The plan with Munir, the leader of Pakistan, was to first offer the Nobel Peace Prize to Trump (like the Qatar free jet strategy but without the money). Second, offer military bases to USA (Again Qatar strategy). Third offer mineral rights in Baluchistan to USA (like the Ukraine strategy). India of course has self-respect and the PM of India showing character didn’t change plans to kiss the Trump ring in Washington on his way from the G7 – in any event an attempt by the US President to engineer a statement about Kasmir.
In February 2019, after India conducted airstrikes on terrorist camps in Pakistan's Balakot, Pakistan promptly responded with highly publicized but dubious claims, stating it had shot down multiple Indian fighter jets. India acknowledged the loss of one MiG-21 aircraft and the capture—and subsequent release—of a pilot, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman. Pakistani military spokesman Major General Asif Ghafoor portrayed the incident as a decisive military victory, despite failing to produce credible evidence of additional downed aircraft or damage inflicted.
This echoes strikingly similar dynamics in January 2020, when Iran retaliated against the US killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. Iran launched missile attacks on US bases in Iraq, notably Ain al-Asad airbase, and claimed heavy casualties among American personnel. Iranian state media triumphantly projected massive destruction, despite US evidence indicating minimal damage and no fatalities from the immediate strikes.
In both scenarios, the overstated claims of damage serve internal propaganda needs, bolstering regime legitimacy and public morale by projecting strength. While initially provocative, these narratives typically unravel upon closer international scrutiny. Most recently Bhutto-Zardari has been mincing around London and US persuading the world he’s a victim of (Pakistani) terrorism. I think it is a strategy to have his foppish, feminine energy to present a different face of Pakistan. The delicate, dainty, prissy and campness he brings to meetings will disarm many in the West.
Iran and Pakistan share another compelling similarity: both states maintain semi-theocratic structures, officially blending religion with governance, where religious imperatives can often dictate foreign policy. Pakistan, officially named the "Islamic Republic," and Iran, officially the "Islamic Republic of Iran," frequently legitimize confrontational foreign policies under religious and nationalistic pretenses.
Additionally, both states harbour proxies accused by their adversaries of terrorism. Iran supports Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and militias in Iraq and Syria. Pakistan has been repeatedly accused by India, the US, and Western allies of supporting terror proxies such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and the Haqqani Network in Afghanistan.
These proxies allow both countries plausible deniability, complicating direct accountability. For both Iran and Pakistan, asymmetric proxy warfare becomes an essential tool in their geopolitical arsenals, offsetting conventional military disadvantages against stronger adversaries like the US, Israel, or India.
Contrasting with Iran and Pakistan, democratic countries such as India, Israel, and the United States typically engage in restrained and calibrated military responses. Although as with Britain in Northern Ireland (and in India for that matter) whenever the military is involved in civilian areas the enemy knows propaganda victories of atrocities will follow.
For instance, after the 2019 Pulwama terror attack, India’s surgical strike at Balakot aimed specifically at terrorist infrastructure rather than broader military targets. This approach underlines the principles of proportionality and restraint—hallmarks of responsible international conduct.
Similarly, following Iran’s missile strikes in 2020, the US response was deliberately cautious, focused on containment rather than escalation. Israel, too, consistently employs precision strikes targeting militant groups in Gaza or Iranian proxies in Syria and Lebanon, typically avoiding large-scale civilian damage.
Iran and Pakistan frequently employ aggressive rhetoric. Iranian officials regularly threaten existential destruction against Israel and severe harm against US interests, publicly flaunting their missile capabilities and nuclear ambitions. Pakistan also periodically escalates its rhetoric against India, including threats of nuclear retaliation in scenarios of conventional warfare escalation.
Conversely, democratic states, despite robust deterrence capabilities, generally maintain diplomatic composure and calculated restraint. Their statements typically reaffirm self-defense while emphasizing international legality, focusing more on strategic containment than rhetorical threats.
Repeatedly exaggerated claims and persistent reliance on terror proxies significantly undermine international credibility for Pakistan and Iran. While temporary domestic advantages are secured by painting themselves as valiant victors over superior foes, long-term international reputation suffers considerably. Diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions reinforce how propagandistic triumphalism has real-world consequences.
In contrast, countries like India, Israel, and the US, who adhere to international norms more rigorously, generally retain stronger global credibility and diplomatic clout, even when criticized for their actions.
In short, when nations rely on bluster rather than fact, and proxies rather than diplomacy, they often pay dearly for their short-term bravado with long-term strategic failure.