Samina Mustafa
M.phil scholar
In an unexpected and highly unusual turn of events, Iran carried out a series of aggressive actions by launching six drones and rockets into Pakistan’s Balochistan province on the night of January 16, 2024. Iran claimed the targets were residences housing the families of Jaish al-Adl fighters. Tragically, two children lost their lives, while two women and a teenage girl sustained injuries in the assault, raising concerns about the proportionality and justification of the strikes, which seemingly targeted non-combatants.
These unprovoked attacks within Pakistan’s territory were ostensibly aimed at bases associated with Jaish al-Adl, a militant group seeking an independent Baluchistan that operates across Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan.
The assaults are particularly egregious as they occurred despite established communication channels between Iran and Pakistan for enforcing border control, sharing information, and fostering cross-country cooperation against terrorist activities. This blatant disregard for diplomatic norms underscores the severity and unpredictability of Iran’s actions, complicating an already sensitive regional dynamic.
Iran’s recent attacks on Pakistan violate the long-standing friendly ties between the two nations, which share common borders, religion, customs, and a shared history.
The aggressive response is believed to be a result of Iran’s anger over the twin bombings in Kerman on January 5, 2024, during a memorial for the top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi had vowed retaliation, stating that Iranian forces would choose the place and time for action.
Not limited to Pakistan, Iran launched ballistic missiles in Iraq’s Kurdish region and targeted locations in northern Syria, claiming self-defense and countering terrorism. These actions reflect Iran’s broader strategy of responding aggressively to perceived threats, escalating tensions in the region and complicating diplomatic relations.
The cross-border attack by Iran on Jaish-e-Adl hideouts inside Pakistan, considering the considerable distance from Kerman, raises questions about the justification and strategic sense of such a move, especially when it risks straining historic religious and fraternal relations with Pakistan.
Iran’s simultaneous targeting of both ISIS and Jaish al-Adl reflects its belief that these groups are tools manipulated by the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel to instigate hatred between Sunni and Shia sects within Islam, aiming to undermine Iran’s religious revolution.
Iran alleges that ISIS, considered an offshoot of Al-Qaeda, was created by the USA, the West, and Israel, with core ideological motivation revolving around establishing a caliphate based on Sunni thoughts and practices. Iran emphasizes being a predominantly Shia Muslim country, making it a direct adversary in the eyes of ISIS.
Jaish al-Adl, according to Iran, is supported and aided by the USA, the West, and Israel. Comprising Baloch Sunni militants, the group seeks autonomy for Sunni Muslims in Iran’s Baloch-majority areas, addressing perceived discrimination by the Iranian government.
Iran argues that its military actions inside Pakistan’s Balochistan province were necessary to safeguard sovereignty and citizens from perceived threats posed by Jaish al-Adl. They justify preemptive self-defense measures, framing these actions as part of a broader counterterrorism strategy for regional security.
Pakistan considers Iran’s incursion unacceptable, violating sovereignty and breaching international law. Pakistan advocates for diplomatic channels and engagement to address concerns related to Jaish al-Adl, viewing unilateral military actions as risking escalation and undermining potential diplomatic resolutions.
As a victim of external unprovoked attacks, Pakistan retains the right to consider military, economic, and diplomatic responses. Each option comes with its own set of merits and demerits.
Pakistan, viewing the breach as a grave violation of sovereignty, is likely to respond by fortifying border defenses and deploying additional troops. While the immediate focus would be on averting a full-fledged military conflict through engagement with Iranian forces, the regional military dynamics may shift based on responses from neighboring countries.
Heightened tensions between Iran and Pakistan hold significant economic ramifications, impacting trade and investment. The cautious approach of investors may lead to a decline in foreign direct investment for both countries, affecting global energy markets given their significance in the energy sector. Economic disruption could extend beyond their borders, and the possibility of economic sanctions adds urgency to the need for stability and resolution.
More From Daily The Destination: Iran issues unusual statement in response to Pakistani strikes
On the diplomatic front, international condemnation of Iran’s actions and calls for an immediate ceasefire would be anticipated. Diplomatic initiatives, possibly through the United Nations and regional organizations, become paramount to de-escalate tensions. Seeking mediation from neutral third parties could facilitate dialogue and pave the way for a peaceful resolution. Pakistan’s active engagement with the global community and involvement in international forums would be crucial to garner diplomatic support.
An ideal response from Pakistan would center on diplomatic engagement, international mediation, economic stabilization measures, and military restraint. Prioritizing dialogue through diplomatic channels and seeking mediation from neutral parties, Pakistan can underscore its commitment to a peaceful resolution. Stabilizing the economy and reassuring investors through collaborative efforts with international financial institutions will be crucial. Simultaneously, maintaining a robust defense posture while exercising restraint is imperative for regional stability. Actively engaging with the global community to garner diplomatic support and presenting evidence of Iran’s violation of sovereignty will contribute to building a case for international understanding and intervention.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.