Tariq Mahmood Awan

The Iranian missile strike on Pakistani soil has sparked a complex diplomatic dance, leaving behind a trail of tensions and unanswered questions. While Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian claims the attack targeted an “Iranian terrorist group” operating within Pakistan, the incident has undoubtedly strained the historically close relationship between the two nations.

Islamabad’s immediate and strong condemnation of the strike reflects its outrage at the violation of its territorial sovereignty. The loss of innocent lives further amplifies the emotional response. Recalling its ambassador and blocking Tehran’s envoy are clear signals of Pakistan’s displeasure and intent to seek accountability.

Tehran justifies its action as a necessary response to Jaish Al-Adl’s repeated attacks on Iranian security forces. Amir-Abdollahian’s reference to prior diplomatic attempts to address the issue with Pakistan suggests frustration with perceived inaction by Islamabad. However, choosing unilateral military action raises serious concerns about respecting international norms and escalating tensions.

Several aspects of the situation remain unclear. The extent of Jaish Al-Adl’s presence and activities within Pakistan, the effectiveness of past diplomatic efforts, and the specific details of the intelligence justifying the strike all require further scrutiny. Additionally, the impact of this incident on broader regional dynamics, particularly Pakistan’s complex relationship with neighbouring Afghanistan, is yet to be fully understood.

The immediate priority lies in de-escalating the situation and preventing further violence. Open and transparent communication between both nations is crucial. A thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the strike and efforts to address Jaish Al-Adl’s activities through collaborative means are essential steps towards rebuilding trust and finding a lasting solution.

This incident highlights the broader challenge of addressing cross-border terrorism and the delicate balance between state sovereignty and collective security. It underscores the need for effective regional cooperation and information sharing to combat such threats without infringing on territorial integrity.

Hence, the Iranian strike on Pakistani soil has opened a delicate diplomatic chapter. Pakistan’s outrage and Iran’s justification present a complex narrative with uncertain consequences. Moving forward, prioritizing de-escalation, open communication, and collaborative efforts to address the root causes of the conflict are crucial steps towards rebuilding trust and preventing future tragedies. Only through such efforts can this incident be navigated without further jeopardizing the already fragile regional stability.

The assertion that Iran operates solely as a revisionist, expansionist, and colonial power in the Middle East is a complex and reductionist view that requires careful evaluation. While Iran undoubtedly pursues certain strategic interests, its actions and motivations cannot be neatly categorized into these simplistic labels.

It’s true that Iran seeks to reshape the regional order. The 1979 revolution established an Islamic Republic challenging the US-backed monarchies and advocating for a Shia-influenced political system. Iran’s support for Shia communities across the region, particularly in Iraq and Lebanon, can be seen as revisionist in nature. However, characterizing this solely as territorial expansion ignores the complex interplay of religious, ideological, and historical factors at play.

While Iran’s influence extends beyond its borders, outright expansionism is debatable. Its focus on regional proxy conflicts and support for non-state actors like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Houthi rebels in Yemen can be interpreted as attempts to counterbalance rival powers like Saudi Arabia and Israel. However, these actions often lead to instability and sectarian tensions, contradicting any genuine expansionist goals.

Equating Iran’s actions with colonialism is historically inaccurate and misleading. Unlike European colonial powers, Iran hasn’t sought direct territorial control over other countries. Its cultural and religious influence, particularly in Shia communities, might be perceived as a form of soft power, but it doesn’t translate to direct economic or political control.

It’s simplistic to solely blame Iran for the disunity among Islamic countries. Historical rivalries, ideological differences, and geopolitical competition between regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey play a significant role. While Iran’s sectarian rhetoric and support for Shia groups contribute to tensions, it’s important to recognize the broader context and avoid placing sole responsibility on Iran.

The recent tensions between Iran and Pakistan over the missile strike highlight the potential consequences of strained relations. Alienating Pakistan, a historically close ally and important regional player, could indeed harm Iran. It loses a valuable partner in managing the Afghan crisis and risks further isolation in the face of scepticism from other Middle Eastern and Islamic countries.

Therefore, characterizing Iran solely as a revisionist, expansionist, and colonial power is unhelpful and inaccurate. Its actions and motivations are complex and intertwined with historical, religious, and political factors. Understanding these nuances is crucial for any meaningful analysis of Iran’s role in the Middle East and its relationship with other countries like Pakistan. Focusing on the specific actions, their consequences, and potential avenues for cooperation is a more constructive approach than resorting to simplistic labels.

Recognizing the complexity of Iran’s role in the region allows for a more nuanced and productive engagement. Open dialogue, addressing regional security concerns, and fostering cooperation on issues of mutual interest like counterterrorism and economic development are essential steps towards building a more stable and peaceful Middle East. 

Engaging with Iran through diplomacy, addressing legitimate security concerns, and fostering regional cooperation based on mutual respect are more constructive approaches than resorting to purely adversarial narratives. Recognizing the diversity and internal complexities of the Islamic world, as well as acknowledging the strategic interdependencies within the region, is essential for promoting stability and preventing further conflict.

However, it does not mean that Pakistan may compromise on territorial sovereignty.

Pakistan’s response to Iran’s missile attacks in Balochistan is a critical and delicate matter requiring careful consideration of various factors. It’s crucial to navigate this situation with prudence and prioritize de-escalation while holding Iran accountable for its actions. Pakistan should insist on a full and transparent investigation into the incident, seeking answers. Pakistan should unequivocally condemn the violation of its territorial integrity and express strong disapproval of unilateral military action within its borders. Recalling the Pakistani ambassador from Iran and summoning the Iranian envoy to express strong disapproval are valid initial steps. However, the complete severing of diplomatic ties should be carefully weighed against the long-term implications for bilateral relations.

Depending on the investigation’s findings, Pakistan may pursue legal avenues to hold Iran accountable for the damages and loss of life incurred. This could involve international legal mechanisms or bilateral negotiations seeking compensation. The incident highlights the need for enhanced border security measures to prevent future cross-border incursions. This includes increased surveillance, intelligence gathering, and cooperation with local communities.

Collaborating with Iran to address the underlying issues that led to the attacks, if any, particularly the activities of Jaish Al-Adl is crucial for preventing future escalations. This could involve intelligence sharing, joint operations, and addressing concerns about extremist elements operating within each other’s borders. Then, the territorial violation must be answered apart from appeasing Iran’s sensitivities. Engaging with other regional stakeholders, particularly those with influence in Iran or facing similar challenges with cross-border terrorism, can be beneficial in finding collective solutions and promoting regional stability.

 Throughout the process, prioritizing de-escalation and avoiding actions that could lead to further conflict should be paramount. Open communication and diplomatic channels must remain accessible to prevent misunderstanding and miscalculation. Pakistan needs to balance its legitimate security concerns with the potential consequences of straining relations with a critical regional neighbour. Finding a middle ground that addresses its concerns while preserving long-term strategic interests is crucial.

Ultimately, Pakistan’s response should contribute to overall regional stability and security. Working towards solutions that address the broader challenges of cross-border terrorism and sectarian tensions would benefit the entire region.

Remember, any decision must be made after careful consideration of all relevant factors and with the guidance of experienced diplomats and security experts. A well-calibrated and multifaceted response that prioritizes accountability, security, and regional cooperation offers the best chance of navigating this complex situation effectively. If Iran does not feel remorse and pleads guilty, the last option for territorial integrity is always open, and Pakistan must use it if it does not work. 

Please, subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com