The Guardian reports: “Islamabad prepares to host historic negotiations between Iran and the U.S.“
Ryan Grim at Drop Site News has suggested the statement posted by the Pakistani government announcing the two week extension on Trump’s threat was likely written by a non-Pakistani.
AntiWar.com reports: “Iran’s Parliament Speaker Says ‘Time Is Running Out’ for the U.S. and Israel To Honor Ceasefire.”
Al-Araby TV reports: “’Israel is an evil and a curse on humanity’ — Pakistan’s Defense Minister sparks widespread outrage in Tel Aviv.” As’ad AbuKhalil responded: “No Lebanese minister said what the Pakistani minister said.” The talks seem to hinge on Israel abiding by the ceasefire in Lebanon.
JUNAID S. AHMAD, [email protected], @
Ahmad is director of the Center for the Study of Islam and Decolonization in Islamabad, Pakistan. His latest article is “Pakistan as Conduit: China, America, and the Ceasefire of Imperial Decline,” which states: “The sentimental version says Islamabad rose unexpectedly as a peacemaker. The flatteringly patriotic version says Pakistan rediscovered its historic vocation as a pivot state. The more accurate version is less romantic and more revealing: Pakistan functioned as the courier of a transition in world order. It was not the author of the new script. It was the familiar intermediary through which the new balance of power announced itself. …
“Pakistan’s role, then, was both important and humbling. Important, because geography, military channels, and political access still make Islamabad useful in moments when rival powers need a Muslim-majority intermediary with links into multiple camps. Humbling, because usefulness is not sovereignty. Pakistan did not impose a settlement on the warring parties. It facilitated a transition already being authored by larger forces. It was, to borrow the old diplomatic euphemism, a valued conduit. One should not confuse the envelope for the letter.”