That is a reasonable way of putting things in perspective.
Though one may ask 'Is India capable enough of pulling a deal for Iran's nuclear energy bid across'.
The highlighted part, am unable to understand what is being implied/projected. Perhaps if you can expand on it/clarify.
However, there was an Indo-US 'alignment' under Obama administration over Iran to a certain extent wherein a role of facilitator has been played by India in the accord that had materialised.
This fact I have oft stated in past. The role of India in Iran, Myanmar and Vietnam has been of facilitator in order to allow for an increased interaction with US (on the backdrop of the opposing posture held by US) for convergence of interests.
Having already stretched Iran with the Kurdish referendum and Qatar, the question is if India can offer Iran that chance again to seek attention?
Did not get this.
Although the idea of selling the kashmir issue as a case of Islamic terrorism is quite tricky.
It was always a case of Islamic Terror. If you look at the issue dispassionately, you will realise that the case for Islamic Terror can easily be projected.
The fact that the first step of the militant activity lies in calls of
Jamaat-i-Islami and other Muslim Group's calls for Kashmiri Pandits to leave Kashmir, in a society wherein there was a recorded bonhomie between the two communities (I can grant certain animosity towards Dogras initially, even that was over within few years of independence) the fact that there was an attempt to remove minorities by forcing them out/killing, is itself the first step of a genocide, something which can be 'reinvestigated'..
It is also a fact that the militancy was stoked by Pakistan at a time when USSR was declining and India was considered a de-facto Eastern Bloc nation, thereby, on the backs of a successful insurgency being run in Afghanistan and defeating the Soviet Bear, the diplomatic position of India was tenuous in the re-arranging world order. Of course, Pakistan made a mistake again. (and here I am speaking from a purely dispassionate perspective) They should have tried a military action somewhere in 1993-95 when the Indian economy was suffering and Pakistan still had the diplomatic leverage and backing to actually launch a synergistic military action along with a thriving militancy at the time in Kashmir to reach some meaningful resolution for it's position.
However, post 9/11, this perspective shifted. Today, the landscape of Kashmiri militant movement is dominated by radicalised versions of Islam as opposed to the more tolerant and flexible ones.
The Indian policy of containment of level of violence (by not introducing artillery, air support, armour etc) allowed for insurgency level to remain at a level that is low enough to not allow diplomatic pressure on India. That is where the Indian Government does not arrest the Separatists except for preventive/house arrests (all tools of political disagreements), as this allows the perception of a political process as ongoing, infinitely.
These two aspects as above, allow India the flexibility to portray the movement as that of being against a militant Islam and the latter as that of addressing the issue through political means. It sits perfectly well with the Indian intent and aims.
The level of violence and escalation in Kashmir we have seen over the past few months, is something that has earlier been predicted by me in immediate aftermath of the liquidation of Burhan Wani, someone who we could have liquidated much earlier too.
Couple that with the statement from Irans supreme leader, every tom dick and harry of fanatics will see Kashmir as a possible destination and if one throws the mythical ghazwa e hind into the mix, this is just a recipe for disaster for everyone involved.
Au contraire, you have exactly answered yourself. This particular statement of your's is exact summation of what allows us to project a movement against radical islam.
There is no problem if people want to volunteer for a fight in Kashmir. The only one who will continue to suffer is the Kashmiri. Look at Syria, Libya and Iraq. They are an example of which, everyone is aware. It is a very far fetched idea and merely a hope that such a situation can come across India as a whole. Indeed, except on PDF where even martians will come against India (or Pakistan depends on topic and who is being the target), not much will come of it.
Now you throw in China in the mix and you have literally managed to make Kashmir no longer a bilateral issue.
China will not involve itself in Kashmir. And the recent border incidents are on claimed Bhutani land ... IA intervened on that. I have been studying China for a long time, it is not a foolish nation. It shall not make such mistakes. It never goes to war until and unless it has no option left, and the way they are moving economically, they would really be fools to lose the capability and clout they have. China is a nation which believes in manoeuvre and the policy is paying it rich dividends already, as can be seen.
The recent incidents were merely timed to occur with Modi's visit to US, merely as a 'warning'.
I am sure these things were discussed beforehand but the ball is not anymore in your court it seems. You put someone else in charge of your affairs which is not a bright idea after all.
Specially if Russia is counted for among the mix.
interesting indeed
The opposing policies of Russia and US are ensuring only one thing - destruction of the Middle East specifically, Muslim Nations.
Look at this point very dispassionately. Putin launched his political rise on back of anti-Islamist operations in Chechnya. In Moscow, an average Muslim still has a bit more difficulty as compared to any other citizen/person. It is a hard fact on ground. Trump has a declared intent, howsoever, he may portray himself.
Russia is not going anywhere, only we might have our positions at odds with them over their game with US. The only one who will suffer in long term, are the Muslim Nations. Anyone who is not able to see the fact, are purely missing the point.
) 
