Afghanistan

Rescuers are combing through the wreckage of a drug rehabilitation centre in Kabul where Afghan officials say a Pakistani strike has killed at least 400 people.

Islamabad hits Kandahar facility after Taliban drones strike civilian areas and military sites as conflict intensifies.

Pakistan has carried out strikes on an Afghan military facility in Kandahar after Taliban drones targeted civilian areas and military installations across the country.

The strikes on Saturday came after Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari condemned the overnight drone attacks, warning Kabul it had “crossed a red line by attempting to target our civilians”.

Pakistan’s military said the drones, described as locally produced and rudimentary, were intercepted before reaching their targets, though falling debris wounded two children in Quetta and civilians in Kohat and Rawalpindi.

A security source told the AFP news agency that airspace around the capital, Islamabad, had been temporarily closed when the drones were detected.

Islamabad said the Kandahar facility had been used both to launch the drone attacks and as a base for cross-border rebel activity.

The exchange marks the sharpest single escalation yet in a conflict that has been building since late February, when Pakistan launched military operations against what it said were Pakistan Taliban fighters sheltering on Afghan soil.

Islamabad also accuses Kabul of harbouring fighters from the ISIL (ISIS) group’s Khorasan province affiliate.

The Taliban government has denied both charges.

The drone attacks followed Pakistani strikes on Kabul and eastern border provinces in Afghanistan overnight on Thursday into Friday. The Pakistani attacks killed four people in the capital, women and children among them, and two more in the east.

In the Pul-e-Charkhi neighbourhood of Kabul, one resident described being buried under rubble after his home was hit, saying he lay there believing it was his “last breath” before neighbours pulled him free.

A local representative told AFP that those killed were “ordinary people, poor people” with no involvement in the conflict.

Pakistani aircraft also struck a fuel depot belonging to the private airline Kam Air near Kandahar airport, which an airport official said supplied aid organisations, including the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The official added that there were “no military installations” at the site.

Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defence claimed that its forces had captured a Pakistani border post and killed 14 soldiers.

Islamabad dismissed the assertion as baseless, with the prime minister’s spokesman accusing the Taliban of “weaving fantasies” rather than dismantling rebel networks on Afghan territory.

The UN mission in Afghanistan says at least 75 civilians have been killed and 193 injured since hostilities intensified on February 26, a toll that includes 24 children.

According to the UN refugee agency, about 115,000 people have been forced from their homes.

The crisis is unfolding as the wider region remains engulfed by the US-Israeli war with Iran, which began just two days after the Pakistan-Afghanistan clashes escalated.

Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi has urged both sides to pursue dialogue, warning that further force would only deepen the crisis, though his appeal came as Pakistani jets were already in the air over Kandahar.

Women and children were among those killed in the attacks, according to the Taliban.

Afghanistan’s Taliban government has accused Pakistan of targeting civilian homes in overnight air attacks in the capital Kabul and the southern province of Kandahar, as fighting between the two neighbours entered its third week, overshadowed by the United States-Israel war on Iran igniting the middle East.

Women and children were among those killed in the attacks, according to the Taliban.

Government spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said on X Friday that Pakistan’s aircraft also struck fuel depots belonging to the private airline Kam Air near Kandahar airport.

There was no immediate comment from Pakistan’s military or government.

Calls for restraint from the international community have gone unheeded by both sides.

On Thursday, the Taliban government said four members of the same family, including two children, were killed by Pakistani artillery and mortar fire in eastern Afghanistan.

The deaths reported on Thursday brought the toll to seven people killed in Afghanistan since Tuesday in cross-border clashes, according to authorities in Kabul. That could rise with the latest attacks on Friday.

Fighting between the two countries intensified on February 26 when Afghanistan launched an offensive along their shared border in retaliation for earlier Pakistani air attacks on the Pakistan Taliban, just two days before the US and Israel attacked Iran, starting a sprawling regional war.

Pakistan maintains that it does not target civilians, and casualty claims from both sides are difficult to verify independently.

Islamabad accuses Kabul of harbouring fighters from the Pakistan Taliban, which has claimed responsibility for a series of deadly attacks inside Pakistan, and from the ISIS (ISIL) affiliate in Khorasan province. Afghan authorities deny the charge.

The United Nations mission in Afghanistan has said 56 civilians have been killed there, including 24 children, by Pakistani military operations from February 26 to March 5.

Pakistani officials have confirmed about 12 soldiers were killed and 27 wounded in the latest bout of fighting, while the Taliban claims to have killed more than 150.

About 115,000 people have been forced to leave their homes, according to the UN.

WASHINGTON — As Congress responds to President Trump’s attack on Iran, lawmakers who served on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan are making their voices heard in a war debate that has taken on intensely personal meaning.

Many admit mixed feelings, taking satisfaction in seeing vengeance taken on the leadership of an Iranian regime that has targeted U.S. service members for decades, yet fearful that another generation of soldiers could soon face the same combat experiences that they did.

“Do I take gratification? You know there’s the Marine side of me: Yeah, of course,” said Arizona Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego, whose company suffered some of the heaviest losses on the U.S. side during the Iraq War. “I know they killed a lot of American soldiers, American Marines. But do I also understand that I have a responsibility not to let my lust for revenge drive my country into another war?”

Experiences in the post 9/11 wars are also coloring the decisions of the Trump administration, given that top officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, were once deployed to Iraq.

Gallego, like others on Capitol Hill, leaned heavily on his firsthand experience of fighting in the wars after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as he assessed the Iran conflict. Lawmakers wore bracelets etched with the names of friends killed in battle, told stories of coming under attack from Iran-backed militant groups and reflected on their own life-changing injuries suffered during combat.

Veteran lawmakers are wary of war

While the initial votes on Iran saw Congress divide mostly along party lines, with Republicans backing Trump’s actions and Democrats warning of an extended conflict, veterans in both parties share deep reservations about entering the conflict.

“As somebody who knows a lot of friends that didn’t come home and a lot of Gold Star families, that’s why the week before the attack, I was actually one of the ones that was talking about caution and why we needed to avoid at all costs getting into another long, drawn-out Middle Eastern war,” said Republican Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona, a former Navy SEAL who left college to enlist the week after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Crane said his concerns were partially assuaged by briefings from the Trump administration that indicated to him the president is not planning a drawn-out war. He voted against a war powers resolution that would have halted attacks on Iran unless Trump got congressional approval.

But Crane said wars are never straightforward. “I’ve been on military operations that did not go to plan many times, and so I understand the nature,” he said, adding that he was calling for the Trump administration to approach the conflict with “humility and caution.”

Gallego and other Democrats worried that it was too late for that approach. They paid tribute to the six U.S. military members who were killed in a drone strike in Kuwait and worried that there could soon be more American casualties. A seventh service member died on Sunday from wounds suffered during a March 1 attack in Saudi Arabia.

“War is dirty, and mistakes happen,” Gallego said. The longer the conflict drags on, he added, the greater the chance there will be for U.S. military members to be killed. He experienced that firsthand in Iraq when friends would be killed by seemingly random shots from enemy combatants.

Still, many Republicans argued that it was necessary to attack Iran to stop a regime that for decades has helped train and arm militant groups throughout the Middle East. Republican Rep. Brian Mast, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, led the debate on the House floor against the war powers resolution.

Mast, who served as an Army bomb disposal expert, now uses prosthetic legs after receiving catastrophic injuries from an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan. “Me especially, many of my other colleagues, no one wants to see our military go into combat or war,” he said.

Then he added, “But Iran’s terror, which has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans, it has to stop.”

Trying to push soldiers to forefront of war debate

Important questions loom for Congress as the conflict with Iran unfolds and spreads to other parts of the Middle East. The price of the operation is already likely running into the billions of dollars, likely forcing the Trump administration to soon seek billions in funding from Congress. The outbreak of war has also scrambled global alliances and the future of U.S. foreign policy.

Shadowing it all is the potential of another drawn-out conflict. Lawmakers said they owe it to their fallen comrades to ensure that doesn’t happen.

“To me, it’s to speak out. It’s to say another generation should not go fight in an open-ended, ill-conceived regime change war in the Middle East,” said Democratic Rep. Pat Ryan, his hand moving to a bracelet etched with the names of friends who were killed during his two Army combat tours in Iraq.

Others remembered how frustrated they became with Washington during their service, especially as soldiers tried to fight with insufficiently armored vehicles and not enough troops.

“I know what it was like to be on the very end of the receiving line of the decisions made in Washington,” said Democratic Rep. Jason Crow, who entered the Army as a private before being promoted to a captain and deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Crow said that front-line soldiers often suffered “because people stopped asking tough questions. People stopped being held accountable. Congress stopped voting on it.”

Another veteran, Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, said that was one of the reasons she sought a congressional seat in the first place. As a Blackhawk helicopter pilot with the Illinois National Guard, Duckworth lost her legs when her helicopter was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq.

“I ran for Congress so that when the drums of war started beating once again, I’d be in a position to make sure that our elected officials fully considered the true cost of the war,” she said. “Not just in dollars and cents but in human lives.”

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Amid the chaos in Kabul, politicians and pundits have declared the Taliban’s victory in Afghanistan a defeat from which U.S. influence may never recover.

“Biden’s credibility is now shot,” wrote Gideon Rachman, chief oracle of Britain’s Financial Times.

“A grave blow to America’s standing,” warned the Economist.

But take a deep breath and remember some history.

When South Vietnam collapsed after a war that involved four times as many U.S. troops, many drew the same conclusion: The age of U.S. global power was over.

Less than 15 years later, the Berlin Wall came down, the Cold War began to end, and the United States soon stood as the world’s only superpower.

The lesson: A debacle like the defeat in Kabul — or the one in Saigon two generations earlier — doesn’t always prevent a powerful country from marshaling its resources and succeeding.

I’m not dismissing the tragedy that has befallen the Afghans or the damage that U.S. credibility has suffered. When President Biden told a news conference that he had “seen no questioning of our credibility from allies,” he sounded as if he was in denial — or, perhaps worse, out of touch.

No questioning? How about the question from Tobias Ellwood, chairman of the British Parliament’s defense committee: “Whatever happened to ‘America is back’?”

Or the complaint from Armin Laschet, the German conservative who could be his country’s leader after elections next month: “The greatest debacle NATO has experienced since its founding.”

Whether he likes it or not, Biden has repair work to do.

The first step, already underway, is making sure the endgame in Kabul doesn’t get any worse.

That means keeping U.S. troops on the ground until every American is out, as Biden has promised. It also requires an energetic effort to evacuate Afghans who worked with the U.S. government and other institutions, even if that requires risking the lives of some American troops. Those Afghans trusted us; if we abandon them, it will be a long time before we can credibly ask the same of anyone else.

And, of course, the administration needs to prevent Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups from replanting themselves in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. If the United States fails at that — the original reason we invaded the country almost 20 years ago — Biden’s decision to withdraw will justly be judged a fiasco.

There’s repair work to do beyond Afghanistan, too.

“We’ve got to show that it would be wrong to see American foreign policy through the lens of Afghanistan,” Richard N. Haass, president of the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations and a former top State Department official, told me.

The United States has more important interests that need attention and allies that need reassurance, he said.

“The most important thing is to deter our major foes,” he said, referring to China, Russia and Iran.

“This is a moment to strengthen forces in Europe, mount more freedom of navigation operations [by the U.S. Navy] in the South China Sea,” he said. “This is a good time to say we’re serious about our commitment to Taiwan,” which China periodically threatens.

Biden took a step in that direction in his recent interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, listing Taiwan along with South Korea and Japan as places where the U.S. “would respond” to an attack.

If anything, Haass and other foreign policy veterans say, the questions about American credibility are likely to make Biden react more strongly to the next few challenges overseas.

“The most intriguing question is what effect this episode has on Biden’s thinking,” suggested Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Will he think: ‘I’ve got to be tougher with the Iranians now? Do I have to signal to a country like Taiwan that I’m prepared to protect American interests there?’”

But the notion that American influence has been fatally damaged is overblown, he argued.

“There have been many other instances in which U.S. credibility has been diminished, but our phone continues to ring,” Miller said.

Biden and his aides already know most of this. The premises of his foreign policy — reviving U.S. domestic strength, revitalizing U.S. alliances, and focusing on vital interests like China and Russia — provide a foundation for recovery.

“My dad used to have an expression: If everything is equally important to you, nothing is important to you,” the president said last week. “We should be focusing on where the threat is the greatest.”

The test Biden faces now is whether he can execute that strategy — and show that he’s credible where it matters most — more successfully than in his botched withdrawal from an unwinnable war.

Pakistan says it has targeted Taliban forces in Afghanistan’s Kabul and border regions; UN chief says civilians also impacted.

For decades, Pakistan was the Afghan Taliban’s closest supporter. Islamabad helped the Taliban rise in the early 1990s, seeking “strategic depth” in its rivalry with India. Pakistan welcomed the Taliban’s return to power in 2021, with then-Prime Minister Imran Khan describing it as Afghans “breaking the shackles of slavery.”

However, the alliance soon frayed. Islamabad found the Taliban less cooperative than anticipated, particularly regarding insurgent groups that targeted Pakistani territory. Border clashes, insurgent attacks, and fragile ceasefires have repeatedly disrupted trade, security, and civilian life along the rugged frontier.

Escalating Tensions: From Ceasefires to “Open War”

Tensions have been mounting since late 2025, following deadly cross-border clashes in October that killed dozens of soldiers. Ceasefires mediated by Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia temporarily eased the situation, but attacks persisted.

The latest escalation came after Pakistan cited “irrefutable evidence” that Afghan-based militants were behind recent attacks and suicide bombings targeting Pakistani forces. Air and ground strikes targeted Taliban posts, headquarters, and ammunition depots in multiple sectors, with both sides reporting heavy losses. Pakistan’s defence minister labeled the situation an “open war.”

The Trigger: Attacks by Afghan-Based Militants

Pakistani security sources linked several recent attacks to militants operating from Afghan territory. These include seven incidents since late 2024, the most deadly being the Bajaur district attack that killed 11 security personnel and two civilians, claimed by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Islamabad argues that Taliban inaction allowed the TTP and Baloch insurgents to operate freely, while Kabul denies the allegations.

Who Are the Pakistani Taliban?

The TTP, formed in 2007, is a coalition of militant groups mainly active in northwest Pakistan. It has carried out attacks on markets, mosques, airports, military bases, and police stations, occasionally gaining territory along the Afghan border and deep inside Pakistan. Its most notorious act was the 2012 attack on schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai, who later received the Nobel Peace Prize.

The TTP has historically fought alongside the Afghan Taliban against U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan and used Pakistani territory as a base for operations. Pakistan’s previous military offensives against the group, including the 2016 operation, temporarily reduced attacks but did not eliminate the threat.

Diverging Interests: Pakistan vs. Afghan Taliban

Historically, Pakistan’s support for the Taliban was based on shared strategic interests. Today, those interests are diverging:

• Pakistan’s Perspective: Taliban inaction against TTP and Baloch insurgents threatens Pakistan’s internal security. The continued use of Afghan territory as a safe haven fuels Islamabad’s justification for strikes.
• Afghan Taliban Perspective: Pakistan allegedly harbors fighters from Islamic State

Analysis

Pakistan’s sudden escalation against the Afghan Taliban is a striking example of how strategic calculations can shift dramatically when security threats directly affect domestic stability. Historically, Islamabad viewed the Taliban as a partner a way to secure influence in Afghanistan and counterbalance India. Today, that calculation has reversed: the Taliban are now seen as enabling militants who attack Pakistani territory, undermining the very national security Pakistan sought to protect.

From my perspective, this is as much about perception as capability. Pakistan’s frustration reflects not just the TTP threat, but the Taliban’s unwillingness or inability to control insurgent groups. Even if the Taliban are technically powerless to fully rein in these groups, Islamabad interprets every attack as a breach of trust, eroding decades of strategic alignment.

Another important dimension is geography and asymmetric warfare. Despite Pakistan’s overwhelming conventional advantage its larger military, air force, and nuclear arsenal the border region’s terrain favors smaller, agile forces like the Taliban. History shows that superior firepower does not always translate into quick resolutions in insurgency-heavy zones, and repeated airstrikes may inflame, rather than contain, cross-border tensions.

This conflict also signals that Pakistan’s security calculus is increasingly domestic-focused. While in the past its Afghan strategy prioritized influence over immediate risk management, the TTP’s growing attacks within Pakistan have shifted the priority toward internal stability. From this angle, the strikes are a defensive measure designed to project strength and send a warning to the Taliban that safe havens for insurgents will no longer be tolerated.

Finally, the regional implications are worrying. Repeated clashes threaten civilian populations, disrupt trade, and could destabilize Afghanistan’s already fragile governance structures. Mediation by third parties may temporarily ease hostilities, but without long-term mechanisms to hold both sides accountable, the cycle of violence is likely to continue.

In short, Pakistan’s attack reflects the intersection of historical strategy, modern security threats, and the practical limits of alliances. It highlights that even long-standing partnerships are fragile when domestic security imperatives collide with regional politics—and that conventional power advantages may not guarantee quick solutions in border conflicts dominated by asymmetric warfare.

With information from Reuters.

Residents of Kabul, Afghanistan are cleaning up broken glass and describing how they tried to run to safety when Pakistan attacked in the middle of the night. Meanwhile in Karachi, Pakistan, people are celebrating the offensive as a “positive development”.

Feb. 26 (UPI) — Pakistan conducted airstrikes in areas of Kabul, Kandahar and Paktia overnight, officials from both countries said, as Islamabad’s defense minister early Friday declared Pakistan was in “open war” with Afghanistan.

Pakistani warplanes struck areas of the Afghan capital Kabul and its second-largest city, Kandahar, and Paktia province, Zabihullah Mujahid, spokesman for Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban, said in a statement, claiming there were no casualties — which Pakistan disputes.

Mosharraf Zaidi, spokesman for Pakistan’s prime minister, said Afghan military targets were hit, and claimed 133 Afghan Taliban fighters were killed and more than 200 wounded. The figures could not be independently verified.

Twenty-seven Afghan military posts were destroyed and nine captured in the assaults, he said.

“Our cup of patience has overflowed. Now it is open war between us,” Pakistan Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said in a statement.

“Pakistan’s army did not come from across the seas. We are your neighbors; we know your ins and outs.”

The airstrikes were carried out after Afghan forces attacked Pakistani border positions late Thursday, according to Afghanistan’s Ministry of National Defense, which said the assault was retaliatory for Pakistan’s fatal strike on seven militant camps and hideouts last week.

The latest explosion in violence follows months of escalating tensions between the two countries, with Pakistan repeatedly accusing Afghanistan of harboring terrorists, in particular the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, an Islamist group seeking to overthrow the Islamabad government.

Afghanistan has repeatedly denied the allegations Pakistan has leveled since the Taliban returned to power in August 2021.

Pakistan blames TTP and other Afghan-based terrorists for a series of brutal attacks over the years, and has carried out repeated airstrikes in Afghanistan in response, including in October.

Afghan officials deny claims, as they accuse Pakistan of targeting civilians and violating its sovereignty in Sunday’s border air raids.

A senior Pakistani government official has claimed that its military killed at least 70 fighters in air raids along the border with Afghanistan, claims Kabul has denied, amid escalating tensions between the two South Asian neighbours.

Talal Chaudhry, Pakistan’s deputy interior minister, offered no evidence for his claim in an interview with Geo News on Sunday evening that at least 70 rebels were killed in the attack. Pakistan’s state media reported that the death toll had jumped to 80; however, there was no official confirmation.

Pakistan’s military carried out the air raids early on Sunday, targeting what it called “camps and hideouts” belonging to armed groups behind a spate of recent attacks, including a deadly suicide bombing at a Shia mosque in the capital, Islamabad.

The country’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar wrote on X that the military conducted “intelligence-based, selective operations” against seven camps belonging to the Pakistan Taliban group, known by the acronym TTP, and its affiliates.

Tarar said Pakistan “has always strived to maintain peace and stability in the region”, but added that the safety and security of Pakistani citizens remained a top priority.

President Asif Ali Zardari said late on Sunday that Pakistan’s recent attacks along the Afghan border were “rooted in [its] inherent right to defend its people against terrorism” after repeated warnings to Kabul went unheeded.

The attacks threaten a fragile ceasefire between the South Asian neighbours, negotiated following deadly border clashes that killed dozens of soldiers, civilians and suspected fighters in October last year.

Pakistan said it has repeatedly urged Afghanistan’s Taliban government to take action to prevent armed groups from using Afghan territory to launch attacks, but that Kabul has failed to “undertake any substantive action”.

Afghanistan has rejected Pakistani allegations that its territory is used by armed groups linked to attacks in Pakistan.

Afghanistan denies claims

The Afghan Ministry of Defence said in a statement that “various civilian areas” in the eastern provinces of Nangarhar and Paktika were hit, including a religious school and several homes. The statement called the attacks a violation of Afghanistan’s airspace and sovereignty.

Taliban government spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid said “people’s homes have been destroyed, they have targeted civilians, they have committed this criminal act” with the bombardment of the two eastern provinces.

Residents from around the remote Bihsud district in Nangarhar joined searchers to look for bodies under the rubble using shovels and a digger, the AFP news agency reported.

“People here are ordinary people. The residents of this village are our relatives. When the bombing happened, one person who survived was shouting for help,” resident Amin Gul Amin, 37, told AFP.

Spokesperson Mujahid also said Pakistan’s claim of killing 70 fighters was “inaccurate”.

Mawlawi Fazl Rahman Fayyaz, the provincial director of the Afghan Red Crescent Society in Nangarhar province, said 18 people were killed and several others were wounded.

Afghanistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned Pakistan’s ambassador in Kabul to protest against the attacks.

In a statement, the ministry said protecting Afghanistan’s territory is its “Sharia responsibility”, warning that Pakistan would be held responsible for the consequences of such attacks.

The Afghanistan crisis is generally spoken of as a crisis of the hour in terms of the Taliban, outside power intervention, or an unsuccessful election season. Such framing is not as profound as the problem. The state and province conquests, bargaining, and coercion united Afghanistan, the state, but not a civic transaction between peoples. Although the significance of an actual national flag was yet to arrive, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, Pashtuns, and minorities occupied different regions, related to regional leaders, tribal councils, and local trade routes. The power was not national but local and individual. The contemporary state emerged later, and at the inception of its emergence, it was naturally skewed in a manner that remained to fulfil the definition of politics.

The birth of Ahmad Shah Abdali, recalled as Ahmad Shah Durrani in the middle of the eighteenth century, could be recalled as one of the foundational legends. It was also when the military alliance of one community had become the core of the state’s strength. The shell of a state was built by Ahmad Shah through warfare, and the coalition of Pashtun tribes consolidated the territory and gained more lands, with the foundation of a heterogeneous and broad territory. The logic, however, was not inclusion. It was piety, preference, and blackmail. Peripheral territories like the non-Pashtun were to be ruled as they were expected to submit, pay, or surrender when the center was strong and to ignore when it was weak. That model had never killed with Ahmad Shah. It was a practice that has been emulated by other leaders who have come after and tried to play a stage of unity without building institutions that can be regarded as belonging to all groups.

The trend was established following the demise of Ahmad Shah. Kabul was rarely what it purported to be. Power moved around among leaders, but the leadership was generally stopped at metropolises, armies, and major highways. Large areas were something like semi-autonomous states, which cooperated with the state, fought it, or alternated in each of the seasons. When they say that Afghanistan has never had full rule of its own land, people are not hurting the country; they are saying a structural truth, which is that the center has never had sovereignty and has never received legitimacy on the full map. The actual authority was left to the ethnic groups, strongmen, clerics, and commanders. In that perspective, any change in Kabul became existential to the non-residents of the city, as the state was no competition referee but a prize.

Even the geography and the demography make this worse. Pashtuns have been estimated to be approximately 42 percent, Tajiks approximately 27 percent, and Hazaras and Uzbeks approximately 9 percent, and the rest are made up of Turkmen, Baloch, and others. Two official languages exist: Pashto and Dari, but the status of any language could never be a purely cultural one since it was always a political one. Even the name of the country, Afghanistan, is perceived by most Afghans as a loaded word, and that practice is tied to the Pashtun identity and leadership even when they are being applied as a national one. People are angry because of the gap between the way the label instructs us to feel and the way that people feel. Pleas of togetherness are empty when the name of a state is doubted even in real life.

The south, northeast, and many of the cities are then the Pashtun, Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara distributions, respectively. These areas are not eliminated by violent migration, displacement in war, or careful political manipulation. Rather, the blurring would contribute to some new fault lines, and communities would need to be pushed into the interspace of their neighbors without an established system of solving disagreements without favoritism. The cross-border relationships include the Tajiks and Tajikistan, Uzbeks and Uzbekistan, and Pashtuns and Pakistan, and there is a stable tug-of-war that the neighbors and patrons can make use of. A low external and high center connection is a formula for continued disintegration.

This is the sphere where the aspect of security cannot be neglected. The decades of controversial control and open borders have transformed parts of Afghanistan into an attractive location for militants that occupy uncontrolled space. When the state cannot provide some kind of protection over territory, the armed networks take its position and deliver protection, taxation, ideology, and logistics. These networks do not have a localization. Training, financing, and planning have border-crossing characteristics, subjecting the region to an environment of a shared threat. At that, the question is not only a moral or historical one, but one of expediency: what are the political structures that may be implemented to make sure that Afghanistan will no longer remain a jihadist temptation to armed groups that can break the peace of its neighbors?

The solution is suggested in a provocative manner, and that is the territorial restructuring, a peaceful partitioning of the state along ethnic and regional lines: Uzbek majority areas become Uzbekistan, Tajik majority areas become Tajikistan, Pashtun majority areas become Pakistan, another separate state is established called Hazaras, etc. The appeal is obvious. It will eliminate the sovereignty of a group, a distinct line of power, and smaller political units, which might be more efficient to govern. It also tries to compare borders to lives in stating that when people believe that the state is an extension of them and not the rulers of the state, then stability is achieved.

Pakistan says it has launched strikes on armed groups in Afghanistan after blaming recent suicide bombings, including attacks during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, on fighters it says are operating from its neighbour’s territory.

Kabul has repeatedly denied allowing armed groups to use Afghan territory to stage attacks in Pakistan.

Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defence on Sunday said “dozens of innocent civilians, including women and children, were martyred and wounded” when strikes hit a school and homes in the eastern provinces of Nangarhar and Paktika.

Nangarhar police told the AFP news agency the bombardment started about midnight (19:30 GMT on Saturday) and hit three districts.

“Civilians were killed. In one house, there were 23 family members. Five wounded people were taken out,” police spokesperson Sayed Tayeeb Hammad said.

The Afghan Defence Ministry said it will “deliver an appropriate and calculated response” to the Pakistani strikes.

The two countries have been locked in an increasingly bitter dispute since the Taliban authorities retook control of Afghanistan in 2021.

Pakistani military action killed 70 Afghan civilians from October to December, according to the United Nations mission in Afghanistan.

Several rounds of negotiations followed an initial ceasefire brokered by Qatar and Turkiye, but they have failed to produce a lasting agreement.

Saudi Arabia intervened this month, mediating the release of three Pakistani soldiers captured by Afghanistan in October.

The deteriorating relationship has had repercussions for people in both countries with the land border largely closed for months.

Pakistan’s military has carried out air strikes in Afghanistan, targeting what it called “camps and hideouts” belonging to armed groups behind a spate of recent attacks, including a suicide bombing that killed dozens of worshippers at a Shia mosque in Islamabad.

There was no immediate comment from Afghanistan’s Taliban government, but Afghan sources told Al Jazeera the strikes on Sunday hit two border provinces.

The sources said a drone strike hit a religious school in the Paktika province, and that attacks also took place in Nangarhar province.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, in a statement on X, said the country’s military conducted “intelligence-based, selective operations” against seven camps and hideouts belonging to the Pakistan Taliban, also known as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and its affiliates.

An affiliate of the Islamic State group was also targeted in the border region, it said.

The ministry said it had “conclusive evidence” that recent attacks in Islamabad, as well as in the northwestern Bajaur and Bannu districts, were perpetrated by fighters “on behest of their Afghanistan-based leadership and handlers”.

It said Pakistan has repeatedly urged the Taliban government to take action to prevent armed groups from using Afghan territory to launch attacks, but that Kabul has failed to “undertake any substantive action”.

Pakistan “has always strived to maintain peace and stability in the region”, it added, but said the safety and security of Pakistani citizens remained its top priority.

The Pakistani air strikes on Afghanistan came hours after a suicide bomber targeted a security convoy in the Bannu district of the northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, killing two soldiers, including a lieutenant colonel.

On Monday, a suicide bomber, backed by gunmen, rammed an explosives-laden vehicle into the wall of a security post in the nearby Bajaur, killing 11 soldiers and a child. Authorities later said the attacker was an Afghan national.

On February 6, another suicide bomber detonated his explosives during noon prayers at the Khadija Tul Kubra mosque in Islamabad’s Tarlai Kalan area, killing at least 31 worshippers and wounding 170 others.

The Islamic State group claimed responsibility for the attack.

While bombings are rare in the heavily guarded capital, the attack on Khadija Tul Kubra was the second such attack in three months, raising fears of a return to violence in Pakistan’s major urban centres.

At the time, the Pakistani military said the “planning, training, and indoctrination for the attack took place in Afghanistan”.

In its statement on Sunday, the Pakistani Information Ministry reiterated a call on the international community to press the Taliban to uphold its commitments under the agreement it signed with the United States, in the Qatari capital, Doha, in 2020, to prevent the use of Afghan territory for attacks against other countries.

The ministry said the move was “vital for regional and global peace and security”.

Pakistan has seen a surge in violence in recent years, much of it blamed on the TTP and outlawed Baloch separatist groups. Islamabad accuses the TTP of operating from inside Afghanistan, a charge the group denies.

The Taliban government has also consistently denied sheltering anti-Pakistan armed groups.

Relations between the neighbouring countries have remained tense since October, when deadly border clashes killed dozens of soldiers, civilians and suspected fighters.

The violence followed explosions in Kabul, which Afghan officials blamed on Pakistan.

A ceasefire mediated by Qatar on October 19 has largely held, but subsequent talks in Turkiye’s Istanbul failed to produce a formal agreement.