Between chaos and combat

Global peace, to whatever degree it exists, is thrown into fresh chaos at the start of the new decade. Credit goes to two obsessed enemies. After the US took out a top Iran general and its second-most powerful leader last Friday, the chorus is loud and opinions varied on how this profound “escalation” will unfold in the coming weeks and months. Just as elsewhere, here at home, too, the ripples of this “assassination” are being felt with growing unease over what comes next in this forty-year long rivalry.

The Trump administration has been squeezing Iran through a “maximum pressure” campaign since 2018. Wise men have since been warning that both sides could seriously miscalculate each other’s designs. That fear has now come to pass. Iran, which couldn’t afford a prolonged era of economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation, tried to break the status quo through acts of aggression in the Gulf. Facing no response, it started doubling down, only to find a hitherto-reticent Trump now relishing in military strikes.

The US, too, has misread. While Iran was signaling all summer long that it wouldn’t sit idly by as economic noose tightened around its neck, the US hawks believed that Iran wouldn’t dare take the fight to the Americans. But a week has changed everything. On December 27, a US base was struck in Iraq, killing one American; on December 29, US responded by launching strikes in Iraq and Syria, killing two dozen fighters; on December 31, the siege of US embassy in Baghdad, allegedly sponsored by Iran, had a traumatic flashback of 1979; and on January 2, US reacted by killing the giant, General Soleimani.

Now it’s Iran’s turn to mount a response on the escalation ladder. But those expecting a quick reprisal should note that Iran does not compete with the US military might in a conventional sense. If history is any guide, perhaps expect more proxy warfare targeting the men, materials and machines linked to the US and its allies in the Middle East region. It may hardly be the stuff that provokes the next world war, but it will be more like a low-intensity, active conflict that keeps the world on its edge.

For Pakistan, this lethal and direct confrontation between its Southeastern neighbor on one hand and the global superpower and its regional allies on the other hand does not leave much room for diplomatic maneuver. The best the country can hope for is to see this crisis somehow resolve itself, and soon. But that would be akin to living in a fool’s paradise. This latest escalation has changed the regional calculus, although it’s a bit early for unilateral demands like “you are either with us or against us” to be made.

The threat to Pakistan is mainly twofold. One, the country is energy insecure and its economy can hardly afford rising crude oil prices. And two, the sectarian fault-lines in the society can be exploited if regional players get mired in a long-term active conflict. Therefore, Pakistan needs to review diplomatic, economic and security preparedness to avoid any fallout. After all, under an unpredictable US President who has a re-election to win later this year, the likelihood of an all-out regional war isn’t exactly zero.