From escalation to de-escalation and mutually agreeing to work together to address issues of concern, Iran and Pakistan swiftly covered the entire crisis cycle within a few days. While Iranian strikes raised questions about the decision-making mechanism in Tehran and the presence of competing power centers, Pakistan acted maturely and as a responsible state throughout this period. It signaled that, despite facing several unprecedented internal and external challenges, it is fully capable, ready, and willing to safeguard and, if need be, defend its territorial integrity and sovereignty.
On January 16, 2024, Iran targeted what it claimed were Jaish-al-Adil camps in Panjgur, Balochistan, resulting in the tragic death of two children. Reacting to this sudden and unprovoked attack, Islamabad stated that this attack was not only a breach of Pakistan’s sovereignty but also an “egregious violation of international law and the spirit of bilateral relations” between Pakistan and Iran. It also downgraded its diplomatic relations with Tehran by recalling its ambassador and expelling the Iranian envoy in Islamabad. On January 18, 2024, Pakistan in an intelligence-based operation, Marg Bar Sarmachar, undertook a series of “highly coordinated and specifically targeted precision military strikes” against the Baloch Liberation Front (BLF) and the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) camps at seven locations inside Iran. In an official statement post-operation, it was stated: “The precision strikes were carried out using killer drones, rockets, loitering munitions, and stand-off weapons. Maximum care was taken to avoid collateral damage.” Iranian official sources later confirmed that all dead in these strikes were non-Iranian nationals.
Pakistan’s reciprocal attack pushed the situation into a stalemate. Now Iran was faced with a dilemma: climb a rung on the escalation ladder and conduct another attack or utilize the peace signal that Islamabad sent and move towards normalization. The fact that Iran accepted that those who were killed in the Pakistani strike were non-Iranian nationals further complicated the situation. However, better sense prevailed, and soon both countries decided to deescalate. According to a joint statement simultaneously issued by Tehran and Islamabad, the foreign ministers of Iran, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, and Pakistan, Jalil Abbas Jilani, had a telephonic conversation in which they agreed to restore their diplomatic relations and the ambassadors resumed their duties on 26 January 2024. Iranian Foreign Minister Abdollahian would be visiting Pakistan on 29 January 2024.
The biggest unsolved puzzle is the issue of the timing of the Iranian strikes. Just a day before the strikes, Pakistan and Iranian Navies conducted a joint exercise in the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf, and it happened only after a few hours of a meeting between Anwaar-ul-Haq Kakar, Pakistan’s caretaker prime minister, and Hossein Amir Abdollahian, the Iranian foreign minister. All this was happening in the backdrop of improved relations between the two countries where a number of projects were identified and implemented and several new were under consideration. The second puzzle is who decided to attack and why? A conclusive solution to this puzzle might not be available any time soon. However, in keeping with the fact that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) vowed for revenge after multiple terror attacks coupled with internal political strife, forthcoming national elections, and an urge to demonstrate to the USA, the West, and Israel of its military capability to conduct such an attack could be identified as possible motivations. The third puzzle is, as per the Iranian strategic analysis, what sort of Pakistani response was anticipated? Pakistan is not a hostile country, and several modes of communication were available to address any such matter. Again, looking at the end, ways and means principle, one cannot make sense of it. India was quick to react to the attack and supported the Iranian strikes on alleged terror camps in the Pakistani province of Balochistan. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs in a statement declared it an act of self-defense. No such statement or reaction was issued on the other Iranian strikes in Iraq and Syria. How was this to be viewed in Islamabad? The Fourth puzzle is what was the outcome of a SWOT and/or the cost-benefit analysis between what would be achieved through such an action versus what would be at stake or lost? Although the unnecessary crisis initiated by Iran with Pakistan was short-lived and ended positively for both countries yet there are several issues on which all parties would continue to ponder and debate. However, Pakistan throughout this period acted maturely and as a responsible state. One thing that clearly came out of this crisis is that despite the fact that Pakistan is undergoing a complicated phase of its history where it is facing several unprecedented internal and external challenges, it is fully capable, ready and willing to safeguard and if need be defend its territorial integrity and sovereignty.
The most positive point is that both countries demonstrated a desire for ending the hostility and establish peace. This trend should continue and both countries should address issues of concern by working together. To use Oscar Wilde’s dictum with a little tempering: to attack (Pakistan) once, may be regarded as a misfortune, but to do it again would look like carelessness. What is positive is that both Tehran and Islamabad has decided to tread the path of peacemaking carefully.
Dr. Rizwan Zeb
The writer is a Karachi based Security Analyst.