Pearl Pandya on what Iran-US escalation means for ongoing Pakistan-Afghanistan conflict

Pearl Pandya, South Asia Senior Analyst at ACLED, said: 

The outbreak of the latest war between Iran and the United States and Israel has brought with it profound risks for neighboring Pakistan, opening up new security concerns in the restive Balochistan province at the same time that Pakistan is mired in active conflict with Afghanistan. 

Balochistan province, where militants have been waging a decades-long separatist insurgency, lies on the border with Iran, with Baloch armed groups active on both sides. Border security falls on both the Pakistani security forces and the IRGC – any weakening of the latter could facilitate militant movement and arms smuggling across the border, further destabilizing an already worsening security environment.

News of Ayatollah Khamenei’s death has also prompted deadly demonstrations in several major cities in Pakistan, which has one of the largest Shiite populations outside of Iran. At least ten people were killed in Karachi and two in the capital city, Islamabad, as police stopped pro-Iran protesters from breaching US diplomatic missions. It is a volatile environment, and any crackdown on Shiite protesters could deepen existing sectarian fissures – a dangerous mix in a country where sectarian tensions have often spilled over into violence. 

Pakistan’s security forces can ill afford worsening internal turmoil amid their ongoing standoff with Afghanistan. Fierce fighting between Afghanistan and Pakistan has now entered the fourth day, with intense clashes along the northern part of the disputed Durand Line alongside ongoing Pakistani airstrikes. 

Pakistan is overwhelmingly the dominant military power, and has demonstrated its air superiority by carrying out almost continuous airstrikes, mainly in the border provinces and targeting Taliban bases and ammunition depots. Early on Sunday, fresh explosions were heard around Kabul – some reports indicated that Pakistan jets targeted Taliban military depots though this has not been officially confirmed. It has so far avoided targeting the broader government apparatus or specific government figures, especially in Kandahar city, the spiritual center of the Taliban and where its chief, Hibatullah Akhundzada, is believed to reside. Any such strike, while operationally feasible, would be considered a significant escalation. 

Pakistan has toyed with questions of leadership change – referring to the Afghan government as a “regime” and hosting dissidents at a conference in Islamabad. Direct action in this regard, however, is likely to remain a remote possibility, as Pakistan would face the first blow should Afghanistan descend into further instability. In the interim, we can expect more targeted airstrikes, tighter border control and perhaps greater covert support for anti-Taliban armed opposition groups. 

Afghanistan, which does not have a fully functional airforce, has mainly retaliated by attacking Pakistani border posts and deploying some armed quadcopter drones – all of which were intercepted. Afghanistan’s decades of experience in waging a guerrilla insurgency, however, could allow it to respond with more unconventional tactics, such as increasing support for anti-Pakistan militant groups. On Friday, major Islamist militant groups directed their fighters to intensify operations in support of the Afghan Taliban, attacking several inland police stations. 

With the ongoing conflict between Iran and the United States, capacity and interest to mediate is limited. Middle Eastern powers, who could have ordinarily been expected to initiate diplomacy, are now preoccupied with their own crises, leaving China as the best-placed potential mediator. Even if reached, any ceasefire, however, would prove to be fragile as long as the TTP continues to threaten Pakistan’s internal stability.