It may seem contradictory, but firefighters sometimes deliberately start smaller, controlled fires to prevent a much larger blaze from spreading. This method, known as backburning, removes dry fuel and creates a protective barrier. The same analogy is being used to describe the actions of Pakistan’s hybrid military-civilian leadership amid the escalating crisis in the Middle East.
On February 28, the US and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Iran, reportedly killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and targeting sites linked to Iran’s nuclear programme. Iran responded with missile and drone attacks on Israel and US bases across the region. Several Gulf countries — including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Jordan, Iraq and Bahrain — were affected by Iranian strikes. Pakistan, though not directly hit by Iran, witnessed significant unrest and civilian casualties.
In media discussions leading up to the attack, analysts had anticipated a US strike, given the military build-up in the region under President Donald Trump. The timing, however, remained uncertain until the strikes occurred.
The argument presented is that Pakistan’s recent military escalation against Afghanistan is indirectly linked to the broader US-Israel-Iran conflict. Pakistan launched major airstrikes on Afghanistan on February 27 and declared what it termed an “open war,” despite the triggering suicide bombing in Islamabad having occurred weeks earlier and being claimed by ISIS. Islamabad blamed the attack on the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), linked to the Afghan Taliban.
The scale and timing of Pakistan’s offensive raised questions, especially given its fragile economic condition. War is costly, and Pakistan faces financial strain. The theory suggests that Army chief Asim Munir initiated this escalation as a strategic diversion.
Pakistan shares a 900-kilometre border with Iran, and reports have long suggested that the US maintains access to certain Pakistani military facilities, including Noor Khan Air Base. Given that some Middle Eastern allies reportedly declined to provide bases or overflight rights for US strikes on Iran, Pakistan’s geographic position would have made it strategically significant.
At the same time, openly assisting US operations against Iran would have posed domestic risks for Pakistan’s leadership, particularly given the country’s sizeable Shia population and its positioning within the broader Islamic world. Balancing relations with Washington while avoiding internal backlash would have placed Islamabad in a difficult position.
According to this interpretation, launching operations against Afghanistan and allowing domestic unrest to intensify provided Pakistan’s leadership with grounds to claim it was preoccupied with internal security challenges. Protests erupted in cities including Karachi and Lahore following Khamenei’s killing, with incidents reported near US diplomatic facilities. Critics have suggested that security responses were insufficient, potentially allowing tensions to escalate.
President Trump publicly expressed positive remarks about Pakistan’s leadership, including Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and General Munir, and indicated willingness to engage diplomatically in regional conflicts.
The broader claim is that Pakistan’s confrontation with Afghanistan and its handling of domestic unrest served as a calculated strategy — akin to backburning — to avoid being drawn directly into the US-Israel conflict with Iran. By igniting controlled crises at home, the leadership could argue that it lacked the capacity to assist external military operations.
This perspective frames Pakistan’s actions not as reactive, but as a deliberate maneuver to navigate complex geopolitical pressures while preserving domestic stability and strategic flexibility.
