Experts urge Chinese mediation after Iran-Pakistan flare-up

A local resident shows a mountain at the Koh-e-Sabz area of Pakistan's south-west Balochistan province where Iran launched an airstrike, on January 18, 2024. (AFP)

• Iranian strike on Pakistan this week drew a rapid military riposte and raised fears of greater regional turmoil
• Both countries are close partners of Beijing and members of SCO, China this week said it was willing to mediate

ISLAMABAD: Foreign policy and security experts are calling on a third party like China to intervene in a brewing crisis between Tehran and Islamabad, after an Iranian strike on Pakistan this week drew a rapid military riposte and raised fears of greater regional turmoil.
Pakistan on Thursday conducted strikes on what it called “terrorist hideouts” inside Iran, in response to an attack by Tehran against alleged militants inside Pakistani territory. Iran says it had attacked Jash Al-Adil militants in Pakistan while Islamabad says it had hit hideouts of Balochistan Liberation Army separatist insurgents inside Iran. Both countries have for years exchanged accusations of cross-border militancy.
Both countries are also close partners of Beijing and members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and China this week said it was willing to mediate.
“It’s a moment for diplomacy, possibly with help from an outside mediator like China, to try to set up a de-escalation path,” Michael Kugelman, South Asia Institute Director at Wilson Center, told Arab News.
Tabadlab founder Mosharraf Zaidi also said China could be a useful mediator.
“China will most likely seek to intervene and talk down both parties but any further escalation by the Iranians will likely lead the region down a completely uncharted path,” he told Arab News.
“RESTORE DETERRENCE”
Analysts said Pakistan, which initially recalled its ambassador to Tehran, had responded militarily and hit militant targets in Iran to signal its capacity for deterrence.
“With Iran acting aggressively to target perceived threats around the broader region, Pakistan likely felt a sense of urgency to move quickly and restore deterrence to lower the risk of a future attack,” Kugelman said.
But as both strikes had reportedly hit children and other non-belligerents, it could be difficult to lower the temperature although further escalation could be “very costly,” the analyst added. 
But while striking Pakistan may have satisfied domestic anger in Iran over recent security failures following high-profile bombings, experts said the motivations for Iran’s Tuesday attack were still largely opaque.
“Iran has initiated this exchange, but it is unclear what its near or medium-term goals could be,” Zaidi said.
Senator Sherry Rehman, a former federal minister and Pakistani ambassador to Washington, said Pakistan’s response has been “proportionate as well as calibrated.”
“This is not to say that we are seeking an escalatory spiral. I don’t think that’s been the case for Islamabad for a long time in any such conflict, but there has been a long investment in maintaining good relations and cordial relations with Tehran,” Rehman said.
“So, we have not shown belligerence or bellicosity but in fact been always invoking the need for strategic maturity and I think that’s where this should go.”
Brig. (Retired) Masud Ahmed Khan, a defense analyst, said Pakistan had allowed ample time for “diplomatic efforts” after Iran’s Tuesday attack but the response had not been “encouraging.”
“The statement by the Iranian foreign minister justifying the illegal act compelled Pakistan to retaliate and secondly, people [public] were also not satisfied until there was a retaliation,” he told Arab News.
Now, the ball was in Iran’s court to “calm the situation by acting responsibly” while both countries needed to sit together and use existing mechanisms to discuss and sort out differences.
“There is a bilateral agreement of 2013,” Khan said, “and also a 2018 agreement to form a joint task force, which was established to address these issues.”