I think when conflicts like this happen you need as close to a neutral party that both sides respect as possible to mediate. Just Easy to do
9
Dnabb84362 days ago
+6
Tbf Iran doesnt have a lot of countries that would try and be a neutral site. They aren't an arbitrator but just a location that's deemed neutral.
6
lupi642 days ago
+4
Yeah, that was Qatar!
4
NewConsideration27652 days ago
+2
Oh no Pakistan is in a war with the f****** Taliban lol what a horrible evil empire
2
alphajatin2 days ago
+4
Pakistan PM (?Army General) might now be qualified for Nobel Peace Prize haha
4
p3t3y52 days ago
+12
Hopefully a deal can be reached to give the ordinary people some relief for a few hours before Israel undermines it.
12
lupi642 days ago
+2
Why wasn't Pakistan involved before? I remember they almost launched jets over Israel. Now they have a pact with KSA. What stopped them before?
2
p3t3y52 days ago
+6
Maybe not understanding your question, so sorry, but Pakistan brokered the last peace deal which it appears was not fully understood by all parties involved.
6
lupi642 days ago
+2
Ok. I don't follow too closely. More recently, I've seen how India/Modi and Israel were close so maybe that was a concern?
2
p3t3y52 days ago
+1
I don't think the Pakistan India situation directly impacted it. Perhaps Pakistan will benefit from some good PR and soft power. I think when conflicts like this happen you need as close to a neutral party that both sides respect as possible to mediate. Just so happens that Pakistan was the best athlete available at the time!
A bit of an aside, was listening to a podcast and it was talking about how much easier this used to be in history. Nepotism was huge, and not good, but it had benefits. Chances are if 2 countries were on the brink of war it could be sorted somewhat easier as chances are the king of one of the countries probably had a cousin that was high up in the other country and the aunt/mum just banged their heads together!
1
lupi642 days ago
-1
Okay, thanks. From a European perspective, inheritance and succession conflicts destroyed a lot.
-1
UseBackground23702 days ago
-1
Have you ever spoken to an Iranian?
While I don't like the war, dealing with the islamic republic and legitimizing them and giving them more power isn't helping the Iranian people.
This is a hostage situation. You're literally giving the hostage takers more money and telling them "we won't try to meddle. You can keep the hostages, just don't take any more people hostage outside of your country, and we'll promise to leave you alone".
It helps YOU and everyone else not in Iran (except Iranians abroad) but not the Iranian people. Because we still won't have freedom. Women will still be oppressed. Young people will be executed. People won't have access the internet. Those of us abroad won't be able to contact our loved ones.
So please don't go around thinking a deal with this regime is a good thing for Iranians. It's only a good thing for the regime and it's a temporary good thing for the world (until they build an atomic bomb and drop it on Israel as part of their jihad).
This is like saying the people in North Korea are ok since you have a deal with Kim to not hurt the world. As long as you stay out of NK, it's all good? For the rest of the world, sure. For the actual people living inside? HELL.
-1
smokersonny2 days ago
+2
Valid point but I assume getting bombed in public locations like school etc isn't exactly helping Iranians look at the regime with rage, or in any other location for that matter
2
UseBackground23702 days ago
No, we still fully blame the islamic republic for all of this. They are our biggest enemy, not the US and not Israel. Also, the US and Israel didn't really hit public spaces for the most part. The school was a horrific mistake, one that the islamic republic is also to blame for. The parents of those innocent kids are literally blaming the Islamic Republic for their children's murder. There were reports of people not sending their kids to school and them locking up doors so nobody could leave. We fully believed it was the IRGC that hit the school until the US said it was theirs. Because we know the IRGC is capable of doing that. It wouldn't be their first time.
0
smokersonny1 day ago
+1
Someone else bombed your school and your justifying it for them, IRGC is no saint but this is on another level. With all due respect I strongly believe you aren't Iranian.
1
UseBackground23701 day ago
+1
Hartor mikhay fekr Kon.
I'm not justifying anything. I'm telling you two separate facts to explain why the islamic republic is still the biggest enemy of us Iranians. No one likes war (aside from those that get rich from it). No one denies that the US fucked up by killing innocent children. No one likes when people who live close to irgc members are referred to as "collateral". No. They're real people getting killed.
But you people only focus on the bodies that drive your cause. Killed by the US? Useful! Killed by the IRGC? Not useful, don't talk about that. So, you ignore and don't even bring up the fact that the islamic republic has executed over 900 people in the last 3 months and killed tens of thousands of innocent Iranians in just 2 days in January.
1
smokersonny1 day ago
+1
My immediate family lives there and I have to share the sorrow with them everyday, The US is no IRGC, I bring up the US's fault because they are supposed to do a better job than the IRGC. They are supposed to have standards and mistakes like these are inexcusable and have to be condemned.
I'm sure you see the point I'm trying to bring up, there should at any point be no competition between the two for who has more/less events that kill the Iranian people
1
UseBackground23701 day ago
+1
And I very much agree. It is unfortunately not a war crime because they didn't actually aim for it. If it's a mistake, it isn't a war crime...not that committing war crimes has ever stopped anyone. Like, Putin is still going strong and nothing is happening. Same with Bibi. Same with the IRGC (they've literally been hitting hotels and civilians in Gulf countries).
But you saying I'm not Iranian because I don't pretend that the IRGC is somehow the victim in all of this is ridiculous.
Because the only victims here are the people stuck in the middle of all of this, who are getting killed by the IRGC and the US and Israel.
Sadly, I'm too cynical to believe anything good will come out of anything especially negotiations with terorrists.
1
smokersonny1 day ago
+1
Agree, it's messed up on all sides
1
p3t3y51 day ago
+1
Can I ask you a question then, and it's a genuine question not meaning to be argumentative. I wouldn't ask an Iranian I know as not to anger or offend them, and I don't know your age. Please feel free not to answer as well.
It was my understanding from what I have read (admittedly not a lot) that the revolution in 1979 was supported by the majority of the population and that they wanted to be an Islamic Republic as opposed to a more 'western' monarchy type thing.
First question I suppose was is this view correct and if so, was it widespread?
Second question is has the conditions in the country deteriorated significantly in this time?
In one of my earlier replies is was clear in saying I think it's up to the people of Iran to determine how they are governed. Just because some of us in the 'west' don't think an Islamic Republic is good, doesn't make it so.
I am genuinely curious. Iran was seen to be thriving before the revolution in the thing I have read, but know this could just be propaganda etc.
1
UseBackground23701 day ago
+1
I was born 20 years after the revolution. My parents were kids during the time. I only know stories from older aunts and uncles and grandparents and teachers and those.
No, the majority weren't ok with the islamic regime. But enough were for them to take over...at least from the ones that voted. My uncles are actually religious and they voted No to the islamic republic because they thought it was stupid and they were corrupt. My very religious uncle has two masters degrees. Religion for many Iranians is mostly a cultural thing rather than extremist fundamentalism.
Many were lied to of course. The first thing they did was force women to wear hijab...and their promises were all "you're gonna have free water and electricity and gas".
My personal feelings? Honestly, it's embarassing to see the islamic republic men representing Iran. They all have ugly faces and beards and the religious cloaks... Even the "cleanest" of them look bad. Heck Ghalibaf literally has blue eyes and he still has that look us Iranians know well. The typical basiji look. Idk.
At least the Shah looked presentable and spoke several languages and has prestige. These people now are just an embarrassment on the global scale.
1
p3t3y51 day ago
+2
Really appreciate your reply. I would love to hear more from people who loved through it to get their perspective. Hope your family are all as safe as they can be.
2
UseBackground23701 day ago
+1
My grandpa was a musician and played at cabarets in Tehran. He toured as a band member with one of the biggest singers of the time, and had even met the queen at an event. He had so many stories to tell about all of this but I was too young when he passed. The thing I remember the most is just the fact that it was baffling to me to even think of bars and Cabarets in Tehran...let alone playing music as a band for the king and queen.
Because the islamic republic which is all I've ever known? It's all "nowheh", which is the religious music that's all wailing and sadness over their dead prophets and imams and women can't even sing anyway and they call musical instruments "means of debauchery"...and there are no bars or cabarets in Iran. Maybe underground, and they're illegal.
1
p3t3y51 day ago
+2
It certainly is amazing how quickly things can change. I have seen pictures of Iran in the 70s. Ladies in swimming costumes on the beach. I remember just being told that this was what the population wanted, but as I say, this could just have been propaganda. It must be terrible for the people who were old enough to have experienced Iran in the mid 70s to see what it has become.
2
p3t3y52 days ago
+1
I have not spoken to an Iranian since this all kicked off. I hope the Iranian people can live the way they want to live. It's not for me to tell them how, just wish they had a free choice. What I was getting at is the current attacks and collateral damage is not conducive to anything. Its almost an impossible choice, but those children in the Shajareh Tayyebeh deserved to choose how they wanted to live. Yes, their choices under the current regime would have been terrible and limited, but they deserved the right to try to change it. I am not for a second saying you don't agree with that part, and I get your point, I really do, but the greater good isn't always good for all. There must be better ways to help the ordinary people of Iran than American and Israeli bombs.
1
Ecstatic_Wasabi_51662 days ago
+1
Pakistani prime minister's involvement will be key to these talks playing out in practice.
27 Comments