Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is leveraging ISKP as a strategic asset to subdue the Afghan Taliban.

In the desolate, mineral-rich expanses of Afghanistan, a new chapter of the “Great Game” is being written, one where the old rules of insurgency and statecraft are colliding with the ruthless ambitions of the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP).

For Beijing, the withdrawal of Western forces from Kabul was supposed to herald a golden era of economic expansion—a chance to extend the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) into the heart of Central Asia.

Yet, as Chinese engineers break ground and diplomats shake hands with the Taliban, a sinister reality has emerged. China is no longer just an investor; it is a target. And arguably the most disturbing element of this security crisis is not just the ferocity of the jihadists, but the calculated geopolitical machinations of China’s “all-weather friend,” Pakistan.

The Dragon in the Crosshairs

The resurgence of ISKP in the post-US Afghanistan landscape poses an existential threat to Chinese interests that Beijing appears ill-equipped to handle. Unlike the Taliban, who crave international legitimacy and economic aid, ISKP operates on a nihilistic theology that views the Chinese state not as a partner, but as a godless oppressor of the Uyghur Muslims.

Intelligence reports and propaganda channels from the group have increasingly explicitly included Chinese citizens in their “kill lists,” marking a terrifying pivot from local sectarian violence to transnational terrorism.

This is not merely rhetoric. ISKP has engaged in a systematic campaign to obstruct the China-Afghanistan cooperation process. By attacking Chinese personnel, hotels frequenting Chinese businessmen, and infrastructure projects, they aim to achieve a dual victory: punishing Beijing for its Xinjiang policies and humiliating the Taliban administration by exposing its inability to protect its most powerful patron.

Every dead Chinese engineer is a billboard for the Taliban’s security failure, driving a wedge between Kabul and Beijing. For China, the risk is compounding; their economic strategy relies on stability, yet their very presence incites the instability they fear.

The Double Game: Islamabad’s Dangerous Proxy

However, to view the ISKP threat solely as a byproduct of Afghan chaos is to miss the deeper, more cynical geopolitical undercurrents. Security analysts and regional intelligence have long pointed to a disturbing pattern in Pakistan’s strategic calculus—a continuation of the “double game” that once bedeviled the Americans.

The central allegation, supported by a growing body of evidence, is that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is leveraging ISKP as a strategic asset to subdue the Afghan Taliban.

Islamabad finds itself in a precarious position. The Afghan Taliban, once their proxies, have become defiant, sheltering the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and refusing to recognize the Durand Line. In response, observers argue that the Pakistani security establishment has tacitly allowed ISKP to operate as a counter-pressure force.

By facilitating—or at the very least, turning a blind eye to—ISKP sanctuaries, Pakistan aims to weaken the Taliban’s grip on power and force them into subservience. The logic is brutal but familiar: use one monster to fight another.

This strategy, however, comes with a catastrophic collateral cost for China. While Pakistan acts as Beijing’s closest ally, the very groups it nurtures to checkmate Kabul are the ones turning their guns on Chinese citizens. It is a perilous gambit where Islamabad attempts to walk a tightrope, utilizing jihadist assets for regional leverage while simultaneously claiming to be a victim of terrorism to secure international funds.

The Tirah Valley Revelation

Nowhere is this duplicitous reality more stark than in the recent, murky events of the Tirah Valley in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) province. This rugged terrain, historically a smuggler’s paradise and militant stronghold, has become the epicenter of a new security failure involving Chinese nationals.

Recent violent incidents in the region resulting in the deaths of Chinese personnel were swiftly framed by Pakistani narratives as the work of Baloch separatists or generic “militants.” The Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) is a convenient scapegoat; they are secular, anti-state, and openly hostile to Chinese investment. Blaming them fits a tidy narrative that absolves the state of religious extremism problems.

However, a forensic look at the Tirah Valley incident suggests a different author. The operational sophistication and the specific targeting methodologies bore the hallmarks of ISKP. Credible intelligence suggests that the Tirah Valley has been functioning as a sanctuary where ISKP operatives regroup, allegedly under the watchful surveillance of the ISI.

The accusation is damning: that elements within the Pakistani state apparatus, in their zeal to maintain ISKP as a thorn in the Taliban’s side, allowed these networks to fester until they lashed out at the Chinese.

The attempt to shift blame to the Baloch separatists serves a dual purpose for Islamabad. It demonizes the Baloch independence movement, justifying harsh military crackdowns in Balochistan, while simultaneously concealing the state’s lingering flirtation with Islamist terror groups like ISKP.

For Beijing, the realization is dawning that the “iron brothers” relationship with Pakistan might be riddled with rust. The Chinese are dying not just because of ideological hatred, but because they are pawns in a fratricidal struggle between regional intelligence agencies and the proxy groups they cultivate.

A Fracture in the Alliance

As China doubles down on its security protocols, importing private security contractors and demanding “thorough investigations,” the silence from Beijing regarding Pakistan’s role is deafening. It is a silence born of necessity; China has no other viable route to the Indian Ocean.

Yet, the blood spilled in the Tirah Valley and the streets of Kabul serves as a grim warning.

The resurgence of ISKP is not an accident of history but a monster fed by the cynical strategies of regional powers. If Pakistan continues to view ISKP as a useful lever against the Taliban, it does so at the peril of its most critical economic partnership.

For China, the lesson is harsh and historically consistent: in the Hindu Kush, the hand that shakes yours in friendship may also be the one feeding the tiger that stalks you.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

For India, it is a declaration that the era of passive absorption is over. For the world, it’s a test case in modern warfare doctrine.

In a rare public commentary from a senior U.S. military scholar, John Spencer—executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute and coauthor of Understanding Urban Warfare—has described India’s four-day military campaign, Operation Sindoor, as “a decisive victory in modern warfare.” Writing on Wednesday, Spencer called the operation “a model of limited war with clearly defined ends,” asserting that it could redefine how nations respond to state-sponsored terrorism in the nuclear age.

Operation Sindoor was launched by India on May 7, 2025, in response to a deadly terror attack in the tourist town of Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22. The massacre, which killed 26 Indian civilians, mostly Hindu pilgrims, was claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF), a group widely recognized as a proxy of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and backed by Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Unlike previous Indian responses, this time there was no diplomatic wait-and-see. India struck back with calibrated military action, marking a major departure from its historically cautious approach.

“This was not merely a symbolic gesture,” Spencer wrote. “It was decisive power, clearly applied.”

A New Doctrine Revealed

What makes Operation Sindoor unique, Spencer argued, is the strategic doctrine that underpinned it. While India has not formally declared the operation over, military activity has halted in what officials are calling a “stoppage of firing”—a careful semantic choice that avoids the term “ceasefire” and underscores India’s desire to retain initiative and control.

“The halt in operations is not the end,” Spencer emphasized. “It is a pause. India holds the initiative. If provoked again, it will strike again.”

According to Spencer’s analysis, India achieved four major strategic objectives:

Destroying Terror Infrastructure: Precision strikes targeted key terrorist hubs in Bahawalpur, Muzaffarabad, and Muridke—well beyond the Line of Control.

Demonstrating Military Superiority: India’s ability to launch and defend against retaliatory strikes—including a massive Pakistani drone swarm—highlighted the growing prowess of its domestically developed and internationally supported air defense systems.

Restoring Deterrence: By responding forcefully yet limiting escalation, India signaled to both adversaries and the international community that terror attacks would no longer go unanswered.

Asserting Strategic Independence: India acted without seeking Western mediation or U.N. intervention, a move that signaled its readiness to set and enforce its own red lines.

Four Days That Changed the Region

The timeline of Operation Sindoor was rapid and deliberate:

• May 7: Indian Air Force conducted nine high-precision strikes deep inside Pakistani territory.
• May 8: Pakistan retaliated with a massive swarm drone attack, largely intercepted by Indian air defenses.
• May 9: India escalated with attacks on six Pakistani military airbases and UAV coordination hubs.
• May 10: India declared a halt in operations, maintaining the ability to resume at any moment.

This sequence, Spencer notes, was textbook execution of limited warfare—a campaign designed to achieve political and strategic goals without sliding into open-ended conflict.

“This wasn’t just tactical success,” he wrote. “It was doctrinal execution under live fire.”

Modi Doctrine: “No More Nuclear Blackmail”

The boldness of India’s response also lay in its public messaging. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statements during the operation signaled a sharp turn from the past.

“India will not tolerate any nuclear blackmail,” Modi declared. “India will strike precisely and decisively at the terrorist hideouts developing under the cover of nuclear blackmail.”

Spencer interprets this as India laying down a new strategic doctrine—one that separates nuclear deterrence from proxy terrorism, and no longer allows the threat of nuclear escalation to paralyze its counter-terror responses.

Critics of the operation—both domestic and foreign—have raised concerns about potential escalation or destabilization. However, Spencer counters that these critiques overlook the deliberate restraint India displayed.

“India retaliated forcefully but stopped short of full war,” he wrote. “That’s not recklessness—that’s control. It’s the foundation of modern deterrence.”

A Model for Limited War?

Spencer’s praise is significant not just for its content but for its source. As a leading expert on urban warfare and military doctrine, his words will likely be studied in military academies worldwide.

“In an era defined by ‘forever wars’ and cycles of violence without strategic direction, Sindoor stands apart,” Spencer wrote. “It offers a model of limited war with clearly defined ends, matched ways and means, and a state that never relinquished the initiative.”

This could have broader implications for global counter-terrorism strategy. If the international community accepts India’s precedent—that terror attacks emanating from a neighboring state will be treated as acts of war—it could signal a seismic shift in the rules of engagement for statecraft under the nuclear umbrella.

The Next Phase

What happens next remains uncertain. India has not demobilized its forces and retains a high alert status across its western front. Pakistan’s public response has been muted, likely due to the scale of its internal damage and lack of international support. Both countries have avoided crossing nuclear red lines, but the threat of further conflict remains.

Spencer ends his essay with a stark warning—and a call to attention for other democracies facing state-sponsored terrorism:

“India didn’t just respond to an attack. It changed the strategic equation.”

Operation Sindoor, he argues, will not just shape India’s national security policy—it may well influence global strategic thinking about limited war, deterrence, and the role of conventional force in a nuclear world.

For India, it is a declaration that the era of passive absorption is over. For the world, it’s a test case in modern warfare doctrine. And for Pakistan, it’s a reminder that the old playbook may no longer offer protection.

This is not just India’s victory, Spencer concludes. “This is deterrence restored. This is a doctrine revealed. And it should be studied by all nations confronting the scourge of state-sponsored terrorism.”

The discussion, which focused on Pakistan’s role as a global hub for jihadist activities, shed light on the historical, geopolitical, and ideological factors enabling this menace and explored strategies to counter its spread.

Pakistan: The Epicenter of Global Terror

Dr. Chaulia opened the episode by framing Pakistan as “Terroristan,” a nation that has become a global menace due to its long-standing habit of nurturing terrorism. Highlighting India’s recent military operation, Operation Sindoor, which destroyed nine terrorist training camps in Pakistan using precision-guided munitions, he emphasized the operation’s dual role as a military strike and a global exposé of Pakistan’s terrorist infrastructure.

“The scale of destruction and the videos of funerals and smashed buildings showed the extent of the problem festering in that country,” Chaulia noted, setting the stage for a deep dive into why Pakistan has become the epicenter of global terror.

Zahack Tanvir, introduced as a peace activist and director of Milli Chronicle, a platform dedicated to monitoring jihadist propaganda, provided a comprehensive historical perspective. He traced Pakistan’s trajectory back to its founding in 1946 by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, noting that the country was established on religious bigotry rather than ethnicity or language.

“Pakistan was called the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, purely based on religious identity,” Tanvir explained. He pointed to key historical moments, including the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which emboldened Islamists globally, and the 1980s Afghan jihad against the Soviets, during which Pakistan became a hub for global mujahideen, supported by the United States and Gulf countries.

Tanvir highlighted how Pakistan redirected these militias toward Kashmir after the Soviet conflict, with groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba wreaking havoc. “Pakistan has a history of nurturing militancy,” he asserted, citing its footprints in major terrorist attacks, including 9/11, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, and the recent Pulwama and Pahalgam attacks.

He also referenced the discovery of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and admissions by Pakistan’s defense minister about funding terrorists on behalf of Western powers.

The Role of ISI and Radical Madrassas

Tanvir identified four key factors sustaining Pakistan’s terrorist ecosystem. First, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has extensive experience training not only Kashmiri insurgents but also Chechen, Bosnian, and Taliban fighters, including the Haqqani network. “ISI sustains this whole ecosystem,” he said, noting Pakistan’s policy of “bleeding India with a thousand cuts” as revenge for the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war.

Second, he pointed to the role of radical madrassas in Pakistan, where impoverished and illiterate youth are recruited and given military training, unlike madrassas in India, which do not engage in such activities.

Tanvir shared an anecdote from his interactions with Pakistanis from Peshawar and Waziristan, describing their extreme illiteracy and vulnerability to exploitation by groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed, backed by the state and ISI.

Third, Pakistan’s strategic location, sharing borders with Afghanistan and the Line of Control, facilitates the smuggling of drugs and weapons into India. Tanvir recounted his 2023 visit to the Suchetgarh border, where India uncovered and sealed tunnels used by Pakistan for smuggling.

Finally, he addressed the role of foreign powers, particularly the United States, which historically financed and armed jihadist groups via Pakistan, and China, which has turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s jihadist activities to counter India.

“China vetoed UN sanctions against Jaish-e-Mohammed’s Masood Azhar until 2019,” Tanvir noted, highlighting China’s strategic support for Pakistan’s military capabilities, including supplying drones and bombs.

Complicity of Regional Powers

The discussion also explored the role of regional powers like Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Malaysia in enabling Pakistan’s jihadist agenda. Tanvir explained that Turkey’s support is driven by its ambition to revive an Ottoman-style caliphate, with initiatives like training Pakistan’s Dolphin police unit and promoting propaganda through dramas like Ertugrul, which was broadcast on Pakistan’s national television in 2020.

Azerbaijan’s support, though less pronounced, stems from Pakistan’s backing during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict against Armenia, influenced by Turkey and Israel.

Dr. Chaulia emphasized the need to “name and shame” these countries for indirectly sponsoring terrorism by supporting Pakistan. He noted that 81% of Pakistan’s military imports over the past five years have come from China, with Turkey supplying offensive weapons, including drones used against India post-Operation Sindoor.

Countering the Jihadist Narrative

A significant portion of the discussion focused on countering the jihadist ideology propagated by Pakistan, which thrives on a victimhood narrative claiming that Muslims are persecuted and must fight to defend Islam.

Tanvir debunked this narrative, contrasting the treatment of minorities in Pakistan and India. “In 1946, Hindus made up 30% of Pakistan’s population; now they have vanished,” he said, noting the dwindling Christian minority as well. In contrast, India’s Muslim population has grown from 9% to 15-18%, with diverse Muslim sects enjoying freedom to practice their faith.

Tanvir, a proud Muslim, emphasized that Indian Muslims are safe and thriving, with the ability to travel freely from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. He contrasted this with Pakistan, where ethnic groups like Pashtuns and Punjabis face restrictions, and celebratory gunfire with AK-47s during events like Eid or cricket matches often leads to civilian casualties.

“Indian Muslims are educated and respected globally as engineers, doctors, and AI experts,” he said, lamenting the lack of such recognition for Pakistani Muslims.

To counter Pakistan’s propaganda, Tanvir advocated amplifying the voices of Indian Muslims who refute claims of persecution. He cited instances where Indian Muslims, including himself, used social media to challenge false narratives propagated by figures like UK-based Islamist Mohammed Hijab, who urged Indian Muslims to support Pakistan.

“Indian Muslims came forward and said, ‘We are safe, and your narrative is not true,’” Tanvir recounted.

A Call for Global Action

Dr. Chaulia concluded the episode by underscoring that Pakistan’s use of religion for geopolitical gain, driven by its military and clerical establishment, is the root of its “Terroristan” status. He praised India’s military response but stressed the need for a broader ideological struggle to win the hearts and minds of young people, particularly moderate Muslims.

“The voices of moderate Muslims from India must show that faith and nationalism can coexist,” he said, rejecting Pakistan’s “fake nationalism” based on hatred and violence.

Tanvir’s appearance on Doordarshan was hailed as a significant moment for raising global awareness about Pakistan’s role in terrorism. “His courageous work with Milli Chronicle, often at personal risk”, was lauded by Dr. Chaulia, who thanked him for his insights and activism.

As the episode wrapped up, Chaulia called for concerted action by like-minded countries and social movements to wage a “long counter-jihad” in the ideological sphere.

“This is not a clash of civilizations but a challenge to show that Muslims and non-Muslims can coexist,” he said, urging a generational transformation to dismantle Pakistan’s jihadist mentality.

The discussion, broadcast on India’s national television, underscored the urgency of addressing Pakistan’s role as a global terror hub and highlighted the pivotal role of informed voices like Zahack Tanvir in shaping a counternarrative to foster peace and coexistence.

Their discussion, held just hours after Gabbard’s meeting with Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, centered on India-U.S. security cooperation and concerns over anti-India activities by the banned Khalistani outfit Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) operating on American soil.

Strengthening India-U.S. Security Cooperation

Taking to social media, PM Modi expressed his satisfaction with the meeting, emphasizing the shared commitment of both nations to counter-terrorism, maritime security, and cybersecurity.

“Glad to welcome @TulsiGabbard to India. Exchanged views on further advancing the India-US Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership. Both countries are committed to combating terrorism and enhancing maritime and cybersecurity cooperation,” PM Modi posted on X.

Gabbard’s Visit and Strategic Discussions

Gabbard arrived in Delhi early Sunday for a two-and-a-half-day visit as part of a multinational tour. Her itinerary has included high-level talks with Indian officials on intelligence collaboration, defense relations, and cybersecurity.

Her visit follows PM Modi’s trip to Washington in February, where he met with Gabbard and recognized her as a strong advocate for India-U.S. relations.

As part of her engagements, Gabbard participated in key security discussions with intelligence and defense officials from 20 countries at a conclave chaired by National Security Adviser Ajit Doval.

The event, organized by the National Security Council Secretariat, has been held alongside the Raisina Dialogue since 2022, fostering global cooperation on security challenges.

A Strengthening Alliance

This marks Gabbard’s second international visit since assuming office, following her participation in the Munich Security Conference in Germany. Her visit to India underscores the deepening India-U.S. partnership, particularly in counter-terrorism, defense collaboration, and strategic security interests.

With President Trump’s second term underway, both nations are poised to strengthen their cooperation further, reinforcing their shared vision for global stability and security.