On January 18, a Pakistani security official told CNN that the country has targeted seven points inside Iran in retaliatory attacks.

Reuters news agency, citing a statement from the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs, reported that Pakistan has targeted separatist militants through a series of coordinated and precise military attacks on Iranian soil, killing a number of terrorists.

The ministry described the objective of the attacks as ensuring the security and national interests of Pakistan while fully respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iran.

On the other hand, news agencies in Iran reported on Thursday morning, citing Alireza Marhamati, the security and law enforcement deputy of Sistan and Baluchestan Governorate, that in the missile attack from Pakistan on the area of Saravan County, nine people were killed, including two men, three women, and four children.

According to Marhamati, they were non-Iranian. Minister of Interior Ahmad Vahidi confirmed these figures and emphasized that the victims were non-Iranian as well.

Marhamati also told the Young Journalists Club that several missiles from Pakistan hit a border village in Saravan.

“An explosion also occurred near Saravan County, but we have had no casualties there,” Marhamati added.

Photos posted on social media confirm that civilians were killed in the attacks. Users also reported that the civilians were locals and the victims included women and children.

Meanwhile, Naser Kanaani, the spokesperson for the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while “condemning” Pakistan’s actions, stated that the chargé d’affaires of the Pakistani Embassy in Tehran will be summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

An informed source, in an interview with the Iranian regime’s state TV, strongly condemned these attacks and said that the Iranian government demands an immediate explanation from Pakistani authorities regarding this incident.

Shortly before Iranian authorities confirmed the attacks on Iranian soil, a page affiliated with the Pakistani army on X posted a message announcing that the terrorist bases in Sistan and Baluchestan, Iran, had been targeted, causing heavy damage.

Saravan is located in Sistan and Baluchestan, 347 kilometers southeast of the province’s capital, Zahedan, and is adjacent to Pakistan.

These attacks took place two days after the missile and drone attack by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on Pakistani soil, claiming to target positions of the armed group Jaish ul-Adl in that country.

In a statement on January 16, the Pakistani government condemned Iran’s attack on its territory and announced that two innocent children were killed and three girls were injured in the attack.

Pakistan also recalled its ambassador from Tehran as a protest and canceled all meetings between high-ranking officials of Pakistan and Iranian authorities.

On Wednesday, January 17, the Public Relations Office of the Quds Base in southeastern Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced in a statement the killing of one of its members named Hossein Ali Javdanfar due to gunfire in Sistan and Baluchestan Province.

The Quds Base of the Revolutionary Guards introduced Hossein Ali Javdanfar as one of the “cultural experts of the Quds Base” with an “administrative mission” to “follow up on cultural activities” during his trip to Saravan County.

The Haalvash website, which covers news related to Sistan and Baluchestan, referred to the killed member of the Revolutionary Guards as the “deputy of the Saravan Quds Base” who was killed by armed individuals on the Saravan-Khash route.

So far, no individual or group has claimed responsibility for these attacks.

The Iranian regime resorts to terrorist activities in the region as a cover-up for its internal problems. These terrorist acts are mostly carried out by proxy groups of the Iranian regime, such as the Houthis and Hezbollah. After the October 7 attack and the ensuing war in Gaza, the Iranian regime has intensified such actions, and in recent weeks, it has conducted attacks in northern Iraq and Pakistan, resulting in the killing of non-combatants.

In all cases, civilians are caught in the crossfire of the regime’s warmongering activities in the region.

In a statement, the Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) claimed responsibility for a ballistic missile attack on Erbil, Iraq, stating that the objective was to “destroy espionage headquarters” and “target anti-Iranian groups.” Al-Hadath reported, citing security sources, that Iranian regime missiles fell near the U.S. consulate in Erbil.

Following the confirmation of the missile attacks by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps on positions in Erbil, Iraq, Matthew Miller, spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State, condemned the attack and offered condolences to the families of the victims.

Adrienne Watson, spokesperson for the White House National Security Council, also referred to some claims made regarding the targeting of U.S. positions by the Revolutionary Guards missiles, stating that the United States has tracked the missile attacks by the Guards in northern Iraq and northern Syria and confirmed that no American personnel or facilities were targeted in these attacks.

The news networks Kurdistan 24 and Rudaw reported that the Revolutionary Guards’ missile attacks on Erbil on the evening of January 15 resulted in the destruction of properties and homes of civilians, as well as the killing of non-combatants and children.

In a statement, the Kurdistan Regional Security Council stated that four civilians were killed and six others were injured in these attacks. Among the victims were a merchant and several members of his family.

The organization called the IRGC‘s statements regarding the missile attacks “baseless claims” and described the repeated attacks as a violation of the sovereignty of the Kurdistan Region and Iraq. They called on the Iraqi government and the international community not to remain silent in the face of “this crime.”

The IRGC issued three separate statements after these attacks. In the first statement, they claimed responsibility for the attack on Erbil but asserted that they targeted “espionage headquarters and terrorist groups” with ballistic missiles. The IRGC did not mention the names of these “espionage” or “terrorist” groups in this statement, but a Telegram channel attributed to the IRGC posted videos and photos of these attacks, stating that the “American Al-Harir base” was targeted in the attack on Erbil.

In their second statement, the organization announced that they targeted “locations where commanders and key elements associated with the recent incidents in Kerman and Rask in Sistan and Baluchestan” in separate missile attacks on Syria. However, international or regional media did not react significantly to these claimed attacks by the IRGC and did not publish any pictures or images of these attacks.

In their third statement, the IRGC claimed to have destroyed the “intelligence headquarters of Israel’s Mossad” in the missile barrage around the U.S. consulate in Erbil, Iraq.

The recent attacks orchestrated by Tehran-backed militias have raised concerns about the Iranian regime’s enduring terrorist agenda and its potential to spark a full-blown conflict in the volatile Middle East. However, countering the regime’s aggressions does not necessarily lead to war, contrary to the narrative woven by the Iranian regime itself, as highlighted by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) in a recent article.

The Iranian regime’s survival hinges on two critical pillars: suppressing dissent at home and spreading terrorism and warmongering abroad. By supporting proxy militias, the regime aims to expand its influence strategically in regions such as Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and North Africa, while maintaining plausible deniability. However, this reliance on proxy forces reveals an intrinsic weakness and vulnerability.

“The regime’s true military capabilities are constrained, and its dependence on proxy forces underscores an intrinsic weakness and vulnerability,” states the NCRI. Despite its grandiose displays of military might and rhetoric, the regime has not retaliated against attacks on its forces and commanders in Syria and Lebanon, suggesting a reluctance to engage in direct confrontation.

Moreover, the Iranian regime’s rhetoric often contradicts its actions. While it spends billions of dollars on nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, its response to attacks on its forces has been notably restrained. This lack of retaliation has fueled frustration within its ranks, interpreting it as a sign of weakness.

The regime’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei emphasized in 2018 that war is not in Iran’s interest, stating, “Because war involves two sides: we, who do not initiate conflict, and the Americans, who also refrain from starting a war as they know it would be entirely to their disadvantage.” Khamenei’s words reflect a calculated understanding that direct confrontation with Western nations would not favor the Iranian regime.

The regime’s lobbyists say that a decisive confrontation with the regime would exacerbate the crisis and push the regime into war. This is a baseless claim. In fact, historical instances have shown that wherever decisive action has been taken against the regime, it has retreated. In contrast, when confronted with a softer approach, the regime becomes more assertive, intensifying its destructive behavior.

In the face of Tehran’s provocations, the international community has occasionally demonstrated resolute action, forcing the regime to recalibrate its approach. The UK’s robust response to the seizure of Royal Navy personnel in 2007 resulted in Iran releasing the sailors after 13 days. Similarly, when Iran was suspected of attacking commercial oil tankers in 2019, the US and its allies deployed additional warships and conducted military exercises, compelling Iran to deny involvement and de-escalate tensions.

The most notable example of resolute action was the US military’s killing of Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani in 2020. Despite the regime’s vows of severe revenge, it refrained from directly striking US forces and instead carried out symbolic retaliatory attacks through its proxy forces. This pattern of behavior indicates the regime’s aversion to risking a direct confrontation with Western nations.

As the NCRI aptly summarizes, “The regime’s true military capabilities are constrained, and its dependence on proxy forces underscores an intrinsic weakness and vulnerability.” It is through resolute and decisive policies that the international community can force the Iranian regime to reconsider its approach and ultimately back down from its aggressive stance.

By understanding the regime’s nature and history, the international community can address the Iranian regime’s enduring terrorist agenda without igniting a full-blown conflict in the volatile Middle East. Firm and strategic actions will not herald war, but rather compel the regime to reassess its path and seek alternative means to preserve its rule.