Iranian attack and our response: part of Middle Eastern politics

We are living in 21st century and in new era, and wars are no more suited to living

The missile attack by Iran on the territory of Pakistan is not an isolated incident and to understand why it happened, one needs to contextualise it and read it not in isolation but as part of a more comprehensive and perspective understanding of the regional environment. For whatever reasons Alferd Mahan, the naval strategist and the author of The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, chose to coin in 1901 the term ‘Middle East’, it is beyond me to understand why Afghanistan, a landlocked country, and Iran, a neighbour of Pakistan, were included in the Middle East map and Pakistan was not. If Mark Sykes and Francois Picot had a naval background, I don’t think they would have kept Pakistan out of the map of Middle East. It was these two gentlemen and the imperial powers, Britain and France, that they represented that mapped the countries of Middle East. Their pencils drew a region that extended from Egypt to Iran. The history at that time and the concepts that they believed in were the crumbled Empires and their leftover countries, colonisation, natural resources to include mainly oil and pan-Arabism. What has followed after that is pan-Islamism, nationalism, religious fundamentalism and terrorism. When you consider all these aspects and the way they dominate Middle Eastern culture, how can anyone consider keeping Pakistan out of Middle Eastern politics? And I haven’t spoken about nuclear capability and the so-called ‘Islamic bomb’ that Pakistan processes.

The national power and prosperity of all the oil producing countries of the Middle Eastern region depends upon the security, control and functioning of the sea lanes through which the oil tankers transport oil all around the world. Pakistan is on the mouth of one of the bays of the Indian Ocean and neighbours the world’s most strategically important choke point, the Strait of Hormuz through which almost 35 per cent of the oil that world consumes passes and which provides the only sea passage from Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea on which Pakistan has 1046km coastline. Already maintaining a well-resourced, competent and efficient naval force, how can anyone in his sound mind keep Pakistan out of the changing dynamics of the modern Middle Eastern politics or Middle East map itself?

We are living in the 21^st century and in a new era, and wars are no more suited to living in such an era, not at least the wars built on moral crusades or ideological and sectarian contests. Yes, grey zone warfare will continue when interests and values of the nation states will clash. The timing of what Iran did is very important as the terrorist camps and whatever be the reality of their existence across the borders have been a bone of contention between the two states for decades — so why now? I imagine that the Israeli military action in Gaza and the subsequent anti-Islamic and anti-American outrage across the Muslim world encouraged Iran to do what it did. Maybe, Iran wants to determine which side of the war Pakistan stands because one can think of no strategic advantage that Iran could draw from this unprovoked act of aggression.

Knowing your limitations is a central aspect of rational state thinking in the international system. Right now, Iran has too many problems on its plate and nobody knows better than Iran itself that fighting war is a complicated business — it fought a decade-long protracted war with its neighbour Iraq. On which side of the world, you stand matters a lot when fighting a war in the 21^st Century as alliances would matter in an aggressor’s ability to sustain fighting and hold on to his resolve.

No one in their right mind would question that Iran wouldn’t have already war-gamed Pakistan’s likely response. Assumptions always underpin policy decisions and if the policy decision is as provocative as launching missile attack in the neighbouring country then the initial judgement of the policymakers should be right. There being the best-case scenario and the worst-case scenario that policymakers always associate with the response. In the best-case scenario I consider that Iran assumed that Pakistan would blink, and sit tight and fondle with some diplomatic options; and in the worst-case scenario it would return the favour with a proportionate response, which Pakistan actually did. The follow-up Iranian state press release is mild by any standards of imagination, not an outright acceptance of mistake but filled with a very conciliatory tone that resounds that the issue is now a settled matter between the two states who may have their differences but are no way each other’s rivals. So, what is at stake? Is it the creation of a new order in Middle East?

The old Middle Eastern order was built by the US that was based on the idea of maintaining the balance in the region by executing the policy of thwarting and leading — it was leading Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey and was thwarting Israel, Iran and other external powers from harming its created order. Post 7 October, the US approach to the Middle Eastern order has changed. It is now based on de-escalation in Levant and overall creation of normalisation in the Middle East. The singular purpose of this approach is to enable the US to free itself from this region and focus on the more important undertakings in Asia and Europe.

Many scholars of international relations assume that Tehran played the deep game. The Arab-Israel relations were improving without Israel giving any concessions to Palestine. Camouflaged under its friendship deal with Riyadh, Iran turned the likely Arab-Israel axis which it presumed was designed to contain it on its head by encouraging Hamas to do what it did on 7 October. The consequent resurrection of the Palestinian issue has brought the ‘axis of resistance’ — comprising the Assad regime, Hamas and Hezbollah all supported by Iran — back to life. But there is another set of assumption about Iran which states that Iran realises that it cannot afford to devastate its economy — the Iranian regime is already vulnerable and the risks it might take and the costs it may pay would possibly bring down the regime itself. So, Iran may not take on the world allied under the US leadership.

The two missiles fired by Iran, and Pakistan’s response to them is a great reminder to the world that Pakistan is not on the sidelines but right in the middle of the future Middle Eastern politics.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 21^th, 2024.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.