What's new

Attack on Gen Soleimani has changed the security situation in the region - DG ISPR

as i said before some are saying Iran will not take any action and i am pointing out we will so Pakistan needs to move fast if they want to take any action.
ohhhhh please . Iran , KSA ,UAE , America should sort out their own mess . We have no time for all of these counties as neither of them supported Pakistan against India in last 20 or 30 years . Best of luck .
 
Words to be noted " And you believe Pakistani military":agree::agree::agree::agree::agree::agree:
You don't worry about PM Khan how will he get the next tranche of $500 IMF loan. We(People of Pakistan and Our Pak Army ) are not going to compromise our security on any condition, we had given uncountable sacrifices and are continuing. Chill dude, don't worry about Pakistan.

I know Pakistani military enough to know it can't handle American pressure in these sort of situations.
 
In another thread you wanted Gen Bajwa taken out like suliemani. I can understand your frustration when you see Pakistan getting stronger. If it was Noora in power he would have bent before Saudis and that would have made you happy.

Where did I say I wanted General Bajwa to be taken out like General Soleimani?

I was saying, the Iranians have replaced their General so quickly (within 24 hours) but we are told new Pakistani Army Chiefs need months to settle down apparently, hence, General Bajwa must get this super duper necessary extension no matter how much political instability it causes.

In regards to whether PM Nawaz Sharif or PM Imran Khan takes orders from the Saudis, well I wonder which PM refused to join the Yemen War and which PM refused to attend the Malaysia Summit.
 
Last edited:
Sound decision.
Yes ... indeed.

Pakistan have nothing to do with Iranian conflicts; border with Iran should be sealed if situation become worse.
Sir G, you are right ... our concerned is only that it is our neighbourhood.
Further, last time what was herd is that, Iran was going to fence her border with Pakistan. If they have the resources they should do it themselves, we could provide our manpower if Iran is willing to pay.

Potential refugees should be refused entry openly and clearly. Pakistan cannot afford to be blamed for anything Iran relate
Refugee issue is a bit complex, though I anticipate in case of Iran it won't happen but if it spills to that degree, we should not allow them to roam freely in Pakistan and should learn from our mistake since Afghan war.
Refugees to be registered and stay in camps, for that our concerned institute keep an eye on situation and get prepared accordingly.
 
Look at india since pompeo phone to Bajwa Indian Channels have started Talking about Gen.Sulemani as terrorist...interesting ...Call for killing our generals have also started coming up...interesting is it not!
what is the Irani view on india because they have started badmouthing gen Solumani!
 
Ya Allah tera Shukar hai...we will not provide airbases and air corridors...so now what..US/Israel give green signal to Nazi Modi!

Truly Historic moment in time...

Nobody gives a fkk. Pakistan does want this b1tc mudi to repeat his foolishness.
 
what is the Irani view on india because they have started badmouthing gen Solumani!

i think pakistan is buying time economically and militarily before final encounter with India under Modi.. this will happen if pakistanis like it or not ..
 
you think we bought those new radars for nothing!

as for boots on ground china will not approve...the place is where CPEC is...no way...

Lest wait, time will tell how much China have grown balls.
 
THE EXPRESS TRIBUNE
> OPINION
Iran’s options after Soleimani’s assassination
By Rustam Shah Mohmand
Published: January 5, 2020
TWEET EMAIL
2130449-soleimaniafp-1578197761-197-640x480.jpg

Qaseem Soleimani. PHOTO: AFP

2130449-soleimaniafp-1578197761-197-160x120.jpg
2130449-RustamShahMohmandNewNew-1578159539-681-160x120.JPG

The US strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, the chief of the al Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards Corp, will be a defining moment in the conflict-ridden Middle East. Targeting the slain Iranian commander could be the most significant event in the region since the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, and could shape the course of the region’s politics for the next decade.

The attack on the Iranian General in Iraq clearly violates international law and calls for a universal condemnation of the act. It was also in contravention of US systems because the Congress was not taken into confidence in the planning and execution of a top military commander of another country on Iraqi soil.

Iran has vowed a suitable retaliation. What shape would it take remains unknown.

Taking no action would go against the grain of the regime’s credentials and its philosophy when formidable economic challenges confront the country. The regime will likely use the attack to unite a nation that is badly in need of a new vision that corresponds with its aspirations for economic prosperity.

But obviously Iran is not in a position to confront the US militarily. Even closing the Strait of Hormuz would not be a desirable option because of the consequences it would carry. Launching attacks on US installations in Iraq would be a possibility. But targeting US personnel may not be easy because of the extreme security precautions taken by the US in wake of Soleimani’s killing. Such attacks could also happen in Lebanon where ideal conditions exist with the near breakdown of governance systems and political instability.

Hezbollah’s assaults on Israeli targets and in Lebanon itself would also be in the works. But the question is: in the event of an Iranian attack on US personnel or installations, will the US constrain its response or will it retaliate as quickly? Any miscalculation could lead to a wider escalation.

Israel has warned against any action against it. But Hezbollah might act to not let this go easily, complicating the whole picture.

Then there is a president in Washington who engineered the whole fiasco for political leverage at a time of deep domestic troubles. Facing an impeachment trial, President Trump used this action to convey an image to the majority white US electorate that he alone can protect the nation’s vital interests. He would seek to create an image of a leader who is not scared of taking tough decisions. He anticipated for this to deepen his support amongst the conservative voters and a population wanting a leader that can make difficult decisions. In the process he would gain politically as the election campaign gathers speed.

An escalation could cause oil prices to shoot up generate a severe backlash against the US in the region. This would not go down well with the Arab monarchies. In that case there would be a strong anti- Iranian sentiment particularly in Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen and Lebanon. This could cause sectarian trouble adding another ominous dimension to an already destabilised region.

While the US would watch from the sidelines the two principal powers, Iran and Saudi Arabia, would be in a confrontation for hegemony, power and resources in the Gulf. The only real beneficiary would be the Zionist state of Israel.

Deliberately or unwittingly, President Trump has sown the seeds of discord and conflict in the Middle East. The US would be a beneficiary also. Because its arms factories would continue to run full speed to sell billions of dollars worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

History’s lesson should not be forgotten. Any strategic miscalculation motivated by an incorrect perception or partisan political designs would boomerang. The instability of the region could prove costly for mankind. Before the region plunges into an irretrievable fiasco, the UN must explore all possible venues to douse the flames and restore sanity by urging restraint and pressure the US to stop further strikes on Iraqi militias. Any Iranian retaliation must be very limited and should not be allowed to create a climate for a wider war.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 5th, 2020.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on



well the option has already been cleared this time American blood will be spilled on the ground from our own soil, then if necessary our friends will join to fully make US leave ME as Iran already said the end of US military in ME has began from the moment they killed the general, call for severe revenge is broadcasting 24/7.

ohhhhh please . Iran , KSA ,UAE , America should sort out their own mess . We have no time for all of these counties as neither of them supported Pakistan against India in last 20 or 30 years . Best of luck .

well Iran said the thinking behind attacking US military sites is that so no country even dares to attack and kill another Iranian general not even US it self so the attack will happen 100%
 
US is like Pakistan Police, Jin ki na dosti achi aur na Dushmani .. I am glad that DG ISPR put the weight of Govt that we will not allow our land to be used to attack any other country , Army needs to back Govt stance fully and so does our people, this is high time we keep this Shia Sunni, Tehran and Riyaad BS on side and stand strong behind Islamabad . I have a feeling that if Shit hit the fence, in the moment of Chaos on our western Borders India will try to enter AJK with full force , this ME situation may not be directed towards Pakistan but India will surely wont let this Opportunity go , sooner or later we will need to bring Army on Iran border along with additional forces on Afghan border, as soon as India will get intel on Pakistani Forces moving there, they will push inside AJK, if not that they will try to strike Pakistan but this time they won't miss or stop until they get what they want , they are like a Injured mad Dog, we need to worry about them and stop them before it bites us .
 
DG ISPR responded proportionally. However, thing wont remain neutral. We have to look into how we can secure our energy needs and how we will evacuate 3 million people if the middle east region goes into war.
 
Oh bhai,

TAPI is American proposal to address gas related shortcomings in Pakistan for long-term. Why do you think US, Afghan Taliban and Pakistan are having negotiations? These matters are connected.

Pakistan - US bilateral relations are under restoration.

Neutrality towards Iranian conflict is excellent decision.
Alice wells tweeted day before yesterday about military to military relationships and advance training programs for Pak restoration but she said no security assistance restoration yet I believe next step is restoration of security assistance. I am positive it will expedite both hardware delivery too along CSF money beacuse Pak going to seal Iran border.

DG ISPR responded proportionally. However, thing wont remain neutral. We have to look into how we can secure our energy needs and how we will evacuate 3 million people if the middle east region goes into war.
It's too early to take sides let's see how things folds best thing for Iran is let it go what happened no need to attack because Americans doing build up with rapid pace they will bomb Irans infrastructure and military sites if Iran act with stupidity with swear economic sanctions Iranian Govt can't handle a war will collapse which is not good for anyone. So for greater good sometimes let it go is good option.
 
Where did I say I wanted General Bajwa to be taken out like General Soleimani?

I was saying, the Iranians have replaced their General so quickly (within 24 hours) but we are told new Pakistani Army Chiefs need months to settle down apparently, hence, General Bajwa must get this super duper necessary extension no matter how much political instability it causes.
A: Gen Bajwa is alive and Gen Sulemani is dead. If an employee is dead he/she cannot continue the service, and generally needs to be replaced as soon as possible.
B: Since you want to compare the Irani military with Pakistani military, and want to replicate their policies here - Gen Sulemani has been in his role for how many decades? LoL. By that logic Gen Bajwa should serve as COAS until his death. I hope as a follower of NS you would not want that.

In regards to whether PM Nawaz Sharif or PM Imran Khan takes orders from the Saudis, well I wonder which PM refused to join the Yemen War and which PM refused to attend the Malaysia Summit.
A: Joining a foreign war and refusing to attend a meeting are different in so many levels. Pakistan could just no afford Yemen conflict irrespective of potential repercussions from Saudia. Although I would support attending Malaysia summit, it did purposefully ignore SA and UAE instead of using OIC forum.
B: Nawaz Sharif did refuse joining Yemen war, and so has PM IK and has kept Pakistan Army clear of Yemen conflict after coming to power.
C: Nawaz Sharif allowed Raheel Sharif to a foreign posting despite it being against rules and common conventions.
 
Back
Top Bottom