent 'equal -equal'
See the video in the above link.
But some Maga bhakts - even here in BRF - are calling this evil person their nuclear experts waiting to clean up the 'nuclear dust' ..
Meanwhile current news/rewport is - Iran has thrown now Terristan under the Bus .. while JD Vance is all praising Munir and Pakistan ..Iran's official statement gives little credit to Pakistan and credit Qatar.:
Iran's Fars News Agency says "Pakistan currently plays no significant role in mediating. Shehbaz Sharif’s statements appear to...exaggerate Pakistan’s role as a mediator, while in reality, Qatar is currently playing the most effective and prominent role
Last edited by Amber G. on 24 Jun 2026 00:14, edited 1 time in total.
Re: West Asia Crisis — Discussion, Developments, and Bharat’s Strategy
News:
1. India and Israel: "Joint Resilience" and Co-Production
1. India and Israel: "Joint Resilience" and Co-Production
2. India, the UAE, and the BrahMos MissileThe relationship between New Delhi and Jerusalem has moved beyond a traditional buyer-seller dynamic into a deeply integrated military-industrial partnership. The focus on "joint resilience" is a direct response to the volatile geopolitical environments both nations face in their respective regions.
Co-Production and Next-Gen Tech: Driven by India's "Make in India" initiative, Israeli defense contractors (like IAI, Rafael, and Elbit Systems) have formed massive joint ventures with Indian private sector giants (such as Tata, Adani, and Kalyani). Together, they are not just manufacturing existing tech, but co-developing next-generation weapons. This includes advanced drone swarms, loitering munitions, directed-energy weapons (lasers), and sophisticated electronic warfare systems. The successful joint development of the Barak-8 surface-to-air missile set the blueprint for this.
Emergency Procurement Mechanisms: This is perhaps the most critical logistical development. Because standard defense acquisitions can take years of bureaucratic red tape, establishing "emergency procurement" frameworks allows both militaries to rapidly exchange ammunition, spare parts, and critical technology within days during an active conflict. This ensures supply-chain resilience if either nation finds itself in a sudden, high-intensity war.
Reports of the United Arab Emirates being interested in the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile represent a significant convergence of Middle Eastern security and Indian export ambitions.
Historically, the UAE has relied heavily on the United States and Europe for its high-end military hardware. However, in recent years, the UAE has sought to diversify its defense portfolio to avoid being beholden to the political conditions often attached to Western arms sales. Acquiring the BrahMos would give the UAE a massive tactical advantage for coastal defense and precision land-attack capabilities.
A BrahMos sale to Abu Dhabi would solidify the rapidly deepening strategic and economic ties between India and the UAE. This relationship has already been cemented by a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) and their joint participation in the I2U2 group (India, Israel, UAE, US). Supplying a top-tier offensive weapon like BrahMos would firmly establish India as a net security provider in the Western Indian Ocean and the Gulf.
Re: West Asia Crisis — Discussion, Developments, and Bharat’s Strategy
Also :
China will continue to support India in successfully fulfilling its responsibilities as the current BRICS chair and work together to deepen and substantiatl.
At Delhi BRICS NSAs meet, FM Wang Yi talks about the "lessons" learned from US, Iran conflict.
Calls for upholding intl rules, respecting national sovereignty, new security concept, & dealing with new forms of warfare.
China will continue to support India in successfully fulfilling its responsibilities as the current BRICS chair and work together to deepen and substantiatl.
At Delhi BRICS NSAs meet, FM Wang Yi talks about the "lessons" learned from US, Iran conflict.
Calls for upholding intl rules, respecting national sovereignty, new security concept, & dealing with new forms of warfare.
Re: West Asia Crisis — Discussion, Developments, and Bharat’s Strategy
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif contradicts US President Donald Trump, questioning criticism of Iran's ballistic missile program, arguing that many countries around the world maintain missile arsenals.
"Why object to Iran's missiles?" Sharif reportedly asked, warning that making the issue a point of contention would only create controversy, raise unnecessary questions, and delay progress in negotiations.
"Why object to Iran's missiles?" Sharif reportedly asked, warning that making the issue a point of contention would only create controversy, raise unnecessary questions, and delay progress in negotiations.
Re: West Asia Crisis — Discussion, Developments, and Bharat’s Strategy
Trump's actions are not amusing at all.
The contortions his boosters in the podcast world and in the media undergo in order to make Trump always come out right are what is amusing.
And pigs will fly.Hopefully more and more people here in US, realize the brainwashing.. and stop being cultish and continue\to be fooled by this.
Re: West Asia Crisis — Discussion, Developments, and Bharat’s Strategy
Sharif is behind the times.Amber G. wrote: ↑24 Jun 2026 03:49 Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif contradicts US President Donald Trump, questioning criticism of Iran's ballistic missile program, arguing that many countries around the world maintain missile arsenals.
"Why object to Iran's missiles?" Sharif reportedly asked, warning that making the issue a point of contention would only create controversy, raise unnecessary questions, and delay progress in negotiations.
This is published June 20, Fox News; the quote from Trump is from Wednesday, June 17th as far as I can tell.
Trump says Iran's missiles 'aren't the problem' after White House made them central to war rationale
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... -rationale
For months, senior Trump administration officials argued that Iran's ballistic missile arsenal helped shield Tehran's nuclear ambitions and was a key reason the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury attacks on the country.
Now, President Donald Trump is suggesting Iran having missiles may not be a problem at all.
"If other countries have them, it's a little bit unfair for them not to have some. If Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and they all have some, I would say that in relative proportion, I think it's OK," Trump said at the G7 international forum Wednesday. "Am I going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but (Iran) can't have them? It doesn't work that way.