In Geopolitics This Week
Iran and Pakistan Exchange Missile Fire, Territorial Tensions Reignite Between Azerbaijan and Armenia, US Strikes Fail to Deter Defiant Houthis, and other stories.
There will be no coverage throughout next week, but the newsletter will return on the 29th of January.
Iran and Pakistan Exchange Missile Fire
On January 16th, Iran conducted missile and drone strikes in Pakistan's Balochistan province, targeting the militant group Jaish al-Adl's hideouts. These strikes were allegedly in response to recent cross-border attacks conducted by Jaish al-Adl into Iranian territory. Pakistan condemned the violation of its airspace, launching retaliatory strikes on 7 locations inside Iran the next day that targetted bases belonging to the separatist group Balochistan Liberation Army. Consequently, a diplomatic crisis unfolded — both countries recalled their ambassadors and barred envoys from returning.
The rare public exchange of direct cross-border attacks indicates a serious bilateral escalation driven by domestic political pressures on both sides. While Pakistan and Iran have made diplomatic progress in recent years to enhance border security coordination and boost regional trade, lingering disputes over cross-border militancy have continued to fracture relations beneath the surface. Tehran likely seeks to signal strength and resolve against anti-Iran militant groups after a number of high-profile attacks on its territory. Meanwhile, Pakistan's military also feels squeezed to save face and respond unflinchingly — especially given the recent growth of anti-military sentiments.
China has offered to serve as mediator between the rivals to help de-escalate tensions, leveraging its uniquely strong ties with both countries. Pakistan and Iran are key partners in China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), with major Chinese infrastructure and economic corridors running through both countries. Beijing therefore has a vested interest in stabilizing its BRI partners to protect these shared development goals. China also has a long-term interest in furthering security cooperation with Iran and Pakistan to combat militant groups that threaten regional stability. While Chinese efforts could help temper tensions, the domestic political calculations in Islamabad and Tehran remain the primary drivers dictating whether direct strikes persist.
As things stand, further military confrontation serves the interests of neither country as they face more pressing economic and political priorities. All-out war would carry massive costs, while unclear targeting options constrain ambitions for achieving lasting deterrence through strikes across borders. While Pakistan might limit its response, additional Iranian strikes could credibly prompt further proportional retaliation. As complex neighbours bound by economic ties and shared security challenges, Pakistan and Iran cannot afford lasting hostility or conflict. For now, both powers have worked to de-escalate the situation, restoring diplomatic ties soon after the strikes took place.
Territorial Tensions Reignite Between Azerbaijan and Armenia
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has reignited simmering territorial disputes with Armenia amid protracted negotiations over borders, land corridors, and a sustainable peace agreement. Aliyev provocatively revived Baku’s long-held ambition for direct transportation access through Armenia’s Zangezur region to connect Azerbaijan proper with its Nakhchivan exclave. His assertive remarks also demanded Armenia relinquish control of seven villages that ethnic Armenian forces have occupied since the First Nagorno-Karabakh War in the early 1990s.
In response, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan decried the comments as “totally unacceptable,” furious over perceived Azerbaijani betrayal of commitments to advancing reconciliation. Despite Azerbaijani victory in the 2020 Second Nagorno-Karabakh War and subsequent pledges from both sides to achieve enduring peace, deep disagreements continue to fester. The core of the impasse centres around issues like land corridors, exchanges of contested villages, withdrawal timelines for Azerbaijani troops still occupying Armenian territory, and comprehensive principles guiding interstate relations going forward.
With negotiations now stalled, the latest bellicose rhetoric from both leaders significantly inflames tensions after months of fragile quiet following the upheaval. Azerbaijan's forceful approach highlights complications in reconciling the principles of territorial integrity and collective self-determination that underscore this dispute. Meanwhile, Armenia perceives existential threats from unresolved grievances. As acute disputes worsen without diplomacy, risks of an uncontrolled military escalation intensify, and along with it weaken international norms against the use of force.
With Azerbaijani territorial integrity officially restored across lands recaptured since 2020, the collective status and rights of ethnic Armenian residents still under dispute and over 100,000 displaced Nagorno-Karabakh residents continue languishing in limbo. An emboldened Azerbaijan gains increased influence to conduct a more muscular foreign policy despite unsteady regional dynamics. However, because lasting hostility with Armenia critically undermines economic reform priorities that depend on stability, reconciliation remains a long-term imperative for both rivals.
US Strikes Fail to Deter Defiant Houthis
Yemen’s Houthi rebels continue attempting attacks near the strategic Bab el-Mandeb Strait despite repeated US airstrikes aiming to deter their interference with global trade flows. After admitting failure to halt the strikes on vessels, Washington designated the Houthis as terrorist threats to increase pressure. But years of strikes by the Saudi-led coalition has not altered their defiant posture. Regional US partners like Saudi Arabia are wary, urging diplomacy over inflaming tensions.
The grinding crisis spotlights the limits of coercive power. On January 19th, US President Biden confirmed that repeated precision strikes specifically targeting Houthi anti-ship missiles and infrastructure have not convinced the militants to stop attacks on naval vessels and commercial tankers transiting Red Sea shipping lanes. The ongoing aerial raids by US forces are framed as acts of self-defence, responding to what Washington officials call unjustified Houthi efforts to disrupt freedom of navigation through one of the world’s busiest maritime trade choke points.
Yet despite degrading certain Houthi capabilities, the rebels continue attempting strikes in defiance of Washington. US strikes on Houthis have demonstrated inherent limitations in achieving enduring strategic objectives through brute force alone. As a result, an increasing number of commercial vessels are opting to altogether circumnavigate Africa to avoid risking passage through the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. Tankers are opting to divert as well, lengthening voyages for millions of barrels of Europe-bound Iraqi and Saudi oil. This trend of vessels proactively re-routing from the area will bring deepening economic impacts that will ripple across global markets.
This stand-off is also a part of a broader struggle between Israel and Iran that risks spiralling out of control. A recent Israeli airstrike that killed four senior members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has only worsened the situation. With Washington and Brussels shielding Israel diplomatically, Israel showing little sign of stopping military operations in Gaza, and few signs that Tehran or the Houthis are willing to back down, all sides are stubbornly refusing to genuinely explore de-escalation pathways. As such, one of the world’s most critical trade arteries may face prolonged disruption as a feud with global spillover effects spreads across the Middle East.