Iran-Pakistan Flare-up Rooted in Restive Borderlands, Not Mideast Strife

The flag of Iran is seen over its consulate building, with Pakistan's flag in the foreground, after the Pakistani foreign ministry said the country conducted strikes inside Iran targeting separatist militants, two days after Tehran said it attacked Israel-linked militant bases inside Pakistani territory, in Karachi, Pakistan January 18, 2024. REUTERS/Akhtar Soomro
The flag of Iran is seen over its consulate building, with Pakistan's flag in the foreground, after the Pakistani foreign ministry said the country conducted strikes inside Iran targeting separatist militants, two days after Tehran said it attacked Israel-linked militant bases inside Pakistani territory, in Karachi, Pakistan January 18, 2024. REUTERS/Akhtar Soomro
TT

Iran-Pakistan Flare-up Rooted in Restive Borderlands, Not Mideast Strife

The flag of Iran is seen over its consulate building, with Pakistan's flag in the foreground, after the Pakistani foreign ministry said the country conducted strikes inside Iran targeting separatist militants, two days after Tehran said it attacked Israel-linked militant bases inside Pakistani territory, in Karachi, Pakistan January 18, 2024. REUTERS/Akhtar Soomro
The flag of Iran is seen over its consulate building, with Pakistan's flag in the foreground, after the Pakistani foreign ministry said the country conducted strikes inside Iran targeting separatist militants, two days after Tehran said it attacked Israel-linked militant bases inside Pakistani territory, in Karachi, Pakistan January 18, 2024. REUTERS/Akhtar Soomro

An Iranian strike on Pakistan this week that drew a rapid military riposte and raised fears of greater regional turmoil was driven by Iran's efforts to reinforce its internal security rather than its ambitions for the Middle East, according to three Iranian officials, one Iranian insider and an analyst.
Both the heavily-armed neighbors, oftentimes at odds over instability on their frontier, appear to want to try to contain the strains resulting from the highest-profile cross-border intrusions in recent years, two analysts and two of the officials said.
Iran sent shockwaves around the region on Tuesday with a missile strike against what it described as hardline “Sunni Muslim militants” in southwest Pakistan. Two days later, Pakistan in retaliation attacked what it said were separatist militants in Iran - the first air strike on Iranian soil since the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.
Tuesday's strike was one of Iran's toughest cross-border assaults on the militant Jaish al-Adl group in Pakistan, which it says has links to ISIS. Many of Jaish's members previously belonged to a now-defunct militant group known as Jundallah that had pledged allegiance to ISIS.
The move deepened worries about Middle East instability that have spread since the Israel-Hamas war erupted in October. Iran-allied militias from Yemen to Lebanon have launched strikes on US and Israeli targets, including on Red Sea shipping, in sympathy with Gaza's Palestinians.
It also came a day after Iran launched attacks in Iraq and Syria, which it said targeted Israeli espionage and ISIS operations, respectively.
But the tit-for-tat blows between Iran and Pakistan occurred far from that war zone, in remote borderlands where separatist groups and Islamist militants have long carried out attacks on government targets, with officials in Pakistan and Iran often accusing each other of complicity in the bloodshed.
Gregory Brew, an analyst at Eurasia Group, an international risk consultancy, said Tehran's strikes were motivated in large part by Iran's rising concerns about the threat of domestic militant violence in the wake of a deadly Jan. 3 bombing claimed by the ISIS group.
"There's a lot of domestic pressure to 'do something,' and the leadership is responding to that pressure," he said.
Spokespeople for the Iranian and Pakistani foreign ministries could not immediately be reached for comment.
'CRUSHING RESPONSE'
Pakistan recalled its ambassador from Iran in protest at Tuesday's attack. For its part, Tehran strongly condemned Pakistan's strikes on Thursday, saying civilians were killed, and summoned Pakistan's most senior diplomat in Iran to give an explanation.
But in their statements, neither government sought to make a link to the Gaza war or to attacks carried out in support of Palestinians by a network of militias allied to Iran.
In a public statement on Thursday, the foreign ministry in Tehran said: "Iran considers the security of its people and its territorial integrity as a red line" and expects "friendly and brotherly" Pakistan to prevent armed militant bases on its soil.
For Iran, the trigger for the flare-up was a devastating bombing on Jan. 3 that killed nearly 100 people at a ceremony in the southeastern city of Kerman to commemorate commander Qassem Soleimani, who was killed by a US drone in 2020.
Soleimani, architect of Iran's drive to extend its influence across the Middle East, was a hero to supporters of the hardline establishment. Tehran publicly vowed revenge against ISIS militant group that claimed responsibility for the bombing.
An Iranian insider close to the country's ruling clerics described the Kerman bombing as "an embarrassment for the leadership" that had shown Iranian security to be vulnerable.
Tuesday's strike was aimed at demonstrating the security organizations' capabilities amid concern among Iranians about a lack of security in the country, the Iranian insider said.
"Such terrorist attacks will get a crushing response from Iran," the insider said.
Iran has also arrested dozens of people linked to ISIS.
On Tuesday, Iranian missiles struck two bases of the Jaish al-Adl (or the Army of Justice) group in Pakistan's southwestern province of Balochistan, which borders Iran.
A senior Iranian security official told Reuters that Iran had provided Pakistan with evidence that Jaish al-Adl was involved in the Kerman attack, coordinating its logistics, and had asked Pakistan to act against it. Iran had obtained evidence that members of the group were among a number of militants planning further attacks in Iran, he said.
"We have warned everyone that any action against our nation, our national security will not go unanswered," the official added, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.
IRAN 'LOST PATIENCE'
Iran has been pressing Islamabad for years to address the presence of militants near its border, Brew said. The missile strikes were a sign that Tehran has lost patience, he said.
To be sure, Iran continues to see its role and influence in the Middle East as a central to its security goals.
Brew said that Iran's strike on Pakistan was also intended to signal its resolve, to both enemies and allies, to defend itself in the context of the regional crisis over Gaza.
Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center, a Washington-based think tank, said bilateral tension on border security was a longstanding problem for Iran and Pakistan.
De-escalation would be difficult in the immediate term, "given the high tensions and temperatures at play", he said.
Neither country appears poised for conflict, however. In public statements, both countries have observed their attacks were not aimed at each other's nationals, and signaled they don't want escalation.
Kugelman said both countries might welcome bilateral dialogue and potential third party mediation from a country like China, which has good relations and leverage with both countries. "Diplomacy will be critical from here on out," he said.



Jamal Mustafa to Asharq Al-Awsat: I Couldn’t Provide Bribe Demanded by Judge, So I Was Jailed for Another 10 Years

Saddam Hussein and Jamal Mustafa Sultan.
Saddam Hussein and Jamal Mustafa Sultan.
TT

Jamal Mustafa to Asharq Al-Awsat: I Couldn’t Provide Bribe Demanded by Judge, So I Was Jailed for Another 10 Years

Saddam Hussein and Jamal Mustafa Sultan.
Saddam Hussein and Jamal Mustafa Sultan.

In the final installment of his interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, Jamal Mustafa Sultan, a former Iraqi official and Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, delves into his arrest, the collapse of hopes for resistance against US forces, and the turmoil that followed the American invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Mustafa faced a harsh journey during the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. He traveled to rally tribal leaders to defend Baghdad, only to return and find the city occupied. Declared a fugitive, his face appeared on the US “most-wanted” playing cards.

Mustafa fled to Syria but was denied asylum and sent back to Iraq, where he was arrested. Accused of leading resistance and car bombings, the court found no evidence to convict him.

In 2011, a judge offered him release in exchange for a bribe, which Mustafa could not afford. His proposal to sell family land to pay was rejected, leaving him imprisoned for another decade. He was eventually freed over lack of evidence.

A US soldier watches the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad on April 7, 2003. (Reuters)

After his release, Mustafa went to Erbil, where Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani invited him for a meeting. Barzani welcomed him warmly and asked how he could help. Mustafa requested assistance in obtaining a passport, praising Barzani’s generosity.

Mustafa shared that Saddam respected Barzani, once calling him a “tough but honorable opponent.” He also revealed that, before the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, Barzani had assured Saddam that Kurdish forces would not fight the Iraqi army.

Recalling the lead-up to the war, Mustafa said Saddam tasked him with reconnecting with tribal leaders to encourage them to resist the invasion.

He delivered personal messages from Saddam, along with financial support, to help tribes host Iraqi soldiers stationed nearby. Mustafa later traveled to the Anbar province to rally tribes and bring them to defend Baghdad.

This account offers a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes efforts to resist the US invasion and the complex relationships that shaped Iraq’s history.

As the US invasion loomed, Mustafa met with thousands of tribal leaders to rally support for Baghdad’s defense.

“During the war, I met with over 4,500 tribal sheikhs from across Iraq,” he said. But when he returned to Baghdad after a trip to Anbar, everything had changed. “The city had fallen, and everything was in chaos.”

Mustafa tried to locate his associates but found no one. On April 11, 2003, he sent his driver to search for allies.

By chance, his brother, Lt. Gen. Kamal Mustafa, located him. “He told me we needed to leave Baghdad. I hadn’t planned to leave, but he convinced me it was the logical choice—we had no weapons, no men, and no resources. Staying would only mean capture.”

The brothers fled to Ramadi, where tribal leaders offered them refuge, and from there, they attempted to seek asylum in Syria. After just two days, Syrian authorities sent them back to Iraq.

Back in Baghdad, Mustafa and Khalid Najm, Iraq’s last intelligence chief, stayed with a university friend, Dr. Hafidh Al-Dulaimi. While there, Al-Dulaimi’s nephew suggested surrendering to Ahmed Chalabi’s forces, but Mustafa refused.

Saddam Hussein meets with top members of his regime. (Getty Images)

Shortly after, armed men stormed the house. “They came with tanks and masks,” Mustafa recalled. He and Najm were arrested on April 21, 2003—a day he will never forget.

Mustafa shared his experiences in US detention after his capture. “The interrogations were relentless, often involving psychological and physical pressure,” he added.

“They focused on weapons of mass destruction—’did Iraq have them, and where were they?’ Everyone faced the same questions. They also asked about US pilot Michael Scott Speicher, whose plane was shot down during the Gulf War. Though his remains were later found, the Americans kept questioning us, believing more was being hidden.”

Life in the detention center was highly controlled. Detainees were grouped in blocks of seven and given 30 minutes of outdoor time. Sultan recalled a chilling moment when Ahmed Hussein, Saddam’s office chief, told him during exercise: “The president has been captured.”

“We had clung to hope that Saddam’s freedom could lead to Iraq’s liberation,” Mustafa said. “His arrest shattered that hope and signaled the occupation’s permanence.”

He also described mysterious construction in the prison. “We saw carpenters working constantly. Eventually, they built a wooden barrier, blocking the corridor from view. We could only guess what it was for.”

When asked if Saddam had led the resistance before his capture, Mustafa confirmed: “Yes, the resistance began after the war. It wasn’t planned in advance because, at that time, the focus was purely military—army against army.”

“After the occupation, a new phase started. Battles unfolded in stages, and Saddam was leading the resistance during this one. He was the hope of the resistance, of the Iraqi people, and of Arabs and Muslims,” Mustafa revealed.

His remarks offer a glimpse into the post-invasion dynamics and the symbolic role Saddam played during Iraq’s turbulent transition.

Mustafa also recounted the difficulty of reaching his family after his arrest.

“After my capture, I lost all contact with my family. I didn’t have any phone numbers for my brothers, friends, or colleagues. Even if I had, phone lines had been disrupted—many exchanges had been bombed, and communication in Iraq was severely impacted,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Mustafa recalled an encounter with the International Red Cross during his detention.

Saddam Hussein and his daughter Hala. (Courtesy of the family)

“The Red Cross offered me the chance to write a message to my family, as is their usual practice. But I was at a loss—who could I write to? I had no idea where my brothers or family were. I didn’t know anything about their whereabouts.”

Then, Mustafa had an idea. “I thought of Ammo Baba, a well-known football coach in Iraq. I didn’t know his address, but I remembered the address of the Police Club, where I had been president. I decided to write the letter there, addressed to Ammo Baba, asking him to pass it on to my family.”

Mustafa’s story highlights the communication challenges and isolation faced by detainees during the Iraq War.

He then described the prolonged separation from his family following his arrest. “I had no hopes of hearing from my family when I sent my letter through Ammo Baba,” Mustafa said.

“The situation was too difficult. After two and a half to three months, I received a response from Ammo Baba. He sent his regards, inquired about my health, and included a message from Yassin, a coach who worked with me. Along with the letter, they sent me sportswear—a shirt and shorts.”

Mustafa’s communication with his family may have been limited, but the letter served as a lifeline.

“A couple of years later, I received the first message from my wife, Hala, after two years in detention.”

Jamal Mustafa Sultan with his children.

When asked if he had been separated from his family for 18 years, Mustafa confirmed: “Yes, I hadn’t seen them or my children for 18 and a half years.”

“There were no visits or conversations, except for a brief period when we were held by the Americans. During that time, they allowed us five minutes a week to speak with our families. I would split the time—two and a half minutes with my mother and siblings, and the rest with my wife and daughters,” he said.

However, he revealed that after 2010, communication was cut off entirely.

“When we were transferred to Iraqi custody, they stopped allowing any contact. I was careful not to make calls with the Iraqis, as I feared enemies or foreign agents could record them,” explained Mustafa.

Mustafa’s story underscores the isolation he endured and the limited means of contact with his loved ones during years of detention.