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.
