In a region long defined by fragile deterrence and recurring crises, the events of early May this year marked an extraordinary shift in the strategic reality of South Asia.
Operation Iron Wall, conducted by Pakistan in response to a coordinated and technologically advanced Indian offensive, demonstrated not only superior military capability but a calibrated and disciplined approach to modern warfare.
What unfolded was far more than a tactical military encounter; it was a defining moment in which conventional capabilities, strategic communication, and geopolitical balance intersected to redraw assumptions about power, deterrence, and escalation in the subcontinent.
Brigadier (Retd) Mahmood Shah, former Secretary Law and Order of ErstwhileFata while talking to APP said that in the span of just two days, Pakistan transitioned from a posture of reactive defence to one of assertive control, setting a precedent whose implications will echo far beyond the Line of Control.
He said the scale and complexity of the military engagement that unfolded on May 6 and 7 placed it among the most sophisticated air battles of the 21st century.
Involving 112 combat aircraft from both sides, equipped with advanced Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missile technology, the engagement tested not only aerial capabilities but the broader operational doctrine of both nations.
“Pakistan’s performance was clinical: five confirmed aerial kills, including three Rafale jets, were achieved without a single aircraft lost,” he said.
He added this outcome was neither coincidental nor merely tactical; it reflected a systematic investment in readiness, integration of real-time intelligence, and mastery of electromagnetic warfare.
In contrast to India’s high-profile procurement and narrative-driven defence posturing, Pakistan demonstrated quiet operational depth and maturity.
Equally significant was Pakistan’s handling of the largest swarm drone attack in modern combat history.
All seventy-seven hostile drones were eliminated-none returned. This feat underscored the robustness of Pakistan’s multi-layered air defence system and its ability to combine kinetic and non-kinetic countermeasures in a high-pressure environment.
Even more telling was the neutralisation of advanced threats such as ballistic missiles and air-launched BrahMos cruise missiles.
Despite the hypersonic speed and precision of these systems, most were intercepted mid-flight, thereby neutralising the strategic edge India had long assumed to hold.
The technological confidence this built within Pakistan’s defence establishment was not only validated but amplified across regional observers.
“One of the most consequential elements of this operation was Pakistan’s conscious decision to elevate its response within the conventional spectrum rather than relying on the threat of strategic escalation” he said.
Traditionally, Pakistan has leaned on its nuclear deterrent to counterbalance conventional asymmetry. However, this operation marked a doctrinal evolution-demonstrating that Pakistan could respond to aggression with agility, precision, and measured force at the conventional level.
“By striking twenty-six Indian targets in response to nine Pakistani sites, Islamabad conveyed both capability and restraint, ensuring that its message was received without crossing red lines that would provoke wider conflict. This recalibrated response posture may well become the new template for crisis management in the region,” he said.
Beyond the battlefield, the strategic ramifications were swift and far-reaching.
India, having long sought to position itself as a net security provider in the Indo-Pacific and a bulwark against regional instability, found its narrative unravelled.
Despite its lobbying and media-driven campaign, it failed to garner unequivocal support from global powers.
“The Western bloc, often perceived as India’s diplomatic bastion, largely remained neutral.
In contrast, Pakistan received quiet but firm diplomatic support from key partners-China, Türkey, Gulf states, and Saudi Arabia. Only one country, Israel, stood openly with India, reinforcing the ideological undertones of regional alignments,” said Manzoorul Haq, former Ambassador while talking to APP.
He said the international community’s overarching response was not one of partisanship, but concern-concern that escalation between nuclear-armed neighbours had edged dangerously close to uncontrollable dimensions.
“This realisation had economic consequences as well. Despite the geopolitical turbulence, Pakistan’s engagement with the International Monetary Fund remained unaffected.”
The disbursement of financial tranches continued, signaling confidence in Pakistan’s macroeconomic trajectory and its capacity to withstand shocks.
This continuity, underlined by Pakistan’s economic restructuring efforts, further legitimised its position as a responsible state actor capable of managing both internal and external crises without succumbing to political instability or economic disarray.
Internally, the psychological and political effects of the operation were equally profound. In India, he said the aggressive posturing collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. Its domestic narrative-built on anti-Muslim and anti-Sikh rhetoric-faced intensified scrutiny. The crisis exposed internal fissures and eroded New Delhi’s moral standing, both domestically and abroad, he said.
Conversely, Pakistan witnessed a rare moment of national cohesion. The synergy observed between its armed forces, political leadership, and intelligence community revealed a matured internal consensus.
He said the divisions that had previously hampered coordinated response mechanisms were, at least temporarily, eclipsed by a shared national objective: the preservation of sovereignty and dignity.
“Pakistan also won the narrative war. Its communications remained rooted in verifiable facts, which were acknowledged by both allies and neutral observers,” he said.
He said India’s narrative, often amplified by partisan media and disinformation networks, collapsed under scrutiny, rendering it a source of ridicule in many international circles.
Moreover, he said credible evidence of Indian support for terrorism in Balochistan and former FATA regions began to surface, reversing years of diplomatic pressure that had painted Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism. For the first time in decades, the burden of proof and justification had shifted decisively.
Strategically, the operation undid years of Indian efforts to de-hyphenate itself from Pakistan in global diplomacy. The subcontinental lens returned with renewed clarity.
Ambassador Manzoor said Pakistan was no longer seen as the lesser party in a binary frame, but as a rational, capable actor with legitimate security concerns and the capacity to defend them.
He said the Kashmir dispute, long buried beneath economic interests and strategic convenience, re-emerged in diplomatic corridors as a ticking fault line demanding resolution.
More importantly, he said Pakistan’s proposal for a structured dispute resolution mechanism with India gained traction as the only viable path forward.
The operation Iron Wall reaffirmed a principle too often sidelined in policy debates: national security is non-negotiable.
Diplomacy, economic planning, and international engagement all rest on the foundation of credible defence.
Pakistan’s performance in May not only safeguarded its territorial integrity but also restored its strategic credibility, both regionally and globally.
It demonstrated that restraint must be chosen, not imposed-and that in choosing it from a position of strength, a state reclaims not only control over events but also over its narrative.
.jpg)
