The world may be headed toward another major conflict. Whether it takes the shape of a world war or remains in multiple theaters of war in different regions is a matter of debate. What is concerning is that the opposing powers in the current world order tend to fight direct wars whenever possible. However, nation-states always have a tendency to shift to asymmetric methods in venues where a direct war is not feasible.

Asymmetric warfare leverages existing societal fault lines, leading to increased sectarian violence and chaos, particularly in regions like Pakistan.

Asymmetric warfare intends to focus on one’s own strengths while avoiding the enemy’s—often resulting in confusion for the opposing party. For instance, the conflict between Iran and its allies and Israel and its allies has primarily resulted in an attrition-based war. With no real possibility of maneuvering or surprise, no side can effectively overwhelm the other.

Therefore, both sides are capable of engaging in fierce combat, but none can secure a definitive victory. Another example is Pakistan, which, thanks to its nuclear weapons, can deter an adversary from direct conflict without even resorting to conventional warfare. Nuclear weapons have granted Pakistan the ability to inflict punitive punishment on any adventurous army.

Therefore, a natural choice for an adversarial general, strategist, or policymaker would be to leverage existing fault lines. Such an adversary actively fosters societal divisions and propagates hatred and blind animosity, particularly by misusing religion.

In recent weeks, sectarian tensions have risen in Pakistan, particularly in the Kurram district, where both Shias and Sunnis live. The Targeting a pilgrimage convoy, which resulted in the deaths of children, women, and the elderly, ignited tensions. response to this incident was an equally unfortunate retaliation against the Sunni population in and around Kurram.

The recent sectarian tensions in the Kurram district demonstrate how external influences can exacerbate internal divisions and ignite conflict.

This particular region of the country has become a hotbed of sectarian violence, attracting both Shias and Sunnis who are uncompromising. The word in the colloquial jargon is ‘Katar.’ The uncompromising and highly protective nature of the people in that area acts like fuel, only exacerbating the fire.

In Syria, militants who allege themselves to be Sunnis have resumed armed clashes with Syrian government forces, which are supported by Iran and Russia. Their presence is gradually growing in and around the cities of Idlib and Aleppo. Dozens of Syrian Army soldiers and an equal number of rebels have died in the ensuing onslaught.

The main concern here is not the active fighting going on in these two instances; rather, it is the inability to contain emotions, which are often not grounded in either reality or common sense, to that particular theater. Social media allows for the dissemination of sectarian hatemongering. The Shias and Sunnis of Parachinar may be fighting one another, but the Shia and Sunni of other parts of the country ultimately get involved, at least verbally, against one another.

Similarly, the insurgency in Syria has assumed a sectarian shape. People on X and Facebook, who belong to both sects, have been uttering nothing but poison—often resulting in both groups declaring the other heretics and sentencing each other to death.

Social media plays a critical role in spreading sectarian hatred, making it essential to analyze discourse on these platforms to understand the dynamics of modern warfare.

The fact that those who would like to leverage this unrest, can create even more hate among the people through the use of fake/pseudo and bot accounts whose sole purpose is to spit out propaganda. It is important to conduct a discourse analysis on internet platforms to understand the full scope of the enemy’s war. We live in a warzone where our minds serve as the battlegrounds, a fact that very few people realize.

It should now be clear that asymmetric war is upon us. The world itself is rapidly moving toward a possible all-out confrontation. It is therefore natural that we, too, should prepare for it.  However, our war is not conventional in nature, making it highly unlikely that an army would invade us. But the threat of sectarian and ethnic conflict, if remained unchecked, will damage the country equally, if not more, than an invasion.

It is possible that the current developments in Syria are a continuation of the Israeli proxy war against Iran. Destabilizing Syria could result in Hezbollah losing its strategic supply lines from Iran. Syria also functions as a forward base for the Iranian and possibly Russian presence, with the aim of containing Israel and maintaining close supervision over it. The past few months have demonstrated that no side can win a conventional war, which is why sectarian violence has resumed in Syria.

To conclude, we are no new entrants to sectarian conflicts. Pakistan has suffered two decades of active sectarian strife throughout the country, resulting in the deaths of Shias and Sunnis. We can clearly see those foreign entities fuel most sectarian conflicts. We should immediately implement our conflict resolution and de-escalation mechanisms to limit the damage and prevent it from spreading to other parts of the country.

If anyone doubts this, they should examine how social media brought down decades-long-standing governments in the Arab world. It is disheartening that the average individual lacks the maturity to effectively filter through the content available on the internet. 9 out of 10 will just accept fake news and make it part of their belief. If the fake content is inflammatory, we are all well aware of the consequences.

Immediate conflict resolution mechanisms are necessary to address rising sectarian violence in Pakistan before it escalates further.

The government should at once mediate and bring about a long-term solution to the sectarian violence, especially in the Kurram area. If the fighting continues, it may spread to other parts of the country, which by then might be too late to contain. Secondly, the civil society, academia, and government policy apparatus should actively inculcate acts of tolerance and compromise in the people.

Sectarian violence is by and large the biggest national security threat to Pakistan, and countering it should be on the government agenda. It is not an outside force we need to fear but our own relentlessness, emotionalism to the degree of madness, lack of tolerance for others’ views, and a general disposition to say, “I’m right, you’re wrong.”.