In the intricate geopolitics of the Middle East, Iran stands as a nation embroiled in a mesh of rivalries that shape the dynamics of the region. The complicated historical conflicts, ideological disparities, and tactical considerations have played a part in persistent hostilities and protracted disputes between Iran and its neighborhood. Iran’s recent strikes on parts of Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan are an indication of its incapacity to square up to Israel’s atrocities in Gaza and also historical rivalry.
Iran’s military actions in parts of Pakistan, Iraq, and Syria
On 17th January Tehran Times reported, “Iran hits back-Missiles rain down on bases of Mossad and terrorist in Iraqi Kurdistan, Syria Idlib and Pakistan’s Baluchistan”. It was quite dreadful to see that in the name of Israel Iran attacked neighboring countries but not Israel directly. On 15th January Iran launched missile attacks on Iraq’s Erbil region, Iran also claimed that a top Mossad agent had also been killed in this attack. On the same night, Iran also attacked Syria’s Aleppo’s Idlib region. Aleppo region is under the control of the militant group in opposition to Iran and Syrian President Bashar al Asad. Iran asserts that ISS jihadists, operating from the eastern province of Afghanistan receive training in Idlib. Iran’s military attack on Iraq and Syria can be viewed as justifiable considering historical attacks on Iranian in this region. But more surprisingly it attacked in Pakistani Baluchistan region as Iran and Pakistan share deep military ties and joint military exercises. The third Irani attack was conducted in the Panjgur and Turbat regions of Baluchistan. Which led to the temporary ending of diplomatic ties between the two nations. This was the first time that Iran-Pakistan relations have deteriorated to such an extent. To handle the worsening situation there was a statement issued by the foreign minister of Iran Hossein amir-abdollahani asserting that Iran has not targeted any Pakistani civilian but a terrorist organization that had Iranian nationals. The Balochi-speaking people reside around the Iran-Pakistan border and these people have cultural ties across the border as well. The majority of the Baloch population on the Iranian side belong to Hanafi Islamic school jurisprudence, and ideological strife persists between them and the Shia Iranian authorities. Iran has also insisted that the Baloch-speaking population harbors militia groups to combat Iran and carve out a separate independent country.
Why is Iran striking its neighbors?
There exists a fundamental difference between ideological states and nation-states, Nation-states typically assess the potential sequel of any counterattack, prioritizing the economic well-being and prosperity of their citizens before deciding whether to take action or not because the association of nation States is not based upon any ideology but mutual coexistence. On the contrary, ideological states are likely to prioritize the safeguarding of their ideological narrative, often at the cost of considerations like security and economic welfare. Such ideological states are often scrutinized as unnatural, as a state itself cannot inherently possess an ideological vision. However, individuals or groups in power within a state may uphold specific ideologies. Upon assuming authority, these entities often seek to impose their ideological perspectives on citizens through state institutions. Not everyone will universally come by the same ideological vision. Hence, for the group in power, it becomes critical to implant a sense of superiority among its defenders concerning their ideology, fostering enthusiasm and commitment. When an ideologically driven state in practice faces security or economic challenges, the majority of the public often starts to oppose the prevailing ideology. Subsequently, they began to oppose the influential faction that had been upholding that particular ideology. In such circumstances, the ideologically influential group that is also in government feels the heat. As the ruling group faces scrutiny, the government itself becomes an object of disapproval. Today, the Iranian regime employs a similar master plan, capturing the psychological mindset of its citizens through phrases like “Marg bar America, Saudi Arabia, Israel” (a Persian expression meaning death to America, Saudi Arabia, Israel). The regime has instilled the belief that their community must bring an end to the existence of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and America. In Tehran, the Iranian government in 2015 has notably exhibited a clock, exemplifying the anticipated demise of the state of Israel by the year 2040. However, Iran faces a significant challenge as it is unable to carry out such actions. The situation is dire, preventing Iran from providing basic amenities to the Gaza population, let alone supporting armed resistance against Israel. Consequently, the narratives presented by the ruling clerics in Iran have lost relevance. Economic resources, intended for the welfare of Iranian citizens, have consistently been diverted by the Iranian regime to engage in proxy wars with the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. However, Iran faces a notable challenge as it is impotent to carry out such actions. The situation is so grim, preventing Iran from providing basic aid to the Gaza population, let alone supporting armed resistance against Israel. In consequence, the narratives presented by the ruling clerics in Iran have fallen to insignificance. Economic resources, intended for the welfare of Iranian citizens, have consistently been diverted by the Iranian regime to engage in proxy wars with the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. In such situations, ideological states tend to focus on areas where they can demonstrate to their citizens that, although they may struggle against larger threats, they can effectively manage smaller challenges.
Conclusion
In conclusion, when faced with challenges of a greater magnitude, ideological states may shift focus to smaller issues to demonstrate effectiveness. In doing so, they aim to maintain a semblance of control and resilience in the eyes of their citizens despite overarching difficulties.
Source » moderndiplomacy