By Raza Syed

The smoke has cleared from the ruins of the Khadijatul Kubra Mosque, but the acrid stench of failure now hangs over the entire capital.

In a grotesque escalation of the sectarian bloodshed that has scarred Pakistan for decades, a suicide bomber detonated explosives inside the Khadijatul Kubra Mosque also known as the Tarlai Imambargah in southeastern Islamabad’s Tarlai Kalan area during Friday prayers, slaughtering at least 31 worshippers and wounding over 169 others. The blast, which targeted a Shia congregation in one of the capital’s ostensibly secure outskirts, transformed a sacred haven into a slaughterhouse of rubble, blood, and anguish, with debris strewn across the prayer hall and frantic rescuers pulling mangled bodies from the wreckage.

Eyewitnesses recounted scenes of unmitigated horror: survivors staggering through smoke-filled chaos, screaming for aid as the acrid stench of explosives mingled with cries of the dying. Hospitals across the city, including major facilities like the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, declared emergencies, overwhelmed by the surge of critically injured victims—many with shrapnel wounds, burns, and traumatic amputations. Initial reports underestimated the carnage at 10-20 fatalities, but the toll climbed relentlessly to 31 as more bodies were unearthed from the debris, a grim tally that underscores not just the attack’s lethality but the state’s sluggish response. Preliminary investigations suggest the perpetrator was a suicide bomber, possibly a foreign national affiliated with the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) or the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), groups infamous for their genocidal campaigns against Shia minorities. No group has claimed responsibility, but the fingerprints of these extremists are unmistakable in a nation where sectarian hatred festers unchecked.

This atrocity is no mere “isolated incident”it is a searing indictment of the Shehbaz Sharif government’s catastrophic incompetence, a regime that prioritizes political survival over the sanctity of human life. For years, Pakistan’s Shia community, comprising roughly 20% of the population, has endured a relentless barrage of targeted violence, with mosques and religious processions turned into killing fields by militant outfits like the TTP and its splinter factions. The 2023 Peshawar mosque bombing, which obliterated over 100 lives inside a purportedly fortified police compound, should have been the catalyst for sweeping reforms. Instead, it revealed the same festering decay: intelligence blackouts, woefully inadequate protections for vulnerable sites, and a government entangled in political intrigue rather than resolute counter terrorism.

Today’s carnage in Islamabad, the epicenter of national power, housing federal institutions, foreign embassies, and military bastions—lays bare the depths of this negligence. Despite a labyrinth of checkpoints, surveillance networks, and patrols that ostensibly safeguard the elite, a bomber infiltrated a mosque during peak prayers, exposing a security perimeter as porous as it is performative. Shia leaders had issued repeated alerts about escalating threats, including suspicious loitering around religious sites, yet security provisions remained superficial at best. The Islamabad Police’s delayed arrival, hampered by “jurisdictional hurdles” in a city engineered for rapid response, is nothing short of criminal dereliction. How could explosives breach the capital’s defenses? The answer reeks of misplaced priorities: billions siphoned into military escapades against phantom external foes, while domestic militancy thrives amid economic collapse and political paralysis.

In the ghastly aftermath, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and President Asif Ali Zardari offered the nation the same scripted liturgy of grief. Their words—”heinous,” “barbaric,” “unacceptable”—are the empty echoes of ghosts, leaders who rule from behind bulletproof glass, utterly disconnected from the terror experienced by citizens who simply wish to pray in peace. What is the value of a “full force” that mobilizes only after the screams have faded? What is the meaning of “resolve” demonstrated solely in press releases? The people see the truth: a government that can lockdown an entire city to arrest a political rival cannot secure a single house of worship. A security apparatus that functions with ruthless efficiency to guard the corridors of power goes lethally dormant when the powerless are threatened.

Law enforcement institutions, gorged on taxpayer funds yet riddled with corruption and cronyism, share the bloodstained blame. The Punjab Police and federal agencies boast a sordid history of dismissing minority pleas for safeguards, as evidenced by assaults on Ahmadiyya mosques where officers have not only failed to intervene but occasionally spearheaded the vandalism. In this latest outrage, social media erupts with righteous fury: users decry the government’s “helpless spectator” posture, with one post lamenting the “Shia vs Sunni bloodbath” and another spotlighting the soaring death toll while interrogating how such a “deadly explosion” could pierce a “secured” capital. X feeds pulse with outrage, one viral clip capturing worshippers in shock outside the mosque, a verified testament to the blast’s immediacy. These digital laments amplify a national scream: Why do checkpoints proliferate for VIP convoys while mosques remain death traps?

At the apex of this institutional rot stands Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi, whose stewardship of internal security has proven disastrously inept. Appointed in March 2024 amid controversy over his media empire and concurrent role as chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board, Naqvi’s divided loyalties symbolize the government’s frivolity—prioritizing cricket spectacles over countering terror. Under his watch, intelligence coordination has crumbled, surveillance gaps have widened, and minority protections have evaporated. His ministry’s “reviews” and “task forces” post-attack are mere theater, cosmetic bandages on a hemorrhaging wound. Naqvi’s failure to fortify places of worship, despite documented spikes in militant activity spilling from Afghanistan’s borders, borders on malfeasance. How many more massacres must stain his tenure before accountability bites?

The journalistic corps must confront its own complicity. Too frequently, media giants regurgitate official spin, smothering tales of systemic collapse beneath tabloid sensationalism. We demand unyielding scrutiny: independent inquiries that pierce the veil of “ongoing investigations” destined for dusty shelves, not perfunctory probes that vanish into the ether.

This explosion transcends tragedy; it is the crimson yield of protracted governmental apathy, law enforcement’s collusion, and ministerial ineptitude. As Islamabad grieves under a pall of fear—vigils flickering amid cordons, communities bracing for reprisals—the stark query looms: How many innocents must perish before Pakistan’s overlords reckon with their culpability? The capital, meant to embody stability and justice, now symbolizes fragility and betrayal. Cosmetic lockdowns and aerial drones offer no salve; what the nation craves is a seismic overhaul—dismantling terror networks, shielding minorities, and purging the corrupt. Anything less dishonors the dead and courts further apocalypse. The fuse is lit; the reckoning must ignite reform, or watch the republic burn.

ISPR, Rawalpindi

On 31 January 2026, terrorists of Indian sponsored Fitna al Hindustan attempted to disturb peace of Balochistan by conducting multiple terrorist activities around Quetta, Mastung, Nushki, Dalbandin, Kharan, Panjgur, Tump, Gwadar and Pasni.

On behest of their foreign masters, these cowardly acts of terrorism were aimed at disrupting the lives of local populace and development of Balochistan by targeting innocent civilians in District Gwadar and Kharan, wherein, terrorists maliciously targeted eighteen innocent civilians (including women, children, elderly and labours) who embraced Shahadat.

Security Forces and Law Enforcement Agencies being fully alert immediately responded and successfully thwarted the evil design of terrorists displaying unwavering courage and professional excellence. Our valiant troops carried out engagement of terrorists with precision and after prolong, intense and daring clearance operation across Balochistan, sent ninety two terrorists including three suicide bombers to hell, ensuring security and protection of local populace.

Tragically, during clearance operations and intense standoffs, fifteen brave sons of soil, having fought gallantly, made the ultimate sacrifice and embraced shahadat.

Sanitization operations in these areas are being continuously conducted and the instigators, perpetrators, facilitators and abettors of these heinous and cowardly acts, targeting innocent civilians and Law Enforcement Agencies personals, will be brought to Justice.

Intelligence reports have unequivocally confirmed that the attacks were orchestrated and directed by terrorists ring leaders operating from outside Pakistan, who were in direct
communication with the terrorists throughout the incident.

Earlier on 30 January, forty one terrorists of Fitna al Hindustan and Fitna al Khwarij were killed in Panjgur and Harnai. With these successful operations in last two days, the total number of terrorists killed in the ongoing operations in Balochistan has reached one hundred and thirty three.

Sanitization operations are being conducted to eliminate any other Indian sponsored terrorist found in the area. Relentless Counter Terrorism campaign under vision “Azm e Istehkam” (as approved by Federal Apex Committee on National Action Plan) by Security Forces and Law Enforcement Agencies of Pakistan will continue at full pace to wipe out menace of foreign sponsored and supported terrorism from the country.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : Pakistan steered its ship with admirable composure during the “twelve-day war,” which began with Israel–U.S. strikes on Iranian military and nuclear-linked targets in mid-June 2025 and escalated into sustained exchanges that lasted nearly two weeks, ending with a ceasefire around June 24. What made those twelve days unforgettable was not only the intensity, but the symbolism: Iran’s missile and drone barrages repeatedly penetrated Israeli airspace, challenging the psychological aura surrounding Israel’s multi-layered defense architecture—systems such as Iron Dome and David’s Sling that the world had come to view as near-absolute protection.
During that first phase, Tehran discovered that many relationships celebrated in peacetime become conditional in wartime. India—despite years of strategic engagement with Iran and the economic logic of connectivity projects designed to reach Central Asia—did not step forward in a manner Tehran expected. For Iranian observers, this was not merely silence; it felt like calculated distance, shaped by India’s wider strategic alignments and its concern that any global momentum toward a Palestinian two-state framework could echo into renewed international scrutiny of Kashmir. The war thus exposed not only military fault lines, but diplomatic ones, revealing how quickly geopolitics can reorder loyalties when the costs of association rise.
Pakistan, in that first phase, stood out as a notable exception. Islamabad’s political and diplomatic signaling leaned toward defending Iran’s sovereignty and opposing external aggression, a posture framed by regional media as meaningful support and a source of goodwill. Pakistan appeared willing to risk diplomatic discomfort to stand with a neighbor under direct attack, reinforcing a narrative of fraternal ties rooted in geography, culture, and shared historical memory. That moment, however, belonged to a specific kind of conflict—short, explosive, and bounded by the logic of rapid escalation and de-escalation.
The second phase is of a different character altogether. On January 23, 2026, President Donald Trump publicly confirmed that a U.S. armada was moving toward the Middle East, with major naval assets shifting into the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean as Washington framed the deployment around Iran’s internal unrest and the regime’s response to protests. This was not the sudden blaze of a twelve-day exchange; it was the slow, visible architecture of pressure—presence, signaling, and endurance.
In this new moment, Pakistan’s dilemma sharpens. The cost of being misunderstood becomes higher, the penalties of miscalculation more enduring. Islamabad must now decide how to protect its neighborhood, its economy, and its strategic credibility without turning itself into a battlefield, a base, or a bargaining chip in a contest far larger than any single state.
This complexity is deepened by Pakistan’s Middle East relationships. Beyond Saudi Arabia, Pakistan’s economic and financial space has long been underpinned by Gulf cooperation through investment flows, energy arrangements, and vast remittance networks tied to Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. Yet this support exists within a regional context where many Gulf states view Iran not only as a strategic competitor but also as a religious and political rival, accusing Tehran of deepening sectarian divides and projecting influence through proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Palestine. In this environment, overt Pakistani alignment with Iran would be more likely to unsettle Gulf capitals than reassure them, potentially narrowing Pakistan’s economic and diplomatic room for maneuver.
Against this backdrop, Pakistan’s first choice is open support for Iran—diplomatic, material, and, if forced by circumstances, kinetic. The appeal lies in moral clarity and neighborhood logic. Iran is a neighbor whose stability directly affects Pakistan’s western frontier, border security, and internal cohesion. Open support would reassure Tehran that it is not alone again, strengthening long-term trust and potentially discouraging any future strategic drift that could expose Pakistan’s flank. The cost, however, is immediate and tangible. Visible alignment against Washington risks economic retaliation, pressure through international financial channels, and political isolation in forums where U.S. influence remains decisive, while also unsettling Gulf partners who see Iran through a lens of rivalry rather than fraternity.
The second choice is alignment with the United States and Israel—offering cooperation that could include intelligence sharing, logistical facilitation, or strategic access. This path promises short-term diplomatic favor and potential financial relief, but it is the most combustible domestically and regionally. It would inflame public sentiment, sharpen sectarian and political tensions, and almost certainly provoke Iranian hostility in ways that could destabilize Pakistan’s western borderlands. The strategic blowback could be generational, recasting Pakistan’s image across the Muslim world and entangling it in a conflict whose objectives and endgame are not of its own making.
The third choice is declared neutrality. Pakistan would step back, deny its soil and airspace for conflict, and consistently call for de-escalation. The advantage is immediate insulation. Neutrality reduces the risk of becoming a direct target and preserves working channels with all parties. Yet neutrality in a pressure campaign can become a quiet punishment. Iran may still feel abandoned and revise its trust calculus. Washington may interpret restraint as passive resistance and still apply economic pressure. India could frame Pakistan as irrelevant or opportunistic while consolidating its own partnerships. Neutrality can be a shield, but it can also become an empty space others fill with their own narratives.
The fourth choice is calibrated dual-track strategy. Pakistan avoids loud, provocative rhetoric that triggers U.S. retaliation while quietly extending the maximum permissible support to Iran behind the curtain of diplomacy. This is survival statecraft in a world where economies can be choked without a single missile launched. The advantage is strategic breathing room: Pakistan preserves its financial and diplomatic channels while preventing Iran from feeling strategically orphaned. The risk is fragility. If exposed, secrecy can produce the worst of both worlds—U.S. anger without the protection of honesty and Iranian disappointment if the help appears too cautious or insufficient.
The fifth choice is multilateral internationalization—pushing the crisis into formal global forums such as the United Nations, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and ad hoc contact groups involving China, Russia, Turkey, and key European states. Instead of positioning itself as a bilateral actor between Tehran and Washington, Pakistan frames itself as a convener and agenda-setter, shifting the burden of mediation, legitimacy, and pressure onto a wider coalition. The advantage is dilution of risk. Decisions and outcomes no longer rest on Pakistan’s shoulders alone, and the crisis is embedded in a global framework that makes unilateral escalation politically costlier. The downside is loss of speed and influence. Multilateral processes are slow, consensus-driven, and often shaped by great-power rivalries that can stall momentum at the very moments when urgency is greatest.
These five paths do not exist in isolation; they overlap, collide, and constrain one another. Pakistan cannot fully embrace one without partially touching the others. Open support for Iran strains Gulf and Western ties. Alignment with Washington risks regional backlash. Neutrality invites suspicion from all sides. Dual-track strategy demands discipline and secrecy. Multilateralization trades immediacy for legitimacy. The art of statecraft lies not in choosing a single lane, but in sequencing these options in a way that preserves room to maneuver as circumstances evolve.
The most sustainable course for Pakistan lies in a disciplined blend of the fourth and fifth choices, anchored by the language of the third. Declared neutrality in public posture provides a shield against direct retaliation. Active, quiet stabilization with Iran preserves neighborly trust and reduces the risk of border spillover, refugee flows, and proxy escalation. Multilateral engagement internationalizes the crisis, embedding it in legal and diplomatic frameworks that slow the march toward unilateral coercion. At the same time, Pakistan must maintain cordial, pragmatic, and economically constructive relations with Washington, carefully calibrating its actions and rhetoric to avoid triggering sanctions or financial pressures that could further strain an already fragile economic landscape.
The twelve-day war proved that old myths can break and that “friends” can vanish when bombs fall. The January 23 mobilization proves something else: pressure campaigns are built to last, and nations survive them through balance, not bravado. Pakistan’s victory will not be found in loud slogans or reckless entanglement. It will be measured in its ability to protect its economy, preserve its Gulf lifelines, prevent western-border chaos, stand close enough to Iran to preserve brotherhood, far enough from provocation to deny adversaries a pretext for retaliation, and engaged enough with the world to ensure that when the region’s future is negotiated, Pakistan is not merely present, but heard.