THE temptation to draw comparisons between the recent 12-day Israel-Iran war, and Pakistan’s encounter with India earlier this summer, is difficult to resist. Both conflicts demonstrated an erosion of the psychological barriers that may have once restrained or deterred states from striking each. Initiators in both conflicts seemed united in their belief that launching short wars is not only possible, but, in fact, politically desirable. Both conflicts saw the targeting of major cities, not just borders and hinterlands. And both conflicts underscored the imperative for targeted states to strike back to establish some form of deterrence.

But the parallels also have limits. Pakistan has a nuclear deterrent, hence the escalation dynamics in the India-Pakistan dyad are fundamentally different from those in the Israel-Iran dyad, at least for now. India and Pakistan are also near-military competitors, evenly matched for purposes of a short conflict (the fact that Pakistan could have resorted to using its cruise missiles to target Indian military sites in the most recent encounter, but chose not to, is a different subject). Finally, Pakistan and India are contiguous neighbours, with disputed borders, shorter flight........

© Dawn