Breaking News Iran strikes Pakistani territory; Pakistan Counter Strikes; Operation Marg Bar Sarmachar

Kartal1

Experienced member
Lead Moderator
Messages
4,782
Reactions
86 17,837
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
The IRGC linked Telegram group "Tasnim claims that Iran destroyed Jaish ul-Adl targets on Pakistani territory, targeting them with ballistic missiles and drones.

Jaish ul-Adl is a Sunni terrorist organization responsible for multiple attacks including suicide bombings against Iran. While it is originally separatist (Baloch) in nature, it is thought that they are in coalition to other Sunni terrorist organization including ISIS-K in order to inflict casualties on Iran and reach their goals.

This is a developing situation and we will try to cover it.


Any Pakistani input to the thread is welcome!
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,777
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Oh boy...If Pakistanis didn't immediately strike back the way they did in Swift retort it will only embolden Iran who now probably think they're the kingmaker in the middle east
 

Scott Summers

Well-known member
Messages
308
Reactions
2 527
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Something is wrong here.

Striking 3 countries in one day: Syria, Iraq, Pakistan.

Maybe Israel failed to provoke a Third World War.

So the US gave now the mission to Iran to start it.

The Three Musqeteers: USA, Israel, Iran.

They live all three by the glory of eachother.
 

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,442
Reactions
11 9,062
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
They will claim that those kids were little Mossad-spies organizing Punjabi-support to Israel.

i was thinking to mention they will probably claim its a mossad spy base. plenty of mossad bases in isreal, not one will be touched by iran.

if you ignore what iran says and only pay attention to what they do, you would have to conclude that they are as just as much an enemy to muslims in the middle then isreal is, maybe worse.
 

Rooxbar

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
505
Reactions
43 1,576
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
I mean if Pakistan doesn't respond this emboldens this rogue country to just throw rockets willy nilly wherever it wants.
 

Scott Summers

Well-known member
Messages
308
Reactions
2 527
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
i was thinking to mention they will probably claim its a mossad spy base. plenty of mossad bases in isreal, not one will be touched by iran.

if you ignore what iran says and only pay attention to what they do, you would have to conclude that they are as just as much an enemy to muslims in the middle that isreal is, maybe worse.

Agree.

1978: Musa Al-Sadr, leader of Amal and the greatest rival of Khomeini, disapeared in Lebanon.
1979: The Sjah of Iran, friendly with every sunni nation in the MENA region, getting replaced by the agressive Ayatollah Khomeini.
1979-1989: In the Soviet-Afghan War, Iran frustrated a united mujahedeen front by only supporting Shia mujahedeens (the Hazara's) and that only in a limited way.
1980-1989: Iran kills millions of Iraqis during the First Gulf War.
1982: The US provides Iran with information that the Communist Tudeh Party is planning a coup against the Mullah-regime. This resulted in the shutdown of Tudeh and mass-executions of their members.
1983: Amal, succesfull against Israel and US in the Lebanese Civil War but not under Iranian influence, getting sidelined and checkmated by Hezbollah.
1984: Hezbollah releases only US and Israeli hostages during the Lebanon Civil War.
1985: Israel supports Iran with American weapons (direct purchase).
1988: Iranian Airforce uses chemical weapons against the Kurds of Halabja, but covers it as a Iraqi attack with CIA-support.
1990: Iran supports Armenia against Azerbaijan during the Karabach War.
2003: Iran opens her airspace for the USA in the war against Iraq.
2012: Iran uses her militias to kill civillians and supports Assad during the Syrian Civil War.

And many more things what i have forgot.
 
Last edited:

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,442
Reactions
11 9,062
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Agree.

1978: Musa Al-Sadr, leader of Amal and the greatest rival of Khomeini, disapeared in Lebanon.
1979: The Sjah of Iran, friendly with every sunni nation in the MENA region, getting replaced by the agressive Ayatollah Khomeini.
1979-1989: In the Soviet-Afghan War, Iran frustrated a united mujahedeen front by only supporting Shia mujahedeens (the Hazara's) and that only in a limited way.
1980-1989: Iran kills millions of Iraqis during the First Gulf War.
1982: The US provides Iran with information that the Communist Tudeh Party is planning a coup against the Mullah-regime. This resulted in the shutdown of Tudeh and mass-executions of their members.
1983: Amal, succesfull against Israel and US in the Lebanese Civil War but not under Iranian influence, getting sidelined and checkmated by Hezbollah.
1984: Hezbollah releases only US and Israeli hostages during the Lebanon Civil War.
1985: Israel supports Iran with American weapons (direct purchase).
1988: Iranian Airforce uses chemical weapons against the Kurds of Halabja, but covers it as a Iraqi attack with CIA-support.
1990: Iran supports Armenia against Azerbaijan during the Karabach War.
2003: Iran opens her airspace for the USA in the war against Iraq.
2012: Iran uses her militias to kill civillians and supports Assad during the Syrian Civil War.

And many more things what i have forgot.

Unfortunately it seems to easy for western intelligence agencies to conquer nations. They dont need to send their army, they just take over from within. In Turkey FETO and Gulen was an example of how the entire country was infiltrated by american backed/owned islamists.

They waved the book, talked religion non-stop but everything geopolitically they were doing was harming Turkey and by extension Muslims and by further extension the Muslim ummah. Then once they fell out with their golden child AK party their members openly revealed their hatred and hostility of everything Turkish.

How many millions in Turkey were fooled by these islamist charlatans i will never know, but millions no doubts were. They by no means are the only charlateans operating within Turkey, but maybe they were the most dangerous and insidious.

Its incredible the number of plots and geopolitical games being played on Turkey is extensive. Few nations on earth seem to have so many enemies working against her.
 

mehmed beg

Committed member
Messages
282
Reactions
331
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Bosnia & Herzegovina
It is enough to read Rafida descriptions of so called Mahdi, to know what really they are.
Basically , it is description of Dajjal.
Completely the same view as the Evangelical Christians and majority of the Jews. A Jewish origin cult.
 

Jackdaws

Experienced member
Messages
2,759
Reactions
1 1,583
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Interesting. Pakistan has a domestic audience to please but given it in economic doldrums - any action will only be for show. India, Afghanistan and Iran - three nations bordering Pak and all hate their guts. Not a place to be
in
 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
101 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
The IRGC linked Telegram group "Tasnim claims that Iran destroyed Jaish ul-Adl targets on Pakistani territory, targeting them with ballistic missiles and drones.

Jaish ul-Adl is a Sunni terrorist organization responsible for multiple attacks including suicide bombings against Iran. While it is originally separatist (Baloch) in nature, it is thought that they are in coalition to other Sunni terrorist organization including ISIS-K in order to inflict casualties on Iran and reach their goals.

This is a developing situation and we will try to cover it.


Any Pakistani input to the thread is welcome!

Oh boy...If Pakistanis didn't immediately strike back the way they did in Swift retort it will only embolden Iran who now probably think they're the kingmaker in the middle east

I mean if Pakistan doesn't respond this emboldens this rogue country to just throw rockets willy nilly wherever it wants.
Ok.. The Strike happened at Panjgur. IRGC targeted what it claimed to be bases of Jaish ul Adl which is a sunni militant organization formed by members from Jandullah, which is another militant organization. They have ranged views from Baluch independence to sunni rights movement which is often how these organizations function. The IRGC claim of targeting strongholds hold little water and even if we take on face value that they did target militants then it be residence of these militants. The destroyed structure is also evidence of this fact as well as the reports of death of children.

Relations between the two countries, post revolution, have been cold and its only recently that Pakistan and Iran have undertaken several Confidence Building Measures however on ground the situation has been boiling especially after Kulbushan incident. Pakistan and iran have taken harder stances against each other and there have been incidents where both sides have fired upon each other. Both sides have repeatedly heralded complaints that the other side has done enough to secure growing militant activities on their side of the border as individuals cross the border through many passes and mountain paths to escape sanitation. The vast barren lands dont help in this regard however despite the distrust among the pakistani people in regards to Iran, minus the Shia population in Pakistan, most of Pakistan leadership has not seen Iran as a military threat, not based on capabilities but on relations, and has largely focused its military strength on the East and norther western areas and even those focus more on the east than the west. However i know of individuals within the army who are very open for a more aggressive approach towards the western border for both Iran and Afghanistan.

Since the formation of the ANF, Afghan government struggled to control the ANA, the national afghan army, and many of these individuals were warlords with titles of generals and private armies who wore the uniform of ANA but served their local general. Many of these generals, with extensive funding from the US, took a very belligerent approach against Pakistan. There would be firing, there would be artillery attacks, terrorists organizations were given military protection and bases. Pakistan actually had to do pure commando based intelligence operations in Kandahar to attack these training camps of BLF and BLA organizations. Situation was this bad. Those individuals within the army that favoured a more light approach with the Afghan authorities and Afghan border started to lose their voice and the individuals who favoured extremely harsh actions started to gain voice. This included cross border raids, supporting of groups, targeted responses to generals, intelligence sharing with the Taliban but most importantly and perhaps regionally, a massive shift being securing the western border at all costs. This included building of multiple forts, check posts, the border fence, response squads, increasing the number of Frontier Corp KPK, outfitting them with equipment and FATA merger which was very supported by those individuals in the Military. By the end of it, it was a common gripe by the Afghan locals that Pakistani helicopters or jeeps come in and abduct individuals across the border where they were hiding terrorists. Plus in addition to military security, many supported an end to both refugees within the country as well as free passage across border to this extent that the thought now is that if they dont like it, close the damn thing but there will be a hardline. The taliban state that Pakistan is taking a very hard line and its not something new. Its because there have been so many incidents that amongst the power circles, those that wanted a more porous or open or brotherly border with Afghanistan no longer have a say. Infact of many of these individuals, back when Musharraf was in power, believed that if Pakistan took a hardline view then it would no longer need to get Durand Line recognized and could simply cement it militarily. Recognition would be just a formality then. The hawks have secured their say and its due to the growing incidents that added to the issue. I wrote in detail about the Afghan Army composition and how Pakistan dealt with Pak-Afghan Clashes in this post

So why did i write the aforementioned paragraph? Because it is an example of how states function. Now lets take this lens and come back to Iran. Pakistan and Iran have growing incidents with each other and many of them are covert. Whenever Iran acted, Pakistan reacted and vice versa but what was common is that it was covert which allowed saner heads to prevail which is why despite growing incidents in the last 6 years, CBMs have actively grown to such an extent that Pakistan has steered clear of the entire Houthi affair and one of the reasons provided was that they did not wish to sour their relations with Iran. This has allowed saner heads to often prevail because the mindset of the command is that covert retaliation has happened on Iran supported terror groups so there is no more need to think further. Then there are individuals who actively believe that Pakistan should increase security on all their insecure borders and have a more active response including growth of FC baluchistan, posts and stations, more secure fencing and actively supporting intelligence operations against iran including intelligence sharing with the Gulf and US nations. When you have a large structure, you have variant individuals with thoughts. The bureaucracy of all professional military are like that. You have one individual who believes one thing and then you have one that believes in another but what happens when incidents grow? when one set of voices have evidence that their voice makes sense and is the need of the hour. The same thing that happened at the Afghan Border. Now what Iran could have done is after those attacks, engaged Pakistan diplomatically and looked to reduce the impact of the issue, most likely, Pakistan would have conducted an attack on BLA camp and both sides would have let saner heads take over but that is not what Iran did. They advertised it and placed Pakistan in an uncomfortable position. There were multiple occasions where Afghanistan did something similar. The advertised incident was when our soldiers were taking Census at a village near the border of Torkham and the ANA struck them. They killed 2 FC men there if i remember correctly and took the APC as prize. I remember it was very much advertised and the APC and equipment gifted as "Punjabi Guns". Pakistan retaliated covertly but these incidents became a trigger point in shift in Afghan Policy and then there was the Torkham gate issue as well. The point is that when you advertise such events for personal gains as is being done with the IRGC then you dont just place the country in a difficult position. You embolden individuals within the country who are actively supporting a hardline with you and then it may come to a situation where you have a neighbor who wont just ignore you or take a hardline approach but actively work against you.

So what is happening in Pakistan? Well the population wants retaliation and a distrusting population with a growing hardliners within the command may bring a change to the Iranian policy which has been lenient, not just in terms of military confrontation but in terms of intelligence networks as well. So lets get something straight. Military retaliation against IRGC base is counter-productive and would only destabilise the situation especially when Pakistan had never seen Iran as a military threat so it has barely any infrastructure in place to accommodate military to military engagement. We had a similar problem with Afghanistan despite the fact that Pakistan had many military installations in North Western areas of Pakistan but they were largely India-oriented. Post 2010, we started building and building and now we have military installations that can really help any military to military engagement at a small scale with Afghanistan. It is important to note that there is a difference between military to military engagement and COIN operations. It would be a unpopular opinion but Military strike or air strike or missile strike would be a bad call right now especially considering the fact that Pakistan has very little diplomatic coin. Lets face it, Pakistan is not Israel which amassed a vast diplomatic wealth and is now squandering it in Gaza. An emotional response would be counter-productive and a cooler mind would be the need of the hour. So what Pakistan would and should do is most likely conduct COIN in sistan against terror camps there and may advertise it or they may not which in my opinion, they should but they wont but what would happen is this. The hawks that have been speaking for harsher tactics against Iran since the rise of Baluch insurgency in Baluchistan just got a very good example of why a more militarized Iranian border is in the interest of Pakistan. What will most likely happen after these incidents is that Pakistan will look to reshape its Iranian policy with a more militarized border, active support to sunni insurgents as well as intelligence operations against Shia militant groups within Pakistan who work at the behest of Iranian intelligence as well as support to Taliban against Iranian activities. More active intelligence sharing with the Gulf Nations and Western intelligence and more bellicose approach towards Iranian government and military.

Irfan Baloch, a military veteran who had served in Baluchistan and was active on PDF, often spoke how there were individuals who want Pakistan to take a hardliner stance and it would be a bad situation for both Pakistan and Iran and he actively spoke that both sides need to focus on CBMs. He was the rational voice there and had served on ground to understand the situation on both iranian border and afghan border. He was vehemently against the ANA which witnessed larger composition of the previous Northern Alliance and would actively state that the interests of Pakistan lie with Pashtuns and the Taliban and was against the continued hardline approach that Pakistan took even after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban. Whether he was right or wrong, he witnessed the growing hawks for both borders and incidents like these would only add fuel to the fire. So yes, a sanctioned IRGC which is under severe pressure and wants public perception attacked its three neighbors and may even get that public perception but Pakistan is no Iraq or Syria and not because of what its military capabilities but because of what it can do. I see that in 7-10 years, we would witness a very militarized border with Iran because for sometime the hardliners and the population have been demanding stricter action and these events would be the trigger points. I see more induction into FC Baluchistan southern chapter.
As for my brethren who i am sure frothing in the mouth largely due to their issues with how Imran is being handled, they were frothing before as well and Pakistan handled the Afghan Border. Back then the frothers wanted to see dead bodies. Jeez.

As for our eastern neighbors getting ideas concept. They had ideas before and we fought them. They dont incidents like these to have ideas and we dont need to worry about incidents like these to be a trigger for ideas.

Lastly Iran should actively pursue diplomatic control with Pakistan. Pakistan is engaging in diplomacy so it should be reciprocated doubly and the situation deescalated otherwise what i predict and what Irfan baloch feared will happen.
 

Kartal1

Experienced member
Lead Moderator
Messages
4,782
Reactions
86 17,837
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
Ok.. The Strike happened at Panjgur. IRGC targeted what it claimed to be bases of Jaish ul Adl which is a sunni militant organization formed by members from Jandullah, which is another militant organization. They have ranged views from Baluch independence to sunni rights movement which is often how these organizations function. The IRGC claim of targeting strongholds hold little water and even if we take on face value that they did target militants then it be residence of these militants. The destroyed structure is also evidence of this fact as well as the reports of death of children.

Relations between the two countries, post revolution, have been cold and its only recently that Pakistan and Iran have undertaken several Confidence Building Measures however on ground the situation has been boiling especially after Kulbushan incident. Pakistan and iran have taken harder stances against each other and there have been incidents where both sides have fired upon each other. Both sides have repeatedly heralded complaints that the other side has done enough to secure growing militant activities on their side of the border as individuals cross the border through many passes and mountain paths to escape sanitation. The vast barren lands dont help in this regard however despite the distrust among the pakistani people in regards to Iran, minus the Shia population in Pakistan, most of Pakistan leadership has not seen Iran as a military threat, not based on capabilities but on relations, and has largely focused its military strength on the East and norther western areas and even those focus more on the east than the west. However i know of individuals within the army who are very open for a more aggressive approach towards the western border for both Iran and Afghanistan.

Since the formation of the ANF, Afghan government struggled to control the ANA, the national afghan army, and many of these individuals were warlords with titles of generals and private armies who wore the uniform of ANA but served their local general. Many of these generals, with extensive funding from the US, took a very belligerent approach against Pakistan. There would be firing, there would be artillery attacks, terrorists organizations were given military protection and bases. Pakistan actually had to do pure commando based intelligence operations in Kandahar to attack these training camps of BLF and BLA organizations. Situation was this bad. Those individuals within the army that favoured a more light approach with the Afghan authorities and Afghan border started to lose their voice and the individuals who favoured extremely harsh actions started to gain voice. This included cross border raids, supporting of groups, targeted responses to generals, intelligence sharing with the Taliban but most importantly and perhaps regionally, a massive shift being securing the western border at all costs. This included building of multiple forts, check posts, the border fence, response squads, increasing the number of Frontier Corp KPK, outfitting them with equipment and FATA merger which was very supported by those individuals in the Military. By the end of it, it was a common gripe by the Afghan locals that Pakistani helicopters or jeeps come in and abduct individuals across the border where they were hiding terrorists. Plus in addition to military security, many supported an end to both refugees within the country as well as free passage across border to this extent that the thought now is that if they dont like it, close the damn thing but there will be a hardline. The taliban state that Pakistan is taking a very hard line and its not something new. Its because there have been so many incidents that amongst the power circles, those that wanted a more porous or open or brotherly border with Afghanistan no longer have a say. Infact of many of these individuals, back when Musharraf was in power, believed that if Pakistan took a hardline view then it would no longer need to get Durand Line recognized and could simply cement it militarily. Recognition would be just a formality then. The hawks have secured their say and its due to the growing incidents that added to the issue. I wrote in detail about the Afghan Army composition and how Pakistan dealt with Pak-Afghan Clashes in this post

So why did i write the aforementioned paragraph? Because it is an example of how states function. Now lets take this lens and come back to Iran. Pakistan and Iran have growing incidents with each other and many of them are covert. Whenever Iran acted, Pakistan reacted and vice versa but what was common is that it was covert which allowed saner heads to prevail which is why despite growing incidents in the last 6 years, CBMs have actively grown to such an extent that Pakistan has steered clear of the entire Houthi affair and one of the reasons provided was that they did not wish to sour their relations with Iran. This has allowed saner heads to often prevail because the mindset of the command is that covert retaliation has happened on Iran supported terror groups so there is no more need to think further. Then there are individuals who actively believe that Pakistan should increase security on all their insecure borders and have a more active response including growth of FC baluchistan, posts and stations, more secure fencing and actively supporting intelligence operations against iran including intelligence sharing with the Gulf and US nations. When you have a large structure, you have variant individuals with thoughts. The bureaucracy of all professional military are like that. You have one individual who believes one thing and then you have one that believes in another but what happens when incidents grow? when one set of voices have evidence that their voice makes sense and is the need of the hour. The same thing that happened at the Afghan Border. Now what Iran could have done is after those attacks, engaged Pakistan diplomatically and looked to reduce the impact of the issue, most likely, Pakistan would have conducted an attack on BLA camp and both sides would have let saner heads take over but that is not what Iran did. They advertised it and placed Pakistan in an uncomfortable position. There were multiple occasions where Afghanistan did something similar. The advertised incident was when our soldiers were taking Census at a village near the border of Torkham and the ANA struck them. They killed 2 FC men there if i remember correctly and took the APC as prize. I remember it was very much advertised and the APC and equipment gifted as "Punjabi Guns". Pakistan retaliated covertly but these incidents became a trigger point in shift in Afghan Policy and then there was the Torkham gate issue as well. The point is that when you advertise such events for personal gains as is being done with the IRGC then you dont just place the country in a difficult position. You embolden individuals within the country who are actively supporting a hardline with you and then it may come to a situation where you have a neighbor who wont just ignore you or take a hardline approach but actively work against you.

So what is happening in Pakistan? Well the population wants retaliation and a distrusting population with a growing hardliners within the command may bring a change to the Iranian policy which has been lenient, not just in terms of military confrontation but in terms of intelligence networks as well. So lets get something straight. Military retaliation against IRGC base is counter-productive and would only destabilise the situation especially when Pakistan had never seen Iran as a military threat so it has barely any infrastructure in place to accommodate military to military engagement. We had a similar problem with Afghanistan despite the fact that Pakistan had many military installations in North Western areas of Pakistan but they were largely India-oriented. Post 2010, we started building and building and now we have military installations that can really help any military to military engagement at a small scale with Afghanistan. It is important to note that there is a difference between military to military engagement and COIN operations. It would be a unpopular opinion but Military strike or air strike or missile strike would be a bad call right now especially considering the fact that Pakistan has very little diplomatic coin. Lets face it, Pakistan is not Israel which amassed a vast diplomatic wealth and is now squandering it in Gaza. An emotional response would be counter-productive and a cooler mind would be the need of the hour. So what Pakistan would and should do is most likely conduct COIN in sistan against terror camps there and may advertise it or they may not which in my opinion, they should but they wont but what would happen is this. The hawks that have been speaking for harsher tactics against Iran since the rise of Baluch insurgency in Baluchistan just got a very good example of why a more militarized Iranian border is in the interest of Pakistan. What will most likely happen after these incidents is that Pakistan will look to reshape its Iranian policy with a more militarized border, active support to sunni insurgents as well as intelligence operations against Shia militant groups within Pakistan who work at the behest of Iranian intelligence as well as support to Taliban against Iranian activities. More active intelligence sharing with the Gulf Nations and Western intelligence and more bellicose approach towards Iranian government and military.

Irfan Baloch, a military veteran who had served in Baluchistan and was active on PDF, often spoke how there were individuals who want Pakistan to take a hardliner stance and it would be a bad situation for both Pakistan and Iran and he actively spoke that both sides need to focus on CBMs. He was the rational voice there and had served on ground to understand the situation on both iranian border and afghan border. He was vehemently against the ANA which witnessed larger composition of the previous Northern Alliance and would actively state that the interests of Pakistan lie with Pashtuns and the Taliban and was against the continued hardline approach that Pakistan took even after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban. Whether he was right or wrong, he witnessed the growing hawks for both borders and incidents like these would only add fuel to the fire. So yes, a sanctioned IRGC which is under severe pressure and wants public perception attacked its three neighbors and may even get that public perception but Pakistan is no Iraq or Syria and not because of what its military capabilities but because of what it can do. I see that in 7-10 years, we would witness a very militarized border with Iran because for sometime the hardliners and the population have been demanding stricter action and these events would be the trigger points. I see more induction into FC Baluchistan southern chapter.
As for my brethren who i am sure frothing in the mouth largely due to their issues with how Imran is being handled, they were frothing before as well and Pakistan handled the Afghan Border. Back then the frothers wanted to see dead bodies. Jeez.

As for our eastern neighbors getting ideas concept. They had ideas before and we fought them. They dont incidents like these to have ideas and we dont need to worry about incidents like these to be a trigger for ideas.

Lastly Iran should actively pursue diplomatic control with Pakistan. Pakistan is engaging in diplomacy so it should be reciprocated doubly and the situation deescalated otherwise what i predict and what Irfan baloch feared will happen.
What is the problem exactly with the militant activity on both sides of the fence? Is it an initiative (to turn a blind eye) from both of the countries to destabilize each other or there is a lack of military will to fight it? Did Iran and Pakistan formed a joint mechanism regarding militant activity endangering the security of both countries?
 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
101 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
What is the problem exactly with the militant activity on both sides of the fence? Is it an initiative (to turn a blind eye) from both of the countries to destabilize each other or there is a lack of military will to fight it? Did Iran and Pakistan formed a joint mechanism regarding militant activity endangering the security of both countries?
We did form a joint mechanism and conducted operations together as well. There are two major issues with many minor issues. One major issue is that the region is sparsely populated with rigid mountains and barren areas. Washuk, chaghai and Panjgur alone account for nearly 100K territory and i am not adding Makran here. Sistan province of Iran is the same with nearly 180K territory that is the same geography. this makes securing the area for both sides very difficult. Modern technology has made things easier but defeating geography is never easy. Now these vast lands on both sides of the border are home to smuggler dens, human trafficking dens and terror camps. There are hilly terrains that go across the border sides with cave networks that can take an Afghan into both Pakistan and Iran or vice versa for all sides. One issue is geography which is why ambushes are very common for both sides and these networks allowed the Mujahidden to deal blows to USSR and later USA in Kandahar and Helmand. Kandahar was a nightmare for all sides. Geography plays an active role in the security of these areas and their light population centers dont help. Active population centers provide you settled bases, road networks and intelligence activities to target militants like regions in FATA and Western KPK or Interior Sindh. Militant activities in Interior Sindh struggle to make a mark because of the geography and population factor.
To combat this issue, both sides not only conducted joint ops but active joint patrolling.
Then we have second issue. The groups that are active, smugglers, human taffickers and insurgent groups are very complicated and have intelligence activities with the military of respective countries. For example lets say you are commander of the region and have been handed a dossier by the Pakistani counterpart that points to an active insurgent lets say Nazar Baloch. Now nazar baloch has conducted multiple attacks on Pakistan army but he is a key intelligence asset for you, the commander of the iranian military deployed. He not only engaged in attacks on the sunni separatist groups but also provides intelligence on their movements. He has done little against your army and his asset value far outstrips his terror threat. Would you dispose of this asset? Ofcourse not. Who cares if he mounts attacks against Pakistan because neutralising him blinds you and would make you an unnecessary enemy. Vice versa this with pakistan. The smugglers are so well equipped that it would take a military operation to conduct a raid against them and they are in Iran and Pakistan. Diesel comes from Iran to Pakistan and many weapons go through Afghanistan to iran or pakistan. These are active operations. Human traffickers pay bribes to both sides and walk away... So the complication with groups is that there are benefits for both sides and these groups operate in this manner. Before Raziq made Kandahar Baluch insurgency central, the insurgency had a very strong base in iran and when taliban were capturing Kandahar, those groups found refuge in sistan. Iran has issues with jandullah because jandullah not only attacks BLA, BLF, BNM and many other organizations but are active in fight against shia militancy. The situation is very complicated and it isnt as much lack of military will on both sides but rather a chasm of distrust. Intelligence sharing has happened but these things take time and when you have states with siege mentality, time is not a luxury. Another factor is that many of these groups have affiliations with local tribes so killing them means the tribe is now on your neck. both sides of the border. Militants that are threat to both sides are killed and many members of Jandullah and BLA have been killed in joint operations but those that are considered as assets or have local links by both sides, that is where the problem comes in. These limitations will remain
 

Kartal1

Experienced member
Lead Moderator
Messages
4,782
Reactions
86 17,837
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
We did form a joint mechanism and conducted operations together as well. There are two major issues with many minor issues. One major issue is that the region is sparsely populated with rigid mountains and barren areas. Washuk, chaghai and Panjgur alone account for nearly 100K territory and i am not adding Makran here. Sistan province of Iran is the same with nearly 180K territory that is the same geography. this makes securing the area for both sides very difficult. Modern technology has made things easier but defeating geography is never easy. Now these vast lands on both sides of the border are home to smuggler dens, human trafficking dens and terror camps. There are hilly terrains that go across the border sides with cave networks that can take an Afghan into both Pakistan and Iran or vice versa for all sides. One issue is geography which is why ambushes are very common for both sides and these networks allowed the Mujahidden to deal blows to USSR and later USA in Kandahar and Helmand. Kandahar was a nightmare for all sides. Geography plays an active role in the security of these areas and their light population centers dont help. Active population centers provide you settled bases, road networks and intelligence activities to target militants like regions in FATA and Western KPK or Interior Sindh. Militant activities in Interior Sindh struggle to make a mark because of the geography and population factor.
To combat this issue, both sides not only conducted joint ops but active joint patrolling.
Then we have second issue. The groups that are active, smugglers, human taffickers and insurgent groups are very complicated and have intelligence activities with the military of respective countries. For example lets say you are commander of the region and have been handed a dossier by the Pakistani counterpart that points to an active insurgent lets say Nazar Baloch. Now nazar baloch has conducted multiple attacks on Pakistan army but he is a key intelligence asset for you, the commander of the iranian military deployed. He not only engaged in attacks on the sunni separatist groups but also provides intelligence on their movements. He has done little against your army and his asset value far outstrips his terror threat. Would you dispose of this asset? Ofcourse not. Who cares if he mounts attacks against Pakistan because neutralising him blinds you and would make you an unnecessary enemy. Vice versa this with pakistan. The smugglers are so well equipped that it would take a military operation to conduct a raid against them and they are in Iran and Pakistan. Diesel comes from Iran to Pakistan and many weapons go through Afghanistan to iran or pakistan. These are active operations. Human traffickers pay bribes to both sides and walk away... So the complication with groups is that there are benefits for both sides and these groups operate in this manner. Before Raziq made Kandahar Baluch insurgency central, the insurgency had a very strong base in iran and when taliban were capturing Kandahar, those groups found refuge in sistan. Iran has issues with jandullah because jandullah not only attacks BLA, BLF, BNM and many other organizations but are active in fight against shia militancy. The situation is very complicated and it isnt as much lack of military will on both sides but rather a chasm of distrust. Intelligence sharing has happened but these things take time and when you have states with siege mentality, time is not a luxury. Another factor is that many of these groups have affiliations with local tribes so killing them means the tribe is now on your neck. both sides of the border. Militants that are threat to both sides are killed and many members of Jandullah and BLA have been killed in joint operations but those that are considered as assets or have local links by both sides, that is where the problem comes in. These limitations will remain
Thank you for the insight! I am asking all these questions so I can compare it to the situation on the Turkiye, Iraq and Iran borders.

I am not surprised regarding what you told me as we are facing almost similar situation with Iran with the difference that Turkiye cleared the border area from Turkish side, but Iran doesn't want to clear the Iranian side. More than that, the distance between PKK and Iranian outposts is literally meters and they are living in symbiosis with each other while big part of the PKK attacks on Turkish territory in the southeast are in result of PKK infiltration from Iranian territory.

Both sides agreed on joint operations in the north of Iraq, but everything is on paper while no coordination is present in reality. Smugglers, tribal connections, tunnels and hard terrain are also things that I see as common problems and similarities to the situation at the Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan triangle.

Again, thank you for enlightening me on the situation!
 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
101 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Well Pakistan has recalled its ambassador and has informed Iranian authorities to keep theirs in Iran. emergency meeting has been conducted in GHQ where a response measures are being discussed. It would seem that what i stated will be in works because the first thing that will come into play will be the growth of military presence and infrastructure in those districts.
Frankly i dont understand this move by Iran. It makes no sense even from military view. Pakistan Military is the least engaged militarily right now. The eastern border is secure and silent, the LOC has barely any violations or incidents and our western border is functioning as well. Sure we get terror attacks but military isnt engaged like it was in 2019 when we were engaged both on the LOC and the western border.
 

Saithan

Experienced member
Denmark Correspondent
Messages
8,344
Reactions
28 19,147
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
Rogue elements in IRGC or could this be, as pointed out, caused by foreign interference. US/Israel etc. ?

I am not sure if there are any internal power struggle in IRGC that could have resulted in this.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom