In a recent article by Al Jazeera published on January 19th, concerns have been raised regarding the assertion of potential collaboration between Pakistan and Iran in a strike within Pakistan. Skepticism arises from several factors. Notably, the reliance of Al Jazeera on Telegram messages, a source known for propagandist leanings, rather than seeking validation from official statements or credible sources raises eyebrows.
Thecentralquestionemerges:Why would Pakistan, deeply involved in a two-decade-long War against Terrorism, jeopardize its national security by collaborating with Iran, especially when it has a proven track record of handling such threats independently? This becomes even more perplexing amid the upcoming Indian General Elections and efforts to establish a ‘New Normal’ – a move that seemingly defies logic.
Crucial information from official sources via South Asia Times (SAT) reveals a significant detail: Pakistan’s targeted strike on Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) and Baloch Liberation Front (BLF) hideouts was positioned 250 Gaj away from the IRGC Brigade HQ, creating a geographical discrepancy that questions Iran’s alleged role as a destabilizer in the region.
As the story unfolds, a compelling sensation emerges that what is portrayed as collaboration by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) might be a veiled attempt to cover up an Iranian misstep. The reliance of a globally renowned news outlet on potentially biased information, rather than official channels, not only questions journalistic rigor but also prompts skepticism about the authenticity of the claimed collaboration.
Analysis suggests that the recent accusations against Pakistan in the Iran showdown appear to be part of a well-orchestrated media vilification campaign. Initiated through platforms like Telegram by the IRGC, this narrative gained momentum first in Indian media and then echoed internationally and domestically.
Thequestionarises: How did this narrative gain such swift and widespread traction? With Pakistan responding on January 18, another question surfaces: Does the narrative align with Pakistan’s long-standing commitment against terrorism? The answer is a resounding no.
Therefore, it becomes crucial to ponder who stands to benefit the most from this propaganda and what impact it has on regional dynamics.
The revelation of a coordinated propaganda campaign, likely orchestrated by an Indo-Iranian and US alliance with internal political backing, exposes external manipulation and underscores how Pakistan’s existing political divide becomes a pawn in this geopolitical game.
On one front, Telegram-driven propaganda unfolded, while on another, a misleading narrative suggests Iran’s airstrike on Pakistan resulted from prearranged talks. However, scrutiny reveals it as a misinterpretation of an interview with Iran’s Foreign Minister at Davos.
Image Source Business Recorder
Fact-checkingdispels the notion, emphasizing that the respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty was discussed after, not before, the attack on January 16. The debunked claim underscores the absence of any pre-attack negotiations.
Themes in circulation, such as Pakistan having prior knowledge of the hit, a Pak-Iran coordinated venture, and Iran using ballistic missiles against terrorist organizations, are debunked through fact-checking. The involvement of social media handles associated with Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), despite the party leadership maintaining a distinct stance, raises red flags.
In this unfolding geopolitical game, the Indo-Iranian Nexus and the US strategically maneuver, potentially using Iran as a pawn in the Middle East. The PTI’s involvement, whether driven by settling scores or unwittingly participating in external operations, raises concerns. The narrative, often propagated by foreign authors linked to the Jewish lobby or of Indian origin, reveals a complex web.
The reverberations of these developments might extend to Azerbaijan, a pivotal player with ties to Israel. As the first Muslim country to express support for Israel during the Gaza conflict and a key supplier of oil to Israel, Azerbaijan’s alliances are closely intertwined. The fact that Israel armed Azerbaijan before the ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh adds another layer of complexity to the situation.
Image Source The Times of Israel
However,onethingremainsclear:Any move against Pakistan, whether from Iran or any other state, would undoubtedly carry weighty consequences, emphasizing the paramount importance of Pakistan’s national interest and security.
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
The Taliban’s confrontation with Pakistan reveals a deeper failure at the heart of their rule: an insurgent movement incapable of governing the state it conquered. Bound by rigid ideology and fractured by internal rivalries, the Taliban have turned their military victory into a political and economic collapse, exposing the limits of ruling through insurgent logic.
As the U.S. unwinds decades of technological interdependence with China, a new industrial and strategic order is emerging. Through selective decoupling, focused on chips, AI, and critical supply chains, Washington aims to restore domestic manufacturing, secure data sovereignty, and revive the Hamiltonian vision of national self-reliance. This is not isolationism but a recalibration of globalization on America’s terms.
The collapse of the Turkiye-hosted talks to address the TTP threat was not a diplomatic failure but a calculated act of sabotage from within the Taliban regime. Deep factional divides—between Kandahar, Kabul, and Khost blocs—turned mediation into chaos, as Kabul’s power players sought to use the TTP issue as leverage for U.S. re-engagement and financial relief. The episode exposed a regime too fractured and self-interested to act against terrorism or uphold sovereignty.
The deepening India-Afghanistan engagement marks a new strategic era in South Asia. Beneath the façade of humanitarian cooperation lies a calculated effort to constrict Pakistan’s strategic space, from intelligence leverage and soft power projection to potential encirclement on both eastern and western fronts. Drawing from the insights of Iqbal and Khushhal Khan Khattak, this analysis argues that Pakistan must reclaim its strategic selfhood, strengthen regional diplomacy, and transform its western border from a vulnerability into a vision of regional connectivity and stability.
The recent talks in Turkey, attended by Afghan representatives, exposed the delicate politics of legitimacy and agency in Pakistan-Afghanistan relations. By rejecting the Taliban’s proposal to include the TTP, Pakistan safeguarded its sovereignty and avoided legitimizing a militant group as a political actor, preserving its authority and strategic narrative.
Pakistan-Iran Crisis: Check or Checkmate?
In a recent article by Al Jazeera published on January 19th, concerns have been raised regarding the assertion of potential collaboration between Pakistan and Iran in a strike within Pakistan. Skepticism arises from several factors. Notably, the reliance of Al Jazeera on Telegram messages, a source known for propagandist leanings, rather than seeking validation from official statements or credible sources raises eyebrows.
The central question emerges: Why would Pakistan, deeply involved in a two-decade-long War against Terrorism, jeopardize its national security by collaborating with Iran, especially when it has a proven track record of handling such threats independently? This becomes even more perplexing amid the upcoming Indian General Elections and efforts to establish a ‘New Normal’ – a move that seemingly defies logic.
As the story unfolds, a compelling sensation emerges that what is portrayed as collaboration by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) might be a veiled attempt to cover up an Iranian misstep. The reliance of a globally renowned news outlet on potentially biased information, rather than official channels, not only questions journalistic rigor but also prompts skepticism about the authenticity of the claimed collaboration.
Analysis suggests that the recent accusations against Pakistan in the Iran showdown appear to be part of a well-orchestrated media vilification campaign. Initiated through platforms like Telegram by the IRGC, this narrative gained momentum first in Indian media and then echoed internationally and domestically.
The question arises: How did this narrative gain such swift and widespread traction? With Pakistan responding on January 18, another question surfaces: Does the narrative align with Pakistan’s long-standing commitment against terrorism? The answer is a resounding no.
The revelation of a coordinated propaganda campaign, likely orchestrated by an Indo-Iranian and US alliance with internal political backing, exposes external manipulation and underscores how Pakistan’s existing political divide becomes a pawn in this geopolitical game.
On one front, Telegram-driven propaganda unfolded, while on another, a misleading narrative suggests Iran’s airstrike on Pakistan resulted from prearranged talks. However, scrutiny reveals it as a misinterpretation of an interview with Iran’s Foreign Minister at Davos.
Fact-checking dispels the notion, emphasizing that the respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty was discussed after, not before, the attack on January 16. The debunked claim underscores the absence of any pre-attack negotiations.
Themes in circulation, such as Pakistan having prior knowledge of the hit, a Pak-Iran coordinated venture, and Iran using ballistic missiles against terrorist organizations, are debunked through fact-checking. The involvement of social media handles associated with Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), despite the party leadership maintaining a distinct stance, raises red flags.
Also Read: Terrorism in Pakistan: The Indo-Iran Nexus
In this unfolding geopolitical game, the Indo-Iranian Nexus and the US strategically maneuver, potentially using Iran as a pawn in the Middle East. The PTI’s involvement, whether driven by settling scores or unwittingly participating in external operations, raises concerns. The narrative, often propagated by foreign authors linked to the Jewish lobby or of Indian origin, reveals a complex web.
The reverberations of these developments might extend to Azerbaijan, a pivotal player with ties to Israel. As the first Muslim country to express support for Israel during the Gaza conflict and a key supplier of oil to Israel, Azerbaijan’s alliances are closely intertwined. The fact that Israel armed Azerbaijan before the ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh adds another layer of complexity to the situation.
However, one thing remains clear: Any move against Pakistan, whether from Iran or any other state, would undoubtedly carry weighty consequences, emphasizing the paramount importance of Pakistan’s national interest and security.
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
Recent
When Insurgents Rule: The Taliban’s Crisis of Governance
The Taliban’s confrontation with Pakistan reveals a deeper failure at the heart of their rule: an insurgent movement incapable of governing the state it conquered. Bound by rigid ideology and fractured by internal rivalries, the Taliban have turned their military victory into a political and economic collapse, exposing the limits of ruling through insurgent logic.
The Great Unknotting: America’s Tech Break with China, and the Return of the American System
As the U.S. unwinds decades of technological interdependence with China, a new industrial and strategic order is emerging. Through selective decoupling, focused on chips, AI, and critical supply chains, Washington aims to restore domestic manufacturing, secure data sovereignty, and revive the Hamiltonian vision of national self-reliance. This is not isolationism but a recalibration of globalization on America’s terms.
Inside the Istanbul Talks: How Taliban Factionalism Killed a Peace Deal
The collapse of the Turkiye-hosted talks to address the TTP threat was not a diplomatic failure but a calculated act of sabotage from within the Taliban regime. Deep factional divides—between Kandahar, Kabul, and Khost blocs—turned mediation into chaos, as Kabul’s power players sought to use the TTP issue as leverage for U.S. re-engagement and financial relief. The episode exposed a regime too fractured and self-interested to act against terrorism or uphold sovereignty.
The Indo-Afghan Arc: Rewriting Pakistan’s Strategic Geography
The deepening India-Afghanistan engagement marks a new strategic era in South Asia. Beneath the façade of humanitarian cooperation lies a calculated effort to constrict Pakistan’s strategic space, from intelligence leverage and soft power projection to potential encirclement on both eastern and western fronts. Drawing from the insights of Iqbal and Khushhal Khan Khattak, this analysis argues that Pakistan must reclaim its strategic selfhood, strengthen regional diplomacy, and transform its western border from a vulnerability into a vision of regional connectivity and stability.
Legitimacy, Agency, and the Illusion of Mediation
The recent talks in Turkey, attended by Afghan representatives, exposed the delicate politics of legitimacy and agency in Pakistan-Afghanistan relations. By rejecting the Taliban’s proposal to include the TTP, Pakistan safeguarded its sovereignty and avoided legitimizing a militant group as a political actor, preserving its authority and strategic narrative.