Iran - Pakistan Cross-border attacks

Iran - Pakistan  Cross-border attacks

Pakistan’s military says it attacked separatists inside Iran with missiles and drones on Thursday, less than two days after Iran attacked insurgents inside Pakistan with its own missiles and drones, allegedly killing at least two people, including children, earlier this week. Iranian state-run media said Thursday that Pakistan’s attacks killed at least nine people, including four children.

Iran’s Tuesday strikes targeted Baloch militants from the group Jaish al-Adl, which is Sunni Muslim group based in Iran’s southeastern Sistan-Baluchistan province as well as the western Pakistani province of Balochistan. The militants advocate on behalf of greater rights and recognition for ethnic minority Baluchis, according to a U.S. intelligence assessment. But the group has attacked and ambushed Iranian security forces several times over the last few decades, including with suicide bombers, which led to the U.S. designating Jaish al-Adl as a foreign terrorist organization back in 2010. Iran, which is a predominantly Shia Muslim nation, executed the group’s leader the same year, but the organization still endures.

Pakistan, too, attacked what it said were different Baloch militants on Thursday based at a village in Iran’s Sistan-Baluchestan province. “Hideouts used by terrorist organisations namely Balochistan Liberation Army and Balochistan Liberation Front were successfully struck in an intelligence based operation [with the] code name 'Marg Bar Sarmachar',” Pakistan’s military said in a statement following the operation early Thursday.

 “The precision strikes were carried out using killer drones, rockets, loitering munitions and stand-off weapons,” Pakistani defense officials said. Pakistan’s army was considerably saltier in its post-strike statement, warning, “We note and warn that whoever extends his finger towards us will return to it only amputated, and whoever thinks of attacking us will return reprehensible and defeated.”  

Pakistan’s foreign ministry blamed Iran for inaction leading up to the Thursday strikes. “Pakistan also shared multiple dossiers with concrete evidence of the presence and activities of these terrorists,” Islamabad said in a separate statement Thursday. “However, because of lack of action on our serious concerns, these so-called Sarmachars continued to spill the blood of innocent Pakistanis with impunity,” the officials said, and emphasized they had received “credible intelligence of impending large scale terrorist activities,” which compelled Pakistan to attack.

 However, “Iran is a brotherly country and the people of Pakistan have great respect and affection for the Iranian people,” said Islamabad’s diplomatic office, adding, “We have always emphasized dialogue and cooperation in confronting common challenges including the menace of terrorism.” The military echoed that message in its statement, which concluded, “Going forward, dialogue and cooperation is deemed prudent in resolving bilateral issues between the two neighbouring brotherly countries.”

 Tehran condemned the Thursday attacks, and summoned Pakistan’s ambassador for an explanation, according to a particularly short statement Thursday from Iran’s foreign ministry.


    Sidenote on Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian: He claimed Wednesday in Davos that Iran has never supplied Russia with drones or missiles. Washington-based think tanker Jonathan Lord responded shortly afterward that the diplomat’s allegation is “Just an outright lie. I’ve held in my hands the remnants of [Iranian-made] Shahed drones that were taken off the field in Ukraine. The evidence of Iran’s lethal support to Russia’s illegal war is irrefutable,” he added, and linked to a recent public assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency.  

Pakistan’s former military chief Khwaja Asif said he considered the Thursday strikes enough to both save face for Islamabad’s leaders, and to stop further escalation. “A measured response has been given and it was important,” he told Geo TV, according to Reuters. Next, he said, “There should be ongoing efforts on the side [so] that this doesn't escalate.”

 An optimistic forecast: “My guess is [Iran] eases off, Pakistan refrains from another strike, and both sides jaw a bit more, but decide to let things be even-steven,” said U.S. Naval Academy historian W. W. S. Hsieh. “Remember [back in November 2015] when the Turks shot down a Russian Su-24? Usually cooler heads prevail after everyone's made their point,” he added.

 A sobering review: “In the past week alone, the Middle East has seen an insane scale of cross-border conflict,” Charles Lister of the Washington-based Middle East Institute wrote on social media, and highlighted:

    The Pakistan-Iran attacks noted above;
    Iran's other strikes inside Syria and Iraq;
    Hezbollah's attacks inside Israel;
    Houthi missile attacks on ships in the Red Sea ;
    British and American retaliatory air and naval strikes on Houthi targets inside Yemen;
    Turkey's strikes inside Syria and Iraq;
    New, suspected Jordanian strikes inside Syria in the early morning hours on Thursday;
    And the Iran-backed militia the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, which targeted Israel last Friday.

A second opinion: “These days,” said scholar Randa Slim, “the Middle East is too crazy, too unpredictable, too dangerous even for someone like me who lived during a bloody civil war and an Israeli invasion of Beirut.”

 Has the U.S. “overlearned” lessons from the recent past in the Middle East? Perhaps, argued Steven Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations. He advocated in late December for U.S. strikes against Houthi capabilities, writing in Foreign Policy (emphasis added), “Critics will no doubt argue that this prescription risks ensnaring the United States in yet another open-ended conflict in the Middle East. Fair point, though the search for a risk-free policy is as close to a unicorn as one can get in foreign policy. Besides, disrupting or destroying the Houthis’ ability to disrupt shipping is hardly akin to the overambitious policies of the past aimed at regime change and remaking of societies. Rather, it’s a move to protect a vital national interest.”