ListNook

luismt2 8 hr ago +1

feels like both sides just don’t trust the middleman more than anything, that’s usually what kills these setups before they even start

1

SeraphOfTheStart 7 hr ago +1

Yeah like for example Turkey is a long standing US ally in the region, a NATO member, and has good ties with Iran, use them, like what the f is Pakistan even able to achieve on it's own let alone they expect them to fix a major conflict between a superpower and its 50 year long enemy.

1

Sad-Introduction9173 7 hr ago +1

Yeah well It may be just a negotiation tactic from the Iranian side imho. Something I would do if I am dealt with bad cards. Ofcourse there is little trust from both sides.

1

Mr_Coco1234 8 hr ago +1

Its hindustantimes. They aren't known to be neutral, especially with Pakistan.

1

neotheseventh 8 hr ago +1

no duh! There's a reason Trump calls Asim Munir his "favorite Field Marshal". We are back to post 9/11 era where Pakistan would pretty much do any US bidding in return for IMF loans. Pakistan is not interested in "peace". Pakistan does not want to get dragged in the mess if Saudi Arabia invokes their mutual defence pact in case this escalates. They are literally bombing another country in the middle of the "peace talks"

1

Foreign_Cable_9530 7 hr ago +1

Pakistan doesn’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

1

MVP_Legend_87 8 hr ago +1

Because Iran was being *so* reasonable in these negotiations too, right? Give me a break.

1

futurespice 7 hr ago +1

We have very little insight on who actually proposed what, as neither side are transparent or reliable. Just rumors so far.

1

MVP_Legend_87 7 hr ago +1

And in an article where Iran is complaining about the negotiations, I'm just emphasizing we shouldn't blindly trust what they're saying.

1

ItsJustaPrankbro1898 8 hr ago +1

Lmao who cancelled the original deal, then became the aggressor? Give me a break.

1

Tricky_Big_8774 7 hr ago +1

The original deal that was set ro have expired by now and Iran wasn't adhering to?

1

cinyar 7 hr ago +1

> The original deal that was set ro have expired And a competent president would extend it or make a new deal. >and Iran wasn't adhering to? Do you have a source of that? >The Trump administration issued certifications in April and July 2017 that Iran was complying with the deal.[24][25] But in October 2017, Trump announced that the US would not make the certification provided for under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, saying that the suspension of sanctions was not "proportionate and appropriate".

1

ratomelo 8 hr ago +1

*I chopped the rooster's head off and bombed the nests. I don't get why the hens are acting so unreasonable.*

1

MVP_Legend_87 7 hr ago +1

Iran is very good at social media and playing the media like a fiddle. You're falling for their propaganda. Despite that happening, they were never going to be reasonable. You can call out both the US and Iran, you know that right?

1

Caboozel 7 hr ago +1

I can also understand that a large reason WHY we are in this mess to begin with and why the region is as destabilized as it is after 60 years of American/Israeli intervention. I’m sorry I am more critical of the government that represents me and not some country on the opposite side of the globe that has no direct impact on daily American life….

1

Mac62961 7 hr ago +1

Oh Iran wants some one to wipe their faces and kiss their hiney. Awww

1

doomscroling 7 hr ago +1

As soon as i saw Hindustantimes. I understood the article must be a fantasy writing.

1

‘No word against Americans' wishes': Iranian official says Pakistan ‘not a suitable intermediary’ for talks with US

💬 Send a Message

17 Comments