Unless saudi is willing to give relief to houthis, this will rinse and repeat..

Narrator: if the Raj collapses it will be far far far worse than Iran.. In fact, there is absolutely no comparison. Bongoli revolution will be distributed anarchy and freelance massacres, not a harsh but functional Islamic state..

War with Afghanistan is extremely serious and saudis want us to defend against Iran and Iran wants us to stay the hell away and amrika bahadur is both big boss and biggest threat, and China is not happy and India is "eternal enemy" .. It's a balancing act to beat all balancing acts (and all bcz we are not allowed to take the easier route and be happy little neighbors of rising India)

we may dodge this particular bullet after delivering "pakistan's last warning" to Iran.. Next houthi attack will create another difficult situation, but men of crisis live for crisis..

I think if Iran wins this one there will be real conversions in many cases..

LOL. Simnani sahib, he was "as secular as Nehru"? because he went all over the country for 7 years saying Hindus and Muslims are different nations who cannot live together and must separate in order to thrive. How is that "as secular as nehru"? He even threatend and executed mob violence when he was not getting his way. And he told Sikander Mirza (then India's joint secretary defense) that because he had experience managing Pakhtoon tribes, he should arrange a jihad from that side if Pakistan was not conceded. All these actions are "as secular as Nehru"? Then his scheme AND his relentless propaganda in favor of that scheme (including attacking any Muslim who worked with Congress as a "showboy" and a traitor to Islam) certainly helped to make communal relations even worse than they had been. And his partition scheme and his countenancing of extremely efficient and ruthless "religious cleansing" all across Pakistan (unlike Nehru, he seems to have made no serious effort to stop the process of expulsion of non-muslims, nor interfered in any way with Liaqat Ali Khan and company actively scheming to push out Hindus from Karachi "to make space for Muslim migrants" when the local Sindhis proved less enthusiastic about religious "cleansing" than Punjabis, Pakhtoons or Bengalis. He also invited the Austrian Jewish convert Mohd Asad to Pakistan to create a modern Islam for us (ofc the scheme failed, but he tried) and was a supporter of Ummah causes (including palestine) on the basis of Ummah solidarity (and tried to drum up support for his crazy scheme in Arab countries and IRan by warning them against "hindu imperialism" and promising that upright punjabi mujsalman army will protect them once Pakistan is conceded. Considering the damage the man did to the Indian subcontinent and its people, I dont think my dislike is irrational. Of course, if one believes in the ummah and its mission in the classical Islamist manner (as many educated Muslims do) then he was a great man. Created the actuality of Muslim rule in at least a part of the subcontient where a non-religious Hindu dominated state was the most likely outcome without partition. Now, I can see the hindutvaist arguement that he was a sort of "inadvertent" hero to them because he reduced their muslim headache and made it manageable. But I think this argument relies on seeing those times thru the lens of current Hindu-Muslim politics.. but there were other potential paths in 1930 that were closed off or killed off BY the pakistan movement, especially after Congress "perfidy" in WW2 made british rulers look favorably on the Muslim league, thus allowing all the khan bahadur, nawabs and other imperial touts to join Jinnah... And so on. I can go on :)