February 2, 2024
by Warren L. Nelson
The Islamic Republic stunned the entire world in mid-January when it fired missiles at targets in Syria, Iraqi Kurdistan and Pakistan, with many observers thinking the regime had taken leave of its senses.
While many writers were trying to discern what foreign policy goals the leadership of the Islamic Republic had in mind, more sophisticated analysts almost uniformly concluded the regime did not have foreign policy objectives in mind, but was rather trying to appease its vocal hardliners who have complained since October as Iran has tried to avoid any involvement in the Hamas-Israel imbroglio that erupted October 7.
One critic described Iran’s strategy as “fire first, think later.”
Most generally thought Iran had gone bonkers to fire missiles into Pakistan. Pakistan swiftly replied by firing missiles into Iran in retaliation. But within minutes of that attack, Pakistan said it thought highly of Iran and claimed relations were wonderful.
Analysts generally concluded that Pakistan had fired back at Iran simply so it would not look weak in the eyes of the world (primarily India) and of its own people. In other words, a key reason both countries acted so tough was to try to impress their own people.
Iran and Pakistan followed the missile exchange with several days of broad smiles, back-patting and public assurances that all was well and they would now cooperate even more closely than ever before on security issues.
The only issue behind the missile attacks, both aimed at Baluchi rebels, was how to deal with Baluchi rebels. Both countries said they would now work closely together to repress the rebels. But both countries have said the same before over the years and neither does anything.
The Baluchis live on both sides of the border and do not like the national governments of Iran or Pakistan. Iran puts considerable effort into tackling its Baluchi rebels, many of whom enjoy sanctuary across the border in Pakistan. Pakistan puts considerable effort into tackling its Baluchi rebels, many of whom enjoy sanctuary across the border in Iran. But neither country puts any effort into suppressing the other country’s Baluchi rebels.
The Iranian missile attacks on Syria, Iraqi Kurdistan and Pakistan were aimed at what the Islamic Republic sees as its chief challenges the Islamic State, the Kurds and the Baluchis.
Iran launched missiles January 15 at what it said was an Islamic State military center in Idlib, a Syrian province that is occupied by numerous rebel groups opposed to the government of President Bashar al-Assad. Syria didn’t complain about the missiles and the Islamic State was silent. It wasn’t clear how much damage was done or what was hit. Iran called the missile firing retaliation for the Islamic State mounting a terrorist attack near the tomb in Kerman of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleymani.
The main thing Iran talked about was the new missile that it used, the Khaybar Shekan. Officials made the point that four of the new missiles were fired at Idlib from well inside Iran not from the nearest border point to Syria to emphasize that Iran has the range to attack Israel any time it wants. Iran has claimed that range for decades, but never demonstrated it until now (and by using a missile that didn’t exist when it was claiming to have the range two decades ago). While Iran claimed the purpose of the missile was to destroy an Islamic State site, its words said its main purpose was to demonstrate an ability but not a willingness to attack Israel.
The same night, Iran launched missiles at Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. Tehran said it was attacking an Israeli base. Everyone else said Iran had hit the mansion of very wealthy Kurdish businessman, Peshaw Dizayee, killing him, his 11-month-old daughter, Zhina, the infant’s Filipina nanny and a business partner who was visiting the family. (Zhina holds Dutch citizenship through her mother, so the Dutch government made clear its dismay at Iran’s attack.)
The family, the Kurdish government and the Iraqi federal government in Baghdad all said there were no Israelis at the mansion. The mansion’s owner reportedly sold some Iraqi oil to Israel, but Israel doesn’t get much Iraqi oil. Its main oil suppliers are Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, although the Islamic Republic has always been silent about that fact.
The Iraqi government in Baghdad was extremely damning of the attack and condemned Iran in no certain terms for violating Iraqi sovereignty. Its response was almost identical to its rage weeks earlier when the Americans missiled a base used by an Iraqi militia that regularly attacks installations where American troops are based. The Iraqi government is vocalizing the ire of the Iraqi public at other governments treating Iraq as a place where they can do whatever they please.
It should be noted that Iran last year fired missiles at the mansion of yet another multi-millionaire Kurd in Erbil, also asserting that it was an Israeli base. The Baghdad government launched an investigation and produced a report exonerating the family that owned that mansion of any ties to Israel and condemning Iran in the harshest terms for walking all over Iraq.
The next night was when the Islamic Republic fired missiles at a target about 50 kilometers (30 miles) across the border in Pakistan, saying it was hitting buildings used by Jaish al-Adl, the primary Baluchi rebel group that has bedeviled Iran for several years.
The following night, Pakistani missiles hit targets about 50 kilometers (30 miles) across the border in Iran. Pakistan said it struck emplacements used by the Baluchi Liberation Front (founded in 1964) and the Baluchi Liberation Army, the two main Baluchi rebel bands that have bedeviled Pakistan for several decades.
Both countries said the site struck in their country was an ordinary village. And the best information available indicated they were ordinary villages, but villages used as refuges by rebels from the other country a point that emphasized how little either country was helping the other cope with rebels. A handful of Baluchis died in each of the attacks.
But in the aftermath of the tit-for-tat attacks, the two countries spoke only lovingly about each other and pledged their troth to one another, emphasizing their closeness and eagerness to cooperate. Each country bent over backwards to ignore the fact they had each just fired multiple missiles into the other’s territory.
But what no one could fathom was why the Islamic Republic decided to attack Pakistan in the first place! That question remains unanswered.
Still, all three attacks appeared mainly to be a response to Iranian hardliners who have been muttering for months that the Islamic Republic has been acting cowardly ever since the Hamas-Israel fighting broke out in October.
And it has been acting cowardly. It has stood by while Israel has mounted an unprecedented military action against Gaza, with a huge death toll. Iran announces daily and sometimes multiple times each day that it does not want to see a wider war engulfing the region.
It repeatedly insists that it does not direct orders to Hamas, the Houthis, the Lebanese Hezbollah or the various Shiite militias in Iraq, as if to say it is innocent of any injuries those groups are taking by their military actions against Israel and American bases. To a great extent what it says is probably true. It has considerable influence over the Shiite militias in Iraq, but only small influence over the Houthis in Yemen and Hamas in Gaza. And although it founded the Lebanese Hezbollah more than four decades ago, that organization effectively declared its independence years ago. Iran’s power over all those groups is chiefly grounded in its supply of funds and weapons to them. But it has reduced its provision of funds over the last decade because of the belt-tightening caused by US sanctions, so its influence has also been reduced.
