Why are Iran and Pakistan trading strikes, and are they linked to regional tensions?
Analysts said such escalation of hostilities between the neighbours is unprecedented, given the relatively cordial ties between Tehran and Islamabad.
People gather near rubble in the aftermath of Pakistan's military strike on an Iranian village near Saravan, Sistan and Baluchestan Province, Iran, January 18, 2024 in this screen grab from social media video obtained by REUTERS
This audio is generated by an AI tool.
Iran and Pakistan traded strikes on each other’s territories this week, raising fears of greater turmoil in a region already grappling with instability and conflict.
Analysts said the escalation of hostilities between the neighbours is unprecedented, given the relatively cordial ties between Tehran and Islamabad.
However, the two nations share a history of tensions along their nearly 1,000km long volatile border, where they both face separatist threats.
WHAT HAPPENED?
On Tuesday (Jan 16), Iran launched missile and drone raids on Pakistan’s western Balochistan province, killing two children.
On Wednesday, nuclear-armed Pakistan recalled its ambassador from Iran and blocked Tehran's envoy.
Islamabad called the attacks “a blatant breach of Pakistan's sovereignty” and “a violation of international law”.
On Thursday, Pakistan retaliated with military strikes in Iran's southeastern Sistan-Baluchistan province, with Tehran reporting a death toll of nine civilians.
WHO WERE THE TARGETS?
Iran said its Tuesday strike was aimed at the headquarters of Jaish al-Adl, an ethnic Baluch Sunni militant group which Tehran labels a terrorist outfit.
The group wants independence for Sistan-Baluchestan, and often targets Iranian security forces near the Pakistani border.
Pakistan said its Thursday raids targeted the Baloch Liberation Front (BLF), a militant group which has been fighting the government for decades for a separate Balochistan state.
Despite being Pakistan’s biggest province with rich gas and mineral resources, Balochistan has the smallest population and is the least economically developed.
Ethnic Baloch militants accuse Islamabad of neglect and exploitation, and heavy-handed treatment of those in the region.
IRAN-PAKISTAN RELATIONS
The border insurgencies have been a long-running source of tension between the neighbours, who accuse each other of harbouring separatists.
Iran has blamed Pakistan of allowing Jaish al-Adl militants to operate freely in Balochistan and using the area to launch attacks on Iranian forces.
However, observers said it is unusual for either side to carry out such attacks on each other’s soil.
“Both countries have in the past cooperated and shared intelligence to rein in attacks by such groups,” said Mr Ali Vaez, project director of Iran at the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think-tank that focuses on conflict reduction research.
“So, it’s quite unprecedented to see these kinds of cross-border strikes and tensions that have now escalated so quickly.”
IRAN HAS OTHER REASONS TO STRIKE
Analysts said that a spate of recent attacks on Iran and its proxies could have also led to a reckless response from Tehran for a show of strength.
In December last year, 11 Iranian security personnel were killed in an attack on a police station in Sistan-Baluchestan, an act claimed by Jaish al-Adl.
Early this month, over 80 people were killed in twin bombings claimed by the Islamic State militant group in the southern Iranian city of Kerman.
Israeli strikes have in recent weeks killed a senior adviser in Iran's Revolutionary Guards, a top Hamas leader and a top Hezbollah commander, among others.
The United States and its allies have also conducted retaliatory strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen over the Iran-backed militant group’s attacks on vessels in the Red Sea.
Observers said Iran’s government and military were likely under pressure to act.
“There was a need for Tehran to flex its military muscle and remind these adversaries that Iran is not in a position of weakness,” Mr Vaez told CNA’s World Tonight on Friday.
“But it wanted to do so without necessarily provoking more tensions with the US and Israel, that is why it chose targets in Iraq and Syria.”
Iran this week also fired missiles at what it claimed were Israeli targets in northern Iraq, and at targets linked to Islamic State in northern Syria.
‘A MISTAKE’ TO TARGET PAKISTAN
However, Iran “overreached and overreacted” in striking Pakistan, said Mr Vaez.
“Tehran has damaged its relationship with Pakistan, which shares a common interest in trying to fight back against these groups,” he explained.
“(The strike) was a mistake because it could potentially open up a new front against a nuclear-armed state.”
Mr Michael Singh, managing director and a Lane-Swig senior fellow at think-tank The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said: “The loser here is Iran, because Tehran has been able to attack (targets) in Iraq and Syria with impunity.
“But now, Pakistan has shown that Iran is willing to back down when retaliated against.”
WILL THE VIOLENCE ESCALATE?
All analysts CNA spoke to said there would likely not be any further major escalations between the two nations that could spill over to a wider conflict.
Both countries have insisted they were targeting separatists hiding in each other's territory, and not attacking their neighbour per se.
Observers said such phrasing of their actions means neither side has a desire to deepen the dispute, and both are invested in containing it.
“The intention of both Iran and Pakistan is not to escalate,” said Professor Greg Barton, chair of global Islamic politics at Deakin University’s Alfred Deakin Institute. “Pakistan was the unfortunate victim in a case of Iran showing itself to be still powerful.”
Mr Vaez said Iran's action in undermining Pakistan's sovereignty put Islamabad in an impossible situation but to respond in a similar fashion.
“If Pakistan had not retaliated in kind, they would lose face at home and they needed to draw a red line on their sovereignty,” he said. “But I sense no appetite from either Tehran or Islamabad for any further escalation.”
Dr James Dorsey, adjunct senior fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), told CNA’s Asia Now: “Neither Iran nor Pakistan wants a full-fledged conflict. Each side has had its tit-for-tat and there will be an attempt to calm this down.”
IS THERE A LINK TO THE WIDER MID-EAST CONFLICT?
Mr Singh said that although there are numerous flashpoints occurring at the same time in the Middle East, they are not part of a wider coordination.
“Each of these theatres – Gaza, northern Israel and the Lebanon border, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, even though all these things are happening at once … there is no sense that they have blended together or that this is one war,” he said.
“Much of this is opportunistic. For example, by the Houthis to try to boost their prestige and profile by pitching in while Hamas and Israel are fighting.”
However, he believes that Iran will continue to supply its proxies and escalate tensions in the wider Middle Eastern region without being dragged into direct confrontation with the US or Israel.
This is because Tehran continues to oppose normalisation of ties between its arch foe Saudi Arabia and Israel. Prolonged conflict in the region will delay or even prevent more talks from moving forward.
“The narrative in the Middle East has gone from discussions of Israel-Saudi normalisation to groups like Hamas and Houthis dominating headlines, and in a way dictating the pace of events in the region,” said Mr Singh, who is also a former senior director for middle east affairs at the US National Security Council.
“I think as long as Iran can help propel the violence, it will continue to do so,” he added.
“It’s then incumbent on the US, Israel and on the moderate Arab states to take what has happened and turn it into a strategic victory for their side to continue with the track of normalisation and regional integration that Hamas and Iran are trying to disrupt.”
