Balochistan has become a battlefield, and the contours of this conflict are now impossible to ignore. The stakes could scarcely be higher. On one side stands the security, stability, and future of Pakistan. On the other stand India, Israel, and their proxies. This is no moment for ambiguity or hesitation. The state and society must speak and act with one voice against terrorism. For this is no ordinary conflict. It is a war thrust upon Pakistan’s future. Whether the country realises its immense promise or is denied the fulfilment of that promise may well be decided on the soil of Balochistan.
Pakistan today stands at a critical historical juncture, where hope and despair, light and darkness, confront one another. Few writers have captured the contradictions of such turbulent times more eloquently than Charles Dickens in A Tale of Two Cities:
Alongside China, Washington also has little interest in seeing prolonged instability in Balochistan.
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.”
It is difficult not to notice that, over the past several months, Balochistan has begun receiving extraordinary attention in sections of the international media. A closer examination reveals that media outlets known for their pro Israel orientation have been particularly active. Within Israel itself, from the right leaning Times of Israel to The Jerusalem Post, Balochistan has emerged as a recurring subject of commentary. At times, publications such as Jerusalem Tribune carry articles on Pakistan’s critical mineral wealth while advising Washington on how China might be pushed out of Pakistan’s strategic landscape. At other times, institutions such as the Middle East Media Research Institute extol the strategic advantages of expanding Israeli influence in Balochistan through proxies. It bears recalling that MEMRI is not merely a research institution. It is a sophisticated strategic communications platform currently headed by a former Israeli intelligence official.
None of this is coincidental. Nor is much effort now made to conceal it. Even a cursory reading of Israeli newspapers suggests that developments in Balochistan, particularly terrorism and insurgency, have become subjects of sustained interest. More significantly, many commentators increasingly portray Balochistan as presenting an extraordinary strategic opportunity for Israel.
Three broad objectives appear repeatedly in these discussions.
The first objective is Pakistan itself. A growing body of commentary argues that armed groups operating in Balochistan constitute natural allies for Israel and can therefore be employed in pursuit of Israeli interests. The argument advanced is that these groups are secular in orientation, possess no religious motivation, pose no threat to Israel, and remain confined to local agendas. Consequently, it is suggested that Israel should cultivate relations with such actors in order to expand its influence in the region. Some commentaries go even further, arguing that such a strategy could eventually pressure Pakistan into retreating from its steadfast support for the Palestinian cause.
The second objective is Iran. Israeli analyses increasingly discuss the possibility of expanding influence in Balochistan through proxies in order to monitor Iran more effectively and create strategic complications for Tehran.
The third objective is CPEC. In other words, both Pakistan and China find themselves in the crosshairs.
Balochistan occupies a position of immense strategic significance. A glance at the map is sufficient to understand that much of Pakistan’s geopolitical importance rests upon this province. Whether one speaks of Gwadar, critical minerals, or CPEC, Balochistan remains central. It is, in every sense, Pakistan’s lifeline.
If that lifeline comes under attack and unrest is deliberately fomented there, this is a matter that transcends political ambiguity and intellectual hesitation. There is little room for confusion or equivocation. When war is imposed upon a state, the immediate task is to fight and prevail. Everything else becomes secondary.
It is equally important to recognise that what is unfolding in Balochistan is not merely terrorism. It bears all the hallmarks of an insurgency, one that manifests itself in multiple forms, of which terrorism is only one dimension. There are also attempts, often under the guise of politics and human rights advocacy, to provide intellectual and political cover for this insurgency. Alongside the insurgency itself, there appears to be what may be described as a post insurgency narrative, designed to keep society confused, blur moral clarity, and entangle public opinion in endless debates while indirectly legitimising violence.
Albeit belatedly, Pakistan now appears to be recognising that the only effective response lies in national clarity and unwavering resolve. A policy of zero tolerance is indispensable. Undoubtedly, Balochistan has its fault lines, and there remains considerable room for improving governance. Yet neither administrative shortcomings nor governance deficits can ever justify terrorism or insurgency. Such shortcomings exist everywhere and must certainly be addressed, but they are to be resolved through parliamentary politics, not through the barrel of a gun.
Pakistan today stands in a considerably stronger position, both militarily and diplomatically. Moreover, in relation to critical minerals, the United States has already been brought on board as a partner in various areas of cooperation. Alongside China, Washington too has little interest in seeing prolonged instability in Balochistan. Pakistan must therefore address this challenge with complete focus and determination.
It bears repeating that this is not a time for hesitation or ambiguity. The state and society must unite in confronting terrorism.
The writer is a lawyer and author based in Islamabad. He tweets @m_asifmahmood