Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

👇 This is an important window into how Iran is viewing the current diplomatic track. A post-Islamabad interview with Majid Shakeri, an advisor to Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who led Iran’s delegation in Islamabad and headed talks with JD Vance. It offers a revealing look into how the Iranian side,...

66,631 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the Iranian parliamentary speaker who led the first round of negotiations with JD Vance in Islamabad, gave an important TV interview today. In it, he lays out his narrative of the war, the diplomatic track, and signals where Iran’s political goalposts are currently. He projects firmness throughout. Iran, in his telling, will not back down from its negotiating demands. At the same time, he frames negotiations not as a retreat from conflict but as its continuation by other means, a way to consolidate gains and secure what he calls a “lasting peace.” 🔴His core framework is that military power, public mobilization, and diplomacy are inseparable: ➡️“Today, we have the ‘field,’ the ‘street,’ and ‘diplomacy of authority.’ These are not three separate things. Do not make a mistake. Today the street, the field, and diplomacy are together.” 🔴He argues this is precisely why now is the moment for diplomacy. Iran, he says, has reached a peak position militarily and in terms of social cohesion, and negotiations are meant to lock that in politically: ➡️“In the military sphere, we are at a maximum point. The street has given strength to the field. We have achieved part of our demands militarily, but they must now be stabilized and recorded politically. This is where diplomacy must take the flag in hand.” 🔴At the same time, he signals to hardliners to not be overly triumphalist. Iran’s asymmetric warfare has paid off, but he is explicit that this does not mean superiority over the United States: Iran has succeeded without being the stronger military power. 🔴On escalation, he is blunt. Iran is ready for the war to resume if necessary. He warns that the Strait of Hormuz remains a central lever and that restrictions will continue if the US “blockade” is not ended. 🔴Passage, in any case, will be governed by Iranian “protocols.” 🔴At the same time, he presents a calibrated position. Iran, he says, wants normalization in the Strait and does not seek broader disruption: ➡️“We have always sought normalization… but when commitments were not fulfilled, we restricted traffic. 🔴He adds that access will remain open to countries that are not hostile: ➡️“We want those who do not act with hostility toward us to pass easily. We are not seeking to create insecurity.” 🔴But that openness is conditional and controlled: ➡️“This Strait must be used by the world, but with the protocols that we set.” 🔴On the ceasefire and negotiations, his narrative is clear. The United States, not Iran, initiated the diplomatic shift. He says US ultimatums failed and that Washington, through Pakistan, sent a 15 point proposal. Iran rejected it and countered with its own 10 points after internal deliberations at the Supreme National Security Council and consultation with the Supreme Leader. 🔴According to him, the US accepted the "generalities" of the Iranian framework and sought a ceasefire to negotiate on that basis. 🔴On trust, his message is stark. In Islamabad, he says JD Vance spoke of "good faith", and his response was that Iran also came in good faith, but with zero trust. The burden, he says, is on the US to change that. 🔴He underscores that Iran’s negotiating positions have not shifted. They remain aligned with the framework set by Ali Khamenei: ➡️“Our strategy was those same measures the Supreme Leader has stated. We have not pursued and will not pursue anything outside that framework.” 🔴He adds that the delegation is operating fully in line with current leader Mojataba Khamenei, “neither ahead nor behind.” 🔴He repeatedly returns to the goal of a durable outcome: ➡️“We want a lasting peace, one with guarantees so this is not repeated.” 🔴He says the first round of Islamabad talks produced some movement, but major gaps remain: ➡️“We have had progress, but our distances are still great. Some fundamental points remain.” 🔴Still, he suggests one important outcome from the Islamabad talks was a more realistic understanding on both sides: ➡️“These negotiations did not resolve our mistrust, but both delegations gained a more realistic understanding of each other.” 🔴He credits the tripartite format for helping resolve misunderstandings in real time. 🔴Finally, he outlines Iran’s preferred structure for any deal going forward, a step by step process rooted in reciprocity: ➡️“Our policy is step by step action. Commitment against commitment. They must take one step, we take one step. It should not be that we fulfill our commitments and they do not.” The throughline of the interview is clear. Iran sees itself as having gained leverage through the war. Diplomacy is meant to convert that leverage into durable political outcomes. But that process will be conditional and shaped by deep mistrust, with readiness to use the Strait of Hormuz as leverage, and readiness for renewed escalation and war.

Sina Toossi

24,785 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🚨 OPERATIONAL UPDATE: TALKS FAIL, PRESSURE CONTINUES - Reporting Window: Last 24 Hours The diplomatic track did not produce a result in this window. After extended, high-level negotiations in Islamabad, the United States and Iran left without an agreement, despite what both sides described as a final round of talks. At the same time, Lebanon remains active, the Strait of Hormuz is still unresolved, and the broader regional pressure structure has not changed. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🇵🇰 ISLAMABAD TALKS: FAILED ROUND, NOT A BREAKTHROUGH The most important development in this window is straightforward: • U.S. and Iranian delegations held 21 hours of direct talks • No agreement was reached • Both sides left without accepting terms • Each side blamed the other The core issues did not move: • U.S. demands: nuclear rollback and unrestricted access to the Strait of Hormuz • Iranian demands: sanctions relief, reparations, control over Hormuz, and a regional ceasefire including Lebanon Those positions remain fundamentally incompatible. At its core, this is not just a ceasefire negotiation. It is a negotiation over Iran’s long-term ability to project power: • The U.S. is pushing to dismantle that capability, including nuclear, missile, and proxy elements • Iran is trying to preserve enough of it to remain a regional power Both sides are still signaling willingness to continue talks, but this round produced no progress. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🇱🇧 LEBANON: CONTINUED STRIKES, NO LINK TO CEASEFIRE Lebanon remains the most active battlefield and was not affected by the failed negotiations. Israeli strikes continued across southern Lebanon, with reporting confirming: • Multiple strike waves across southern towns • At least 11 killed in recent operations • Continued targeting of Hezbollah infrastructure and positions At the same time, Hezbollah continues: • Intermittent rocket fire toward Israel • Ongoing clashes along the border This reinforces the established fact that there is no operational pause in Lebanon. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ⚓ STRAIT OF HORMUZ: NAVAL MOVEMENTS AND PARTIAL OPENING The most important operational shift in this window is in the Strait itself. Two U.S. Navy destroyers transited the Strait of Hormuz, tied to planned mine-clearing operations. Three supertankers successfully exited the Gulf, while hundreds remain queued, and Iran continues to signal control and leverage over access. At the same time, the U.S. has now moved beyond signaling: • President Trump announced the Navy will interdict vessels that pay tolls to Iran • He indicated a willingness to impose a de facto blockade of the Strait • The stated objective is to eliminate Iran’s ability to monetize or control passage This creates a new reality: • Hormuz is not fully closed • It is not fully open • It is now becoming an actively contested maritime zone ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🌍 GLOBAL ENERGY RESPONSE Markets are already adapting to the disruption. • Tankers are rerouting away from the Gulf • U.S. exports are rising toward record levels • Gulf Coast refineries are running near capacity • Major buyers are competing for non-Gulf supply The effect is clear. Iran disrupted supply, the global market began rerouting around it, that does not remove Iran’s leverage. It limits how long that leverage can be sustained. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 📌 WHAT MATTERS MOST RIGHT NOW • U.S.–Iran talks failed to produce an agreement • Both sides left Islamabad without accepting terms, though talks may continue • Lebanon remains an active battlefield, with continued Israeli strikes and Hezbollah fire • The U.S. has begun direct naval movement through Hormuz, including destroyer transits and upcoming mine-clearing operations • Shipping is partially resuming, but the Strait remains unstable and contested ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🧠 ASSESSMENT This was a real negotiation attempt. It failed. And the reason it failed is becoming clearer. Iran continues to negotiate as if it holds structural leverage over the outcome. The battlefield suggests otherwise. Its position is weaker than its posture. But it is not without leverage. That leverage is concentrated in two places: • The ability to disrupt Hormuz and global energy flow • The ability to keep secondary fronts, especially Lebanon, active The first creates economic pressure. The second prevents clean diplomatic separation. At the same time, the United States is signaling something equally important: It is willing to test those limits directly. Naval transits through Hormuz are not symbolic. They are the early stages of forcing open the most important pressure point Iran still holds. That is the real signal underneath the headlines. Not just that talks failed. But that both sides are now preparing for what happens if they continue to fail.

Inside_Israel_Intel

22,034 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Global reset. Listen closely — this is one of the most important breakdowns yet of what’s unfolding around the Iran situation. It is a peek behind the curtain to President Trump’s longterm strategy. After Trump ordered U.S. Naval forces to begin a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, Maria Bartiromo laid out what she says is the broader geopolitical shift now underway. BARTIROMO: “Very big news. We have major developments this morning with the president directing the Navy to begin this blockade of ships in the Strait of Hormuz.” “This is very important because Iran tried hard to extort the global economy and take over securing the Strait of Hormuz.” “It is not working.” “As you just saw, the president’s post this morning on Truth Social, that the U.S. Navy is beginning this blockade right now of the Strait of Hormuz.” “Why is this important? Because the strait is a narrow waterway. Typically, the strait is the choke point where 20% of the oil and gas of the world is traveling through this strait and as a result of what you are seeing this morning with the Navy beginning this blockade, it will be able to stop ships.” “What we are seeing as a result? We are seeing a complete diversion.” “You’re seeing major super tankers change direction and go to the Gulf of America for oil and gas.” “The president was very clear they his address to the nation a week and-a-half ago.” “He said that the United States right now is operating at 95% capacity.” “He said that the United States right now is producing more oil and gas than Saudi Arabia and Russia combined and if you remember, he said it twice, he said let me say that again.” “The U.S. Is producing more oil and gas that Saudi Arabia and Russia combined.” “He directed allies to buy oil and gas from America.” “The U.S. and allies are increasing their naval presence in the Strait of Hormuz right now, to indicate to the world that, yes, Iran wanted the strait closed.” “It will then be closed and all the traffic will be redirected to the Gulf of America where the United States will up its capacity and up its sales of oil and gas to the rest of the world.”

Overton

69,267 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Possibly the best analysis on the Iran-US war and how it could end. As part of much broader conversation with Drop Site, Trita Parsi search. .. makes the case for why Iran cannot end this conflict without imposing a high enough cost on Israel and the US to deter them from coming after Iran again. Effectively: “ • Iran’s core goal is to end the war in a way that makes it impossible to restart. They refuse to accept a simple ceasefire that lets the US and Israel regroup, rearm, and attack again in six or eight months — a “mowing the lawn” cycle Iran literally cannot survive. • To achieve lasting deterrence, Iran must make the war as costly as possible for the United States, Israel, and others involved. The aim is for everyone to conclude this war was a grave mistake that should never be repeated. • Iran will not agree to end the war without some form of sanctions relief. This isn’t just leverage — it’s survival. Without relief, Iran emerges weakened and degraded, making future attacks even more likely because weakness is exactly what invited this war in the first place. • Sanctions relief is therefore part of Iran’s long-term deterrence strategy. It prevents the country from sliding into continuous decline and removes the incentive for the US and Israel to strike again. • Negotiations are inevitable. The US has already quietly opened the door by lifting sanctions on Iranian oil at sea to help bring down global oil prices — a clear sign that sanctions relief is now on the table. • Continuing the war carries huge risk: if it drags on and Trump can no longer credibly claim victory, he loses any incentive to end it. The conflict could then become a low-intensity “forever war” that destroys his presidency.”

Javed Hassan

48,068 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten