How Pakistan took the fight to Isis-K – and won Trump's praise
The call came in January. CIA Director John Ratcliffe, just days into his tenure, reached out to
Pakistan 's intelligence chief with a plea: help us bring those behind Kabul's Abbey Gate bombing – an attack that killed 170 Afghan civilians and 13 American soldiers – to justice.
Advertisement
What followed was a sweeping seven-month operation that spanned intelligence networks across 21 nations, culminating in the arrest of Mohammad Sharifullah and 38 others. It was a victory that has thrust Pakistan back into the global spotlight as an integral player in the fight against
Islamic State Khorasan , or Isis-K.
Russia ,
Led by Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) – whose director general Lieutenant General Asim Malik met Ratcliffe on the sidelines of a security conference in Germany to hatch the plan – the operation dismantled a key Isis-K 'external operations cell' responsible for some of the deadliest attacks in recent years, with its most dangerous operatives subsequently deported to countries including the
United States
Turkey and
Iran
The arrest of Sharifullah, an Afghan national who confessed to orchestrating the Abbey Gate suicide bombing during the chaotic
US withdrawal in August 2021 , marked a diplomatic victory for Islamabad and Washington.
US Marines are seen at Abbey Gate outside Kabul airport after a suicide bomber had detonated explosives in August 2021. Photo: US Department of Defence via AP
It prompted rare praise from US President
Donald Trump , who extended thanks on March 4 to Pakistan's government 'for helping arrest this monster' during
his first speech to Congress since retaking the presidency.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
6 hours ago
- Asia Times
US enters Israel-Iran war. Here's what could happen next
After prevaricating about whether the United States would enter Israel's war on Iran, President Donald Trump finally made a decision. Early Sunday, US warplanes and submarines struck three of Iran's nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, where the Iranians have a uranium enrichment plant buried about 80 metres beneath a mountain. These strikes have to be viewed as part of an overall continuum that began with the Gaza war following Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and then continued with Israel's attacks on Hezbollah (the Iran-backed militant group in Lebanon) and the fall of the Iran-backed Assad regime in Syria. Iran has never been weaker than it is now. And when Trump said it may take two weeks for him to decide whether to bomb Iran, the Israelis likely pushed him to act sooner. We can assume there was a lot of Israeli pressure on Trump to use the massive ordnance penetrators, the 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) 'bunker buster' bombs that only the US can deploy with its B2 bombers. Now that Trump has taken the significant step of entering the US in yet another Middle East war, where could things go from here? There are a few possible scenarios. The Iranians know they don't have the strength to take on the US, and that the Americans can do enormous damage to their country and even put the Iranian regime's stability at risk. This is always the prime consideration of the clerical regime led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – everything else is subordinate to that. To gauge Iran's possible reaction, we can look at how it responded to the first Trump administration's assassination of the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' elite Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani, in January 2020. Iran said there would be a major reaction, but all it did was launch a barrage of missiles at two American bases in Iraq, which caused no US fatalities and very little damage. After that token retaliation, Iran said the matter was closed. Iran's reaction to the new US strikes will likely be along these lines. It probably won't want to get into a tit-for-tat with the US by launching attacks against American facilities in the region. Trump has promised to respond with force: Iran, a bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier. It's also unclear how long Iran will be able to prosecute this war. This depends largely on how many ballistic missiles and launchers it has left. There are various estimates as to how many ballistic missiles Iran may have remaining in its stockpiles. It was believed to have about 2,000 missiles capable of reaching Israel at the start of the war. Some estimates say Iran has fired 700 of them; others say around 400. Whatever the number is, its stockpiles are dwindling quickly. Israel has also destroyed about a third of Iran's ballistic missile launchers. If Israel is able to destroy all of them, Iran would have very limited ability to fight back. Before the US got involved in the conflict, Iran said it was prepared to negotiate, but it wouldn't do so while Israel was still attacking. So, one scenario is that some sort of compromise can now be worked out, in which Israel announces a ceasefire and Iran and the US agree to resume negotiations on Tehran's nuclear program. The big problem is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he doesn't trust the negotiating process and he doesn't want to stop Israel's military actions until all of Iran's nuclear facilities have been completely destroyed. He's also been bombing Iran's oil terminals and gas facilities to put even more pressure on the regime. A handout photo made available by the Iran Atomic Energy Organisation reportedly shows the inside of Iran's Fordow nuclear facility in 2019. Photo: Atomic Energy Organisation handout / EPA via The Conversation But the regime has shown itself to be incredibly determined not to lose face. It was under great pressure at different times during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and never considered surrendering until a US missile mistakenly took down an Iranian passenger jet, killing 290 people. Iran then agreed to a UN-brokered ceasefire. But the Iran-Iraq war lasted eight years, causing an estimated one million deaths. And when the then-supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, agreed to the ceasefire, he said it was 'worse than drinking poison'. Given the state of Iran's military capabilities, Khamenei, the current supreme leader, might surrender simply to try to preserve the regime. But this would be quite a climbdown as far as he's concerned, and he has been very obstinate in the past. The regime is very unpopular, but the Iranian people, in my experience, are strongly patriotic – loyal to their country, if not the regime. Though it's difficult to gauge opinion in a country of 90 million people, a lot of Iranians would not want to be ordered to do anything by the US or Israel, and would rather fight on. Netanyahu has said he wants to create the conditions for the Iranian people to rise up against the regime. But it's worth bearing in mind that the opposite of autocracy is not necessarily democracy. It could possibly be chaos. Iran has a number of different ethnic groups and there may be huge disagreements over what should take the place of the clerical regime, were it to fall. At this stage, the regime will probably be able to hold together. And even if Khameini were to die suddenly, the regime will likely be able to quickly replace him. Though we don't know his probable successor, the regime has had plenty of time to plan for this. Those in senior positions will also know that a post-Khamenei succession struggle really would put the regime at risk. According to the new polling by The Economist and YouGov, released on June 17, 60% of Americans were opposed to joining the conflict between Israel and Iran, with just 16% in favour. Among Republicans, 53% opposed military action. So, these strikes were not an obviously popular move among Americans at this stage. However, if this is an isolated event and succeeds in bringing a swift end to the war, Trump will probably be applauded by a majority of Americans. If the US has to go back with more bombers – or there are serious attacks on US interests in the region – there could be more adverse reactions among Americans. Another question is whether Iran's 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium have been destroyed in the US attack. If it hasn't been destroyed, and depending how much damage has been done to its centrifuges, Iran may be able to reconstruct its nuclear program relatively quickly. And it could have more incentive to further enrich this uranium to 90% purity, or weapons-grade level, to build a nuclear device. Ian Parmeter is research scholar, Middle East Studies, Australian National University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
RTHK
17 hours ago
- RTHK
Trump says US bombs three Iranian nuclear sites
Trump says US bombs three Iranian nuclear sites US President Donald Trump walks from Marine One after arriving on the South Lawn of the White House on Saturday. Photo: AFP US President Donald Trump said Saturday the US military has carried out a "very successful attack" on three Iranian nuclear sites, including the underground uranium enrichment facility at Fordow. "We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan," Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform. "A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow." Trump added that "all planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors." Trump's announcement came just two days after he said he would decide "within two weeks" whether to join key ally Israel in attacking Iran. Earlier on Saturday there were reports that US B-2 bombers -- which carry so-called "bunker buster" bombs -- were headed out of the United States. Trump did not say what kind of US planes or munitions were involved. Tehran had threatened reprisals on US forces in the Middle East if Trump attacked but the US president called for "peace." "There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!" he said. (AFP)
RTHK
a day ago
- RTHK
VP Vance says US troops still 'necessary' in LA
VP Vance says US troops still 'necessary' in LA California officials have heavily criticised US President Donald Trump over his use of the military, saying it escalated protests. Photo: Reuters US Vice President JD Vance has said that the thousands of troops deployed to Los Angeles this month were still needed despite a week of relative calm in the protest-hit city. US President Donald Trump has sent roughly 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines, purportedly to protect federal property and personnel, after demonstrations over immigration raids. "Unfortunately, the soldiers and Marines are still very much a necessary part of what's going on here because they're worried that it's going to flare back up," Vance told reporters in Los Angeles. He was speaking the day after an appeals court ruled that Trump could continue to control the California National Guard, which would normally fall under Governor Gavin Newsom's authority. California officials have heavily criticised Trump over his use of the military, saying it escalated protests that local law enforcement could have handled. The demonstrations were largely peaceful and mostly contained to a small part of Los Angeles, the second-largest US city, although there were instances of violence and vandalism. "If you let violent rioters burn great American cities to the ground, then, of course, we're going to send federal law enforcement in to protect the people the president was elected to protect," Vance said, adding that Trump would deploy them again if needed. The Republican further accused Newsom – a possible contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028 – and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass of encouraging protesters. Newsom and Bass have both condemned rioting and violence towards law enforcement while accusing the Trump administration of manufacturing a crisis in the city. (AFP)
