Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Kirill Semeno
[REGNUM] On January 18, Islamabad said its forces had launched "a series of well-coordinated and targeted precision military strikes" against Iran's southeastern Sistan and Baluchistan province in an operation called Marg Bar Sarmachar. This broadly translates to “death to the partisans.”
"Several" militants were killed during the operation, Pakistan's foreign ministry added.
Islamabad also noted that in recent years it has expressed concern to Tehran about “shelters and shelters” in Iran for Pakistani Baloch separatists, whom Pakistan calls “Sarmachar.” The Pakistani authorities, as they themselves claim, wanted the Iranian side to share data regarding the presence and activities of these militants.
“Sarmachar” refers to two groups, the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and the Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF), that are fighting for greater regional autonomy for Pakistani Balochistan, even to the point of granting it independence from Pakistan. At the same time, their militants often commit terrorist acts and kill journalists.
ISLAMABAD'S "MIRROR RESPONSE"
Pakistan's actions are a "mirror response" to Iran's attacks on Pakistani soil two days earlier.
On Tuesday evening, January 16, Iran's IRGC forces allegedly attacked the headquarters of the Jaysh al-Adl movement in Pakistan. This group conducts its anti-government activities in the province of Sistan and Baluchistan in Iran, seeking to transform this region into an independent Islamic emirate.
The Pakistani government strongly condemned Tehran's actions and said the strikes killed two children and wounded three others.
“ What is even more alarming is that this illegal act occurred despite the existence of multiple channels of communication between Pakistan and Iran, ” the Pakistan Foreign Ministry said. “ Pakistan has always said that terrorism is a common threat to all countries in the region, which requires coordinated action.”
The Pakistani Foreign Ministry recalled the ambassador from Iran, and Islamabad stated that it reserves the right to retaliate. And, as you can see, these measures did not take long to arrive.
In turn, Tehran has now expressed protest against Pakistan’s “anti-terrorist operation” on its own territory. According to the Iranian Tasnim agency, Pakistan's charge d'affaires in Tehran was summoned to the Iranian Foreign Ministry after a missile strike on the territory of the Islamic Republic.
“A Pakistani diplomat was summoned to the ministry in the absence of the ambassador (as the ambassador was recalled for consultations after the Iranian attacks) to give an explanation regarding several explosions in areas near the city of Serawan in the province of Sistan and Baluchistan that occurred earlier today,” the report said.
Thus, we can say that Tehran, with its great-power ambitions, has finally met with an equally ambitious regional player in the person of Islamabad, and at the same time possessing nuclear weapons.
Pakistan, unlike many neighboring countries that have suffered to one degree or another from Iran’s actions, did not wait to respond and was not afraid of a possible escalation.
Another question is that such Pakistani-Iranian disagreements can, if the parties wish, be resolved quickly enough, since both countries are China’s closest partners, with which they are closely connected not only economically, but also military-politically. Islamabad, however, is larger, Tehran somewhat smaller.
In general, it cannot be ruled out that Pakistan’s retaliatory actions were carried out under the control of Beijing and could even be coordinated with Tehran. But we will know about this only by how Iran ultimately responds to Pakistani attacks.
In addition, both Pakistan and Iran are members of the SCO and the Organization has a good reason to remind itself and its security dimension in the form of the SCO anti-terrorist center in Tashkent. The SCO could invite both countries to develop a certain algorithm for joint actions against terrorist and separatist Baloch groups that use the territories of Pakistan and Iran for attacks from both sides of the border.
HOT BALOCHISTAN
The territory of Baluchistan, a geographical region inhabited by the Baluchis, one of the Indo-European peoples, is divided between Pakistan and Iran. In these territories there are various groups seeking independence from Islamabad and Tehran, respectively. Moreover, these movements are often sponsored by external forces.
Thus, Iran previously, before normalizing relations with Riyadh, accused Saudi Arabia of supporting Sunni jihadist groups present in the Iranian province of Sistan and Baluchestan.
At the moment, a whole mosaic of various Sunni formations is still active there. Most of them arose from the foundations of the leading rebel faction of Iranian Balochistan, Jundallah, which was never able to recover from the defeat in 2010-2011.
It should be noted that the leader of Jundallah himself, Abdulmalik Rigi, rejected accusations that Jundallah is a radical Salafi organization.
| “We’re not radical,” he said. “We’re correct. It’s just that everyone else is lax or straight-up heretical. Dunno why they all call us taqfiris.” |
Its closest analogue before the split was the Afghan Taliban (a terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation), which adheres to Hanafi jurisprudence and Maturidi theology, traditional for the region.
Nowadays, Jaysh al-Adl, close to Jundallah and founded by its former members, is among the most active Sunni jihadist groups in Iranian Balochistan.
There are also other anti-government groups operating in Iranian Balochistan. Such as “Harakat Ansar al Iran”, renamed “Harakat al Ansar” - also a “splinter” of “Jundallah”, part of which merged with another independent Islamist Baloch faction “Hizb al Furqan” into a new structure - “Ansar al Furqan”. However, the activity of this group began to decline after the death of its leader Hisham Azizi in 2015.
| It’s been a while since we used the Toad the Wet Sprocket analogy. |
In turn, secular nationalist groups of Baloch separatists with a left-wing Marxist bias, such as the Balochistan Liberation Front and the Baluchistan Liberation Army, are active in Pakistan. They also, according to the Pakistani authorities, enjoy the protection of external forces, primarily India.
During their first stage of activity in the 70s of the last century, they fought not only against Pakistan, but also against Iran. And only in the 2000s did they completely refocus on the confrontation with Islamabad. It is likely that the FOB and AOB were able to maintain their secret bases on Iranian territory, ceasing the fight with Tehran, so as not to further irritate the Iranian authorities.
On the other hand, it is obvious that the attacks on the secret cells of Jaysh al-Adl by Iran were largely in the nature of a PR campaign and were not aimed at suppressing terrorist activity.
They were supposed to demonstrate that Iran has become a full-fledged regional power that is capable of suppressing any threats in neighboring states. And thereby putting it on a par with the United States or Israel, which also act against any hostile forces outside their territory.
ECHO OF GAZA
But in any case, it should be borne in mind that the current Iran-Pakistan escalation is associated with Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip.
| “Doze Juices made us do it!” |
The events of October 7 thus became a trigger for regional escalation, which is already extending beyond the Middle East.
It is unlikely that Iran would launch strikes on the territory of Pakistan, where, according to Tehran, Jaish al-Adl terrorists are hiding, if it were not for the need to respond to the actions of the United States and Israel, which killed IRGC officers in Damascus and the leaders of pro-Iranian militias in Iraq.
| So they killed a couple of Pakistani tribals? How does that punish The Two Satans? |
Also, according to Iran, they directed the actions of the terrorist group ISIS (banned in the Russian Federation) during the terrorist attack in Kerman. All this was a consequence of growing tensions between Iran, on the one hand, and the United States and Israel, on the other, due to the events in Gaza.
But against this background, Iran had to somehow demonstrate its readiness to suppress threats from another direction, namely from Pakistani Baluchistan, from where jihadist militants infiltrated into the country and committed terrorist attacks. In this case, an Iranian strike on “friendly” Iraq while ignoring the response in the direction of Pakistan could cause even greater misunderstanding in Baghdad.
| It must be really interesting inside their heads... |
Iraq, despite its close ties with the Islamic Republic, filed a complaint against the actions of its neighbor to the UN Security Council.
| Client kitten bares claws? |
However, it is unlikely that Iran's actions will lead to anything more serious. Of course, tensions in the region will increase, but Tehran’s actions themselves are more likely aimed at the domestic Iranian audience. It should have no doubt that the Islamic Republic is ready to destroy its opponents along the perimeter of the country's borders and is not afraid to do this by striking American and Israeli targets.
| Did they find their targets by tracking the spy squirrels? |
Another question is, are the places where the Iranian missiles fell really the CIA and Mossad bases from where attacks on Iran were coordinated, or were they simply declared so by the IRGC itself?
| To ask the question is to answer it. |
The same applies to Jaysh al-Adl cells in Pakistan.
The bottom line is that the result of the Iranian attacks on Iraq was the murder of the Kurdish tycoon Peshrav Zeya, who, if the Iranians are to be believed again, was a Mossad agent, but it is not possible to verify or refute this.
Thus, Tehran’s algorithm of actions is as follows:
First, blame the terrorist attack in Kerman on the United States and Israel, which allegedly manage and direct ISIS terrorists. Then take revenge for this terrorist attack by targeting some CIA and Mossad bases in Iraq, which, by the way, neither the United States nor Israel consider their targets. Iran itself declared them as such, and therefore the United States will not take retaliatory actions. Which is exactly what Tehran needed.
All this fits well within the framework of a resonant response that would not lead to a regional war that Iran does not need.
At the same time, the initial story about the alleged complete destruction of the American consulate in Erbil as a result of an Iranian strike with the corresponding footage was most likely made deliberately. For many in the Middle East, this fake story began to take on a life of its own as evidence that it is not only the Houthis who are capable of challenging the United States.
| Even though the destruction never happened, those perfidious Yanks being entirely too facile with their anti-drone technology. But reality is not really a factor in that part of the world, poor darlings. |
Resonance was all Tehran needed in this situation.
But it is obvious that in the case of Pakistan, Iran did not calculate the reaction. Pakistan has never been afraid to escalate with the much stronger India, and certainly will not retreat in front of Iran.
But at the same time, Tehran itself is by no means eager to enter into confrontation with Islamabad, opening up another front for itself. Therefore, the question is whether Iran will be able not to “follow the principle” and not respond with blows to blows, taking the escalation to a new level.
| Interesting times. Especially for the Mad Mullahs, who aren’t getting any of the wars they want. |
|
