11 months ago
76 ARTICLE AD
Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan and Iran have agreed to de-escalate tensions after tit-for-tat military strikes on each other’s territory this week, but the episode reveals a lack of trust between the neighbours that will continue to plague relations even after the missiles and accusations have subsided, say analysts.
On Friday evening Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Jalil Abbas Jilani spoke to his Iranian counterpart Hossein Amirabdollahian. “The two foreign ministers agreed that working level cooperation and close coordination on counter terrorism and other aspects of mutual concern should be strengthened. They also agreed to de-escalate the situation,” a Pakistan foreign ministry statement read.
Late on Tuesday, Iran had conducted missile and drone strikes in Pakistan’s Balochistan province, killing at least two children and injuring three. Tehran said the rare border intrusion targeted Jaish al-Adl, a Sunni Muslim armed group accused of attacks inside the Iranian territory of Sistan-Baluchestan.
In fewer than 48 hours, Pakistan responded with “precise” military strikes that killed at least nine people, including four children and three women. Iranian media reports, quoting state officials, said those killed were “non-Iranians”, implying they could have been Pakistani nationals.
The rare military actions between the two countries threatened to escalate into a broader conflict in a region already on edge over Israel’s more than three-month war in the Gaza Strip.
Pakistani caretaker Prime Minister Anwaar-ul-Haq Kakar cut short his visit to Davos, Switzerland, where he was attending the World Economic Forum. On Friday, he chaired a meeting of the National Security Council to review the security situation.
As the United Nations and world powers urged restraint between the two Muslim-majority countries and their close ally China offered to mediate, Islamabad and Tehran toned down their rhetoric.
In a statement on Friday, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs referred to “the friendly and brotherly government of Pakistan”. A similar statement by Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Thursday said Islamabad “fully respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran”.
But embedded even in those reconciliatory statements were signs of the border tensions that linger between the neighbours, and that exploded in the form of missile attacks this week.
Iran’s Friday statement said that it expected Pakistan “to adhere to its obligations in preventing the establishment of bases and the deployment of armed terrorist groups on its soil”, calling the safety of its citizens “a red line”. And Pakistan insisted it had struck targets in Iran “in pursuit of Pakistan’s own security and national interest which is paramount and cannot be compromised”.
(Al Jazeera)
‘Reckless and feckless’
Analysts have questioned Iran’s motive behind conducting strikes inside Pakistan during Israel’s assault on Gaza, which has also involved Iranian allies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.
Joshua White, professor of international affairs and a non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank in the United States, told Al Jazeera that Iran and Pakistan have ample reasons to de-escalate after the “unusual strikes”.
“The reality is that both the governments deploy rhetoric about brotherhood when it suits them but are often suspicious of the other’s motives. This is a low-trust relationship, but neither Islamabad nor Tehran have much to gain from seeing tensions escalate,” he said.
Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, added that the Iranian move against Pakistan risked opening a new front against a nuclear-armed neighbour.
“The strike was both reckless and feckless against a nuclear state on whose cooperation Iran depends for reigning in armed Baloch groups – and a deadly message sent to the wrong address – as most of the setbacks Iran has suffered in the past few weeks were perpetrated at the hands of Israel, the US and the so-called Islamic State [ISIL/ISIS],” Vaez told Al Jazeera.
Islamabad-based expert on security issues Syed Rifaat Hussain said dialogue was necessary for the two countries to restore trust.
“The conversations need to happen between the two nations, and they could be at either the military level or at civilian level, but leadership will play an important role in defusing the tension,” he told Al Jazeera.
Hussain said the unprovoked Iranian strike remains a mystery to him.
“The Iranian calculus is rather complex. Perhaps Iran overplayed its hand. They thought Pakistan will absorb the strike and will show restraint, or at most, a verbal protest,” he said.
Vaez concurred, saying Iran “overreached” in its apparent need to demonstrate strength.
“It left Pakistan in a position where it had no option other than retaliating in kind to draw a red line on unilateral Iranian strikes into its sovereign territory,” he said.
Vaez wondered if Iran’s decision to strike was guided by an “internal pressure on the need to flex its military muscle to deter further targeted killings of its senior army commanders and strikes against its allies in the region”.
“Plus, the Iranian government also seems keen to wag the dog, given that it has parliamentary elections coming up in six weeks amid a high degree of political apathy,” he told Al Jazeera.
White said it is unlikely that the Pakistan-Iran tensions will feature significantly in US policy towards the two countries.
“I don’t think this episode will alter the US attitude towards Iran or is likely to meaningfully change Washington’s engagement with Islamabad, either. American officials have long seen Iran-Pakistan tensions in the Balochistan region as a complex but localised conflict,” he said.
Vaez said neither Iran nor Pakistan appear interested in escalating tensions but added a word of caution considering the volatility in the region:
“This is not likely to escalate beyond a limited tit for tat, but it is a reminder of the elevated risks of miscalculation in the fog of the Gaza war that can spread and escalate the conflict further.”
