mango

سعودی عرب میں پاکستانی فوج کی موجودگی میں ایران کی رضامندی شامل ہے۔ امکان ہے کہ امریکہ کے بجائے پاکستان سعودیہ کے دفاع کیلئے اب فوج اور پائیلٹس تعینات کرے گا کیوں کہ جنگی طیارے سعودی عرب کے پاس کافی زیادہ ہیں سعودیہ کو اسلحے کی ضرورت بھی نہیں ہے۔ سعودیہ کے پاس جدید ترین دفاعی نظام اور اسلحہ ہے۔ سعودیہ کے پاس مضبوط فوج بھی ہے ۔ لیکن مشرق وسطٰی کی علاقائی نوعیت ایسی ہے کہ وہاں پاکستان آرمی جیسی فوج کا ہونا ضروری ہے۔

💢 Trump’s First Post After Failed Islamabad Talks: A Naval Blockade of Iran President Trump’s first Truth Social post after JD Vance left Pakistan without a deal was a link to a Just The News analysis laying out the U.S. naval blockade of Iran as his next option if Tehran refuses to accept Washington’s “final and best offer.” The article argues Trump could flip Iran’s Hormuz tollbooth strategy against it — stationing U.S. warships at the strait’s 21-mile chokepoint to physically control which vessels pass, cutting off Iranian oil exports and squeezing China and India, Tehran’s two largest customers, into pushing for a deal. “It would be very easy for the U.S. Navy to exert complete control over what does and does not go in and out of that Strait,” Lexington Institute defense analyst Rebecca Grant told the outlet. The piece notes the USS Gerald Ford — the carrier that led Trump’s naval blockade of Venezuela before the U.S.-backed ouster of Nicolás Maduro — is now in the Persian Gulf alongside the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Do nothing. Win

USA, Israel and India does to them What these disgusting demons do to poor animals 😡

For people who are cheering for Pakistan's "mediation" in the US–Iran conflict, and busy questioning India's diplomacy, it's worth stepping back and asking a simple question, mediation for whom, and to what end? Pakistan's projection as a "peacemaker" is not driven by neutrality, but by necessity and opportunism. A country balancing economic fragility, dependence on external sponsors to run its economy, and a long history of playing multiple sides cannot suddenly transform into an honest broker. Its role is less about resolving conflict and more about inserting itself into relevance. As Niccolo Machiavelli sharply noted, "The promise given was a necessity of the past, the word broken is a necessity of the present." That line reflects the pattern of transactional diplomacy far better than any official narrative. This is where a fundamental misunderstanding of diplomacy comes into play. Diplomacy, at its core, is not an exercise in goodwill, it is a calculated pursuit of national interest. States engage with one another not out of selflessness, but to secure power, stability, and advantage in an inherently competitive world. As Henry Kissinger bluntly stated, "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests," a principle that applies universally. Likewise, Lord Palmerston made it clear, "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." These insights strip away the illusion that diplomacy is about moral alignment or sentimental alliances. India is being criticised precisely because it refuses to indulge in this kind of performative diplomacy. India's approach is measured, interest-driven, and rooted in strategic autonomy, engaging all sides without overextending itself in conflicts where it has limited leverage. That is not passivity, it is discipline. As often said, "a ruler must act according to circumstance, not chase visibility but secure outcomes." The uncomfortable truth is this, diplomacy is not about appearing relevant, it is about being effective. Pakistan's actions may generate headlines, but they remain constrained by its dependencies and contradictions. India's diplomacy, in contrast, is quieter but far more reasoned, anchored in long-term interests rather than short-term optics. So before applauding Pakistan's so-called mediation, understand the difference between noise and strategy. One seeks attention, the other secures power.