Aspen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2019
- Messages
- 3,585
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Iran definitely has a big advantage in the fact that they are able to unite behind a single cause and stick to it. They have different ethnic groups, Azeris, Persians, Arabs, and Kurds, but they have succeeded at uniting them together in a single consolidated front.
Pakistan's biggest problem is that our ethnic groups are so busy fighting each other that they cannot see the bigger picture. It is evident even on this forum that Pakistanis get so divided on stupid and petty issues to an extent that is worse only in India. Iran and Turkey are far more united than Pakistan and their success is clear. Pakistan should not copy Iran's Shia model because it will never work where Sunni-Shia tension exists. But Iran's general direction is still correct because they are able to understand that they cannot show any weakness to their enemies with ethnic divisions. So Iran's enemies like Saudi and Israel know that exploiting different groups like Kurds or Azeris will never work because they don't allow ethnic differences to become a dividing issue in the first place. This is why Iran was able to connect proxies across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Yemen. An Iranian and a Yemeni have nothing in common but they agree on a common goal and do not get divided on other issues. This is how Iran was able to convince Arab proxies that fighting the enemy was more important than fighting each other.
I think its a wrong assumption that ethnic and secretarian issues would be an issue if Pakistan created proxies around India. In Iran's case, Shia matters because that's what their common cause is. But this does not automatically mean that if Iranian proxies are Shia, that Pakistani proxies would also need to be Shia. For Pakistan, being united against India is more important than being either Sunni or Shia. When the goal itself is different, so is the strategy. A Pakistani proxy network would be similar to Iran's proxy network in that a common goal supersedes ethnic differences, but those goals are different as is the strategy needed to implement it. An electrician's job is to work with power supply and he is hired based on how good he can work with electrical equipment. Maybe the electrician also happens to also be a good pharmacist but it is not relevant for his job. On the other hand, a pharmacist is hired based on how good he can work with medicine. Maybe the pharmacist also happens to be a good electrician but it is not relevant for his job. For the electrician, electrical knowledge matters, and for the pharmacist, medical knowledge matters. For Iran, Shia matters, for Pakistan, India matters. For Pakistan, Shia doesn't matter if it's not the goal. India is the common cause. For Iran, India doesn't matter if it's not the goal. Both sides are recruiting people with different objectives but in the same way.
Pakistan doesn't need to follow Sunni or Shia, what Pakistan needs is a single cause that everyone can agree on. In theory, this is simple enough, bring the fight to India. But the reality is, Pakistan's whole approach to the problem is wrong. Pakistan is trying to unite a country instead of a cause. If you try to unite the country, that will also be the limit of your power. The limit of a united country is its borders. The limit of a united cause has no borders. This is the difference between Pakistan and Iran. Iran doesn't limit its power inside its borders like Pakistan, it projects power far beyond its borders with a cause that supersedes ethnic differences and unites people. You may only be able to recruit 5 people on your team if you include only Pakistanis, but you may be able to get 20 people if you expand to anyone who sees India as an enemy from other countries like Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Sri Lanka. Pakistan is not the only country that dislikes India. India is an enemy of Muslims and this message has to be made clear. When other countries start seeing India for the threat their ideology is to Muslims, then half the job is already done for Pakistan. To create a proxy, you only need one thing, and that is a common cause. It does not matter if the proxies are Sunni and Shia and in my opinion, they should be a mix of both within every group so it does not become an issue as long as they are all united against India. Pakistan could send missiles to proxies in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh and kill two birds with one stone. Then Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi proxies will be able to defend themselves against Indian aggression and apply pressure around all of India. Then India will be surrounded from all sides, west from Pakistan, east from Bangladesh, south from Sri Lanka, north from China. Pakistan and its proxies would have India cornered from every direction. Iran's proxies are a very diverse group of people but they all agree that Israel and Saudi are enemies. Individually, Iran's proxies are weak but when they work together, they are the most feared group in the Middle East. Likewise, Pakistan's proxies in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka would be a diverse group but what you need is for them to agree that India is the biggest threat to their security. Together, Pakistan and its proxies in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka utilizing asymmetric methods would be the strongest force in the region. India would have to redistribute its army away from the western border to face new threats from proxies in the east. In a war situation, Pakistan and its proxies could strike from any direction at any time, north, south, east, or west.
Pakistan would never be like Iran in the sense that Iran has a Shia cause outside its borders. However, Pakistan can start connecting the dots of various anti-India causes outside Pakistan into a single chain of command with a Pakistani version of the IRGC that specializes in proxy warfare in other countries. These proxies could coordinate and act together and strike with coordination from asymmetric Pakistani operations to split up and divert India's attention from multiple directions simultaneously. Similar to how Iran did airstrikes on Saudis from Iran, Iraq, and Yemen with missiles and drones simultaneously coming in hot from different directions. Saudis were overwhelmed and could not stop any of them. The crown prince has nightmares in his sleep because he knows that Iran has the capability to strike Saudi Arabia with cruise missiles, any place, any time. Not even the best US defenses can save them. That is the kind of fear we need to strike into the heart of India. They should not be able to sleep at night.
There are major differences between the Iranian and Pakistani strategy in terms of ethnic and secretarian factors but one thing that cannot be denied is that Pakistan must become as aggressive if not more aggressive than Iran in dealing with the enemy. Internal ethnic and secretarian reasons are not a valid excuse for Pakistan to be afraid of an external enemy. Iran and even Turkey are much better than Pakistan in this regard as they are not afraid to take direct action against their enemies. Iran makes its own military equipment and does not rely on anyone for anything. They export their missiles to anyone they want and no one can do anything about it. Turkey makes their own drones and they strike whatever they want. Nobody can tell Iran and Turkey what to do, they just do it. That is the power that self-sufficiency enables. Half the problem in Pakistan is that we rely too much on others like Saudis to the extent that we are afraid to anger them. If we relied less on countries like Saudi and America, Pakistan would not be manipulated as easily. Pakistan has not taken any direct action against India for Kashmir but it will have to become bolder and more fearless like Iran and Turkey in order to accomplish this. We will need to rely less on other countries to instill courage, self-confidence, and conviction in our own abilities. For that, we must have strong leadership that doesn't fear anyone or anything.
Last edited:
