The geopolitical landscape of South Asia is once again teetering on the edge of chaos, as the terrorist group Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) has overtly declared “war” on Baloch separatist groups, thereby intensifying an already volatile situation in Pakistan’s restive Balochistan province. This not only confirms the existence of ISKP’s operational bases in Pakistan but also adds a dangerous layer to the ongoing Indo-Pakistan conflict, intertwining religious militancy with ethnopolitical strife. For quite some time, both the Pakistani authorities in Islamabad and their Afghan counterparts in Kabul have been exchanging accusations about ISKP activities.

The Islamic group’s declaration, delivered through a 36-minute propaganda video, accuses the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) and Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF), two ethno-nationalist groups, of attacking ISKP camps in Mastung, marking a blatant escalation in a region already scarred by decades of militarization, enforced disappearances, and economic marginalization, as Abdul Sayed (an expert on jihadism) and Riccardo Valle (founder of Militancy Chowk) highlight in their Diplomat piece. This development underscores Pakistan’s deepening entanglement in a web of proxy conflicts, where state and non-state actors collide, threatening regional stability and complicating the broader Eurasian geopolitical equation.

The ISKP’s emergence as a belligerent force in the area of Balochistan is hardly surprising, given Pakistan’s long history of engaging with armed proxies, a strategy that runs far deeper than its well-documented involvement in Kashmir. For decades, Pakistan’s military and intelligence apparatus, particularly the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), have allegedly cultivated militant groups to advance strategic objectives, from countering India in Kashmir to maintaining influence in Afghanistan.

Suffice to say, this policy might have backfired tremendously, as supposed former occasional assets (if that) like the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and now ISKP have turned against the state or its interests. In this pragmatic interplay of states and armed groups, talking about “proxies” or “assets” could often be an oversimplification. One should recall, for instance, that Pakistan, India and Iran all pragmatically engage in diplomatic talks with Afghan’s government (the Taliban), even while not formally recognizing it.

Be it as it may, the ISKP’s war declaration against Baloch separatists, who themselves are engaged in a protracted insurgency against Islamabad, reveals a new fracture in this complex ecosystem of militancy. By targeting Baloch groups, ISKP not only challenges the Pakistani state’s monopoly on violence but also risks drawing in civilian populations, as the group has bluntly threatened to attack Baloch rights rallies and their supporters. I wrote last year about Iranian-Pakistan exchanging military strikes over the Balochi issue, so it is not hard to see how the matter has the potential to escalate across borders.

This escalation comes at a time when Pakistan is already grappling with heightened tensions along its eastern border with India, following the April 22, 2025, Pahalgam attack in Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 tourists and sparked a military crisis. India’s subsequent missile strikes, dubbed Operation Sindoor, targeted alleged militant infrastructure in Pakistan, prompting retaliatory actions from Islamabad.

The fragile US-brokered ceasefire announced on May 10 remains ever precarious, as cross-border skirmishes persist along the Line of Control (LoC). India has consistently accused Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism, a charge Islamabad denies while pointing fingers at alleged Indian support for Baloch separatists. The ISKP’s intervention now risks further destabilizing this delicate balance, as it adds tensions into yet another front into a conflict already defined by territorial and ethnopolitical disputes (with a background of religious conflict).

The broader implications of this crisis extend beyond South Asia, with Middle Eastern and Caucasus repercussions, as I recently pointed out, thus testing the mediation potential of multilateral platforms like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS. As I had noted previously, the SCO’s focus on regional stability and counterterrorism could provide a neutral space for dialogue, particularly given the Taliban’s evolving role as a complicating factor.

The Taliban, historically somewhat aligned with Pakistan (in a convoluted manner), has shown signs of increasing its engagement with India, raising concerns in Islamabad and adding a layer of complexity to the regional security calculus. Building on the SCO’s 2025 agenda, which included discussions on Afghanistan’s stabilization, one could use it as a platform to address cross-border terrorism—a key Indian concern—while fostering confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan. Russia, a key player in the SCO, has meanwhile maintained a balanced approach, avoiding entanglement in the Indo-Pakistan rivalry while promoting regional cooperation, a stance that aligns with its broader Eurasian strategy.

Contrastingly, Western interventions, particularly the Washington-mediated ceasefire, have been met with skepticism. The unilateral announcement by President Donald Trump, lacking institutional backing, has fueled political backlash in India, where third-party mediation on Kashmir is viewed as an affront to sovereignty. So much for Western diplomatic credibility, as theAmerican approach appears to be more performative than substantive, failing to address the root causes of the conflict. Again, this underscores the need for a multilateral framework, where platforms like the SCO and BRICS, limited as they are in that regard, but unencumbered by Western biases, could facilitate dialogue without undermining national sensitivities. One of the problems is that Pakistan’s openness to external mediation, as evidenced by its envoy’s endorsement of Trump’s offer, contrasts sharply with India’s insistence on bilateral resolutions, highlighting a fundamental divergence in approach.

The ISKP’s presence in resource-rich but neglected Balochistan highlights Pakistan’s failure to address grievances through dialogue. Its militarized response, often labeling peaceful Baloch activists as terrorists, has fueled alienation. The ISKP’s threats to target Baloch rights rallies escalate tensions, risking increased human rights abuses and radicalization. This creates a vicious cycle of state repression and extremist violence, destabilizing Balochistan and Pakistan’s Afghan border.

Moreover, the ISKP’s actions may in any case inadvertently serve Pakistan’s interests by diverting attention from state-sponsored militancy in Kashmir. Some analysts suggest that the ISI could be leveraging ISKP to counter Baloch insurgents, a strategy that, if true, would be a blatant manipulation of extremist groups to suppress ethnic dissent. It remains, thus far, a speculation, though. These double-edged sword tactics risk bolstering ISKP’s foothold in Pakistan, potentially outstripping the Baloch threat. To add complexity, the Afghan Taliban’s silence on ISKP’s actions, despite their rivalry, suggests possible tacit cooperation or strategic calculations.

In conclusion, Pakistan finds itself at a crossroads, caught in a web some argue is of its own making, as ISKP’s war on Baloch separatists escalates Indo-Pakistan tensions, risking a broader Eurasian conflict. The SCO and BRICS offer de-escalation pathways, but success depends on overcoming divisions and India’s stance on Kashmir. Pakistan’s “proxy” warfare and militarized approach in turn fuel instability. This is a case in point pertaining to the limits of “proxification” and to how local conflicts can turn into larger regional issues.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Uriel Araujo, PhD, is an anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.

Source link