Afghanistan

Pakistan says Afghanistan talks deadlocked after deadly border clashes | News

Afghan official says four Afghan civilians were killed and five others wounded in border clashes.

Talks in Istanbul between Pakistan and Afghanistan are at a deadlock, Islamabad said, a day after both sides accused each other of mounting border clashes that risked breaching a ceasefire brokered by Qatar.

The update on the talks by Pakistan’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar on Friday came after an Afghan official said four Afghan civilians were killed and five others wounded in clashes between Pakistani and Afghan forces along their shared border despite the joint negotiations.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

There was no immediate comment from Kabul about the Pakistani claim.

In a statement thanking Turkiye and Qatar for mediating the talks, Tarar maintained that the Afghan Taliban has failed to meet pledges it made with the international community about curbing “terrorism” under a 2021 Doha peace accord.

Tarar said that Pakistan “will not support any steps by the Taliban government that are not in the interest of the Afghan people or neighboring countries.” He did not elaborate further, but added that Islamabad continues to seek peace and goodwill for Afghans but will take “all necessary measures” to protect its own people and sovereignty.

Ali Mohammad Haqmal, head of the Information and Culture Department in Spin Boldak, blamed Pakistan for initiating the shooting. However, he said Afghan forces did not respond amid ongoing peace talks between the two sides in Istanbul.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Tahir Andrabi said Afghanistan initiated the shooting.

“Pakistan remains committed to ongoing dialogue and expects reciprocity from Afghan authorities”, Pakistan’s Ministry of Information said.

The ministry said the ceasefire remained intact.

Andrabi said Pakistan’s national security adviser, Asim Malik, is leading the Pakistani delegation in the talks with Afghanistan. The Afghan side is being led by Abdul Haq Wasiq, director of general intelligence, according to Mujahid.

He said that Pakistan had handed over its demands to mediators “with a singular aim to put an end to cross-border terrorism,” and that “mediators are discussing Pakistan’s demands with the Afghan Taliban delegation, point by point.”

Strained ties

Islamabad accuses Kabul of harbouring armed groups, particularly the Pakistan Taliban (Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan or TTP), which regularly claims deadly attacks in Pakistan. The Afghan Taliban deny sheltering the group.

Many Pakistan Taliban leaders and fighters are believed to have taken refuge in Afghanistan since the Afghan Taliban’s return to power in 2021, further straining ties between the two countries.

Turkiye said at the conclusion of last week’s talks that the parties had agreed to establish a monitoring and verification mechanism to maintain peace and penalise violators.

Fifty civilians were killed and 447 others wounded on the Afghan side of the border during clashes that began on October 9, according to the United Nations. At least five people died in explosions in Kabul that the Taliban government blamed on Pakistan.

The Pakistani army reported 23 of its soldiers were killed and 29 others wounded, without mentioning civilian casualties.

Source link

Dick Cheney, former vice president who unapologetically supported wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, dies at 84

Richard B. Cheney, the former vice president of the United States who was the architect of the nation’s longest war as he plotted President George W. Bush’s thunderous global response to the 9/11 terror attacks, has died.

Vexed by heart trouble for much of his adult life, Cheney died Monday night due to complications of pneumonia and cardiac and vascular disease, according to a statement from his family. He was 84.

“For decades, Dick Cheney served our nation, including as White House Chief of Staff, Wyoming’s Congressman, Secretary of Defense, and Vice President of the United States,” the statement said. “Dick Cheney was a great and good man who taught his children and grandchildren to love our country, and to live lives of courage, honor, love, kindness, and fly fishing. We are grateful beyond measure for all Dick Cheney did for our country. And we are blessed beyond measure to have loved and been loved by this noble giant of a man.”

To supporters and detractors alike, Cheney was widely viewed as the engine that drove the Bush White House. His two-term tenure capped a lifetime of public service, both in Congress and on behalf of four Republican presidents.

It often fell to Cheney, not President Bush, to make an assertive, unapologetic case for the American-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and for the controversial antiterrorism measures such as the Guantánamo Bay prison. And after the election of President Obama, it was once again Cheney, not Bush, who stood among the new president’s fiercest critics on national security.

In an October 2009 speech — one emblematic of the role he embraced after leaving the White House — Cheney blasted the Obama administration for opening a probe of “enhanced” interrogations of suspected terrorists conducted during the Bush years.

“We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security, and turning the guns on our own guys,” he said. The rhetoric was textbook Cheney: blunt, unvarnished, delivered with authority.

While Cheney at the time was attempting to occupy the leadership vacuum in the GOP in the age of Obama, there was little doubt that he also was motivated to preserve a legacy that appears to be as much his as former President Bush‘s. For eight years, Cheney redrew the lines that defined the vice presidency in a way no predecessor had. His office enjoyed greater autonomy than others before it, while working to keep much of his influence from plain sight. That way of operating led to a challenge before the Supreme Court as well as a criminal investigation over a leak of classified information.

Moreover, the image of a powerful backroom operator managing the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” combined with his service as Defense secretary during the Persian Gulf War and his stint as a chairman of defense contracting giant Halliburton, made Cheney a towering bête noire to liberals worldwide. To them, he embodied a dangerous fusion of politics and the military-industrial complex — and they viewed his every move with deep suspicion.

To his champions, however, he was the firm-jawed, hulking, resolute defender of American interests.

Standing with the administration was more than a duty to Cheney; it was an article of faith. The invasion of Iraq “was the right thing to do, and if we had to do it over again, we’d do exactly the same thing,” Cheney said in a 2006 interview, even as the nation slowly learned that U.S. intelligence suggesting Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction was simply not true.

Three years earlier, Cheney had pledged that the U.S. would be greeted in Iraq as “liberators” — a comment that haunted him as insurgents in the country gained strength, killed thousands of allied troops and extended the conflict for years. The war in Afghanistan would drag on for 20 years, ending in 2021 as it had begun, with the Taliban back in control.

While Cheney will largely be remembered for his leading role in the response to the 9/11 terror attacks, he had long worked the corridors of power in Washington. He was a White House aide to President Nixon and later chief of staff to President Ford. As a member of the House from Wyoming, he rose quickly to become part of the Republican leadership during the 1980s. In the early ’90s, he ran the Pentagon during the Gulf War.

Richard Bruce “Dick” Cheney was born in Lincoln, Neb., on Jan. 30, 1941, and spent much of his teenage years in Casper, Wyo. His father worked for the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.

As a young man, he was more interested in hunting, fishing and sports than in academics, and a stint at Yale University was short-lived. He eventually obtained bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the University of Wyoming and studied toward a doctorate at the University of Wisconsin.

In 1964, he married Lynne Ann Vincent, who became a lifelong political partner while strongly influencing Cheney’s conservatism. Daughter Elizabeth, who was elected to Congress in 2017, was born in 1966 and her sister, Mary, arrived three years later. The sisters became embittered years later when Elizabeth — who preferred Liz — took a stance opposing same-sex marriage, which seemed a slap to Mary and her wife. Cheney, however, offered his support for such unions, an early GOP voice for same-sex marriage. Years later, he came to Liz’s defense when she broke with fellow Republicans and voted to impeach President Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In addition to his wife and daughters, Cheney is survived by seven grandchildren.

A fellowship sent Cheney to Washington, where he soon began working for a politically shrewd House member who also was a lifetime influence, Donald H. Rumsfeld. When Rumsfeld joined the Nixon administration, Cheney followed.

After Ford succeeded Nixon in the wake of Watergate, Rumsfeld served as chief of staff, with Cheney at his side. Ford eventually appointed Rumsfeld secretary of Defense, and Cheney, at 34, ran the White House. Even then, his calm reserve was a hallmark.

Although nearly everyone working for him was older, “He was very self-assured,” James Cannon, a member of Ford’s White House team, said years later. “It didn’t faze him a bit to be chief of staff.”

Ford lost a narrow election to Jimmy Carter in 1976, but Cheney’s Washington career was just getting underway. He headed back to Casper and in little more than a year was running for Congress.

His health, though, already was a factor. In 1978, at age 37 and in the midst of a primary election campaign, he had a heart attack, the first of several. He would undergo multiple surgeries, including a quadruple bypass, two angioplasties, installation of a heart pump and — in 2012 — a transplant. His frequent trips to the hospital and seeming indestructibility provided fodder for late-night talk show hosts during Cheney’s vice presidency.

With the help of television ads reminding voters that Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson had served full White House terms despite having had heart attacks, he narrowly won the Republican nomination and, in November 1978, secured election to the House of Representatives from Wyoming’s single district.

In Congress, he was known as a listener more interested in problem-solving than conservative demagoguery, even as he quietly built a voting record that left no doubt about where he stood on the political spectrum. He quickly moved into the ranks of GOP leadership.

Cheney stepped into the public spotlight after he was named Defense secretary by President George H.W. Bush in 1989. As the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War cooled, Cheney was charged with overseeing a Pentagon that was more fractious than usual. In a test of political and managerial will, he oversaw major reductions in the Defense budget, a profound downsizing of forces and the closing of obsolete military bases. He helped implement the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 to oust the country’s leader, Manuel Noriega, for drug trafficking and racketeering.

But Cheney — along with his hand-picked chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell — made his mark in the American response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Cheney played a key role in persuading the Saudi royal family to allow American troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia to defend against a looming attack from Hussein’s forces.

The Cheney-led Pentagon then shifted to offense in 1991, amassing an enormous American force that totaled more than 500,000 soldiers, nearly twice the number employed in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. The U.S. military, with help from allied countries, overwhelmed the Iraqi forces in Kuwait in only 43 days and easily entered Iraq.

Characteristically, Cheney would defend the then-controversial decision to halt the U.S. advance toward Baghdad, which left Hussein in power. “I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We’d be running the country,” he said in a 1992 speech. “We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.”

Cheney’s efforts to station U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, considered critical to the push to repel Iraq, would have unforeseen ramifications. The military presence there helped radicalize young Islamic militants such as Osama bin Laden.

After President Clinton’s victory in 1992, Cheney left government service. Three years later, he assumed the helm of Halliburton, one of the world’s leading oil field companies and a prominent military contractor. The company thrived under Cheney’s leadership: Its relationship with the Pentagon flourished, its international operations expanded and Cheney grew wealthy.

In 2000, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the Republican nominee for president, asked Cheney to head up the search for his running mate, then ultimately chose Cheney for the job instead. He brought to the ticket an element of maturity and Washington gravitas that the inexperienced Bush did not possess.

Cheney’s lack of design on the presidency, and his willingness to return to government 10 days shy of his 60th birthday, seemingly gave Bush the benefit of his experience and earned Cheney a measure of trust — and thus authority — commanded by few presidential advisors.

Once in office, Cheney, mindful of lessons learned in the Ford White House, sought to revitalize an executive office he believed had become too hemmed in by Congress and the courts. He termed it a “restoration.”

“After Watergate, President Ford said there was an imperiled president, not an imperial presidency,” said presidential historian Robert Dallek. Cheney, he said, felt “he badly needed to expand the powers of the presidency to assure the national security.”

In office barely a week, Cheney created a national energy policy task force in response to rising gasoline prices. A series of meetings with top officials from the oil, natural gas, electricity and nuclear industries were closed to the public, and Cheney refused to reveal the names of the participants. Cheney would exert similar influence over environmental policy and, with an office on Capitol Hill, forcefully advance the president’s legislative agenda.

A lawsuit seeking information about the task force made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in the vice president’s favor in 2004. One of the justices in the majority was Antonin Scalia, who was a friend and, it was later revealed, had recently gone duck hunting with the vice president.

Another hunting trip gone awry earned Cheney embarrassing headlines in 2006 when he accidentally shot and wounded a member of the party with a round of birdshot while quail hunting on a Texas ranch.

More troubling to Cheney was a federal criminal probe in connection with the 2003 leak of the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson. The investigation resulted in the conviction four years later of Cheney aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice. Libby was later pardoned by President Trump.

Cheney, however, will be largely remembered for his unwavering belief that the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq — especially the latter — were essential, a stance he maintained even as the missions in both theaters evolved from rooting out suspected terrorists to nation-building, and even as the casualties skyrocketed and it became clear the 20-year mission was doomed.

When U.S. troops and civilians were pulled out of Afghanistan in a fraught and fatal departure in 2021, it was Cheney’s daughter who spoke up.

“We’ve now created a situation where as we get to the 20th anniversary of 9/11, we are surrendering Afghanistan to the very terrorist organization that housed al Qaeda when they plotted and planned the attacks against us,” Rep. Liz Cheney (R.-Wyo.) said.

The former vice president’s steely resolve was captured years later in “Vice,” a 2018 biographical drama in which Christian Bale portrayed Cheney as a brainy yet uncompromisingly uncharismatic leader.

It was Cheney who insisted early on that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. “There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us,” Cheney said in August 2002. The U.S. eventually determined that Iraq had no such weapons.

He argued forcefully that Hussein was linked to the 2001 terror attacks. When other administration officials fell silent, Cheney continued to make the connections even though no shred of proof was ever found. In a 2005 speech, he called the Democrats who accused the administration of manipulating intelligence to justify the war “opportunists” who peddled “cynical and pernicious falsehoods” to gain political advantage.

Cheney also frequently defended the use of so-called extreme interrogation methods, such as waterboarding, on al Qaeda operatives. He did so in the final months of the Bush administration, as both the president’s and Cheney’s public approval ratings plunged.

“It’s a good thing we had them in custody and it’s a good thing we found out what they knew,” he said in a 2008 speech to a friendly crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

“I’ve been proud to stand by him, the decisions he made,” Cheney said of Bush. “And would I support those same decisions today? You’re damn right I would.”

Oliphant and Gerstenzang are former Times staff writers.

Staff writer Steve Marble contributed to this story.

Source link

Deadly earthquake hits northern Afghanistan | Earthquakes News

A magnitude 6.3 earthquake has shaken northern Afghanistan, killing at least 20 people and injuring more than 500, a health official says, adding that the numbers could increase.

The quake’s epicentre on Monday was located 22km (14 miles) west-southwest of the town of Khulm, and it struck at 12:59am (20:29 GMT on Sunday) at a depth of 28km (17 miles), the United States Geological Survey said.

Sharafat Zaman, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Public Health, said 534 injured people and 20 bodies had been brought to hospitals in Balkh and Samangan provinces. Rescuers were on the scene and the figures were changing, he added.

In the nearby province of Badakhshan, the quake damaged or destroyed 800 houses in one village in the Shahr-e-Bozorg district, said Ihsanullah Kamgar, spokesperson for the provincial police headquarters.

However, due to a lack of internet service in the remote area, there were still no accurate casualty figures, he added.

Yousaf Hammad, a spokesperson for the Afghanistan National Disaster Management Authority, said most of the injured suffered minor wounds and were discharged after treatment.

In the Afghan capital, Kabul, the Ministry of Defence announced that rescue and emergency teams had reached the quake-affected areas in Balkh and Samangan, which suffered the most damage, and were transporting the injured and assisting others.

The Defence Ministry said a rockslide briefly blocked a main mountain highway linking Kabul with Mazar-i-Sharif but the road was later reopened. It said some people who had been injured and trapped along the highway were transported to hospital.

Source link

At least seven dead after magnitude-6.3 earthquake hits Afghanistan

At least eight people have died after an earthquake struck northern Afghanistan, say local authorities, with the toll expected to rise as rescue efforts continue.

Some 180 people have also been left injured, Samin Joyenda, a health department spokesman of a nearby province told the BBC.

The earthquake struck Mazar-e-Sharif, which is home to around 500,000 people, in the early hours of Monday, at around 01:00 local time (20:30 GMT).

It had a magnitude of 6.3 and a depth of 28km (17mi, according to the US Geological Survey, and was marked at an orange alert level, which indicates “significant casualties” are likely.

Haji Zaid, a Taliban spokesman in Balkh province – of which Mazar-e Sharif is the capital – wrote earlier on X that “many people are injured” in the Sholgara district, just south of Mazar-e- Sharif.

He said they had received “reports of minor injuries and superficial damages from all districts of the province”.

“Most of the injuries were caused by people falling from tall buildings,” he wrote.

Mazar-e Sharif is home to more than 500,000 people. Many of the city’s residents rushed to the streets when the quake struck, as they feared their houses would collapse, AFP reported.

The Taliban spokesman in Balkh also posted a video on X appearing to show debris strewn across the ground at the Blue Mosque, a local landmark in Mazar-e-Sharif.

The religious complex is believed to house the tomb of the first Shia Imam – a religious leader believed to hold divine knowledge. It’s now a site where pilgrims gather to pray and celebrate religious events.

Khalid Zadran, a Taliban spokesman for the police in Kabul, wrote on X that police teams were “closely monitoring the situation”.

Numerous fatalities were also reported in Samangan, a mountainous province near Mazar-e-Sharif, according to its spokesman.

The quake on Monday comes after a 6.0 magnitude earthquake struck Afghanistan’s mountainous eastern region in late August, killing more than 1,000 people.

That earthquake was especially deadly as the rural houses in the region were typically made of mud and timber. Residents were trapped when their houses collapsed during the quake.

Afghanistan is very prone to earthquakes because of its location on top of a number of fault lines where the Indian and Eurasian tectonic plates meet.

Source link

Powerful magnitude 6.3 quake hits north Afghanistan’s Hindu Kush region | Earthquakes News

The earthquake comes two months after the deadliest quake in recent Afghan history, which killed thousands of people.

A powerful 6.3 magnitude earthquake has struck northern Afghanistan, according to the US Geological Survey (USGS), two months after a quake killed thousands of people in the impoverished nation’s east.

The USGS said overnight Sunday into Monday that the quake hit at a revised depth of 28km (17 miles) in Kholm, near the city of Mazar-i-Sharif in the Hindu Kush region, at 12:59 am local time (20:29 GMT). It was felt by correspondents with the AFP news agency based in the capital Kabul.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The agency had initially given the depth as 10km (6 miles).

Local authorities broadcast emergency telephone numbers for people to call, but did not immediately report any deaths or injuries.

In Mazar-i-Sharif, many people ran into the street in the middle of the night, fearing their homes might collapse, an AFP correspondent observed.

The Taliban authorities have had to deal with several major quakes since returning to power in 2021, including one in 2023 in the western Herat region on the border with Iran that killed more than 1,500 people and destroyed more than 63,000 homes.

A shallow 6.0-magnitude quake struck this year on August 31 in the country’s east, killing more than 2,200 people – the deadliest tremor in recent Afghan history.

Earthquakes are common in the country, particularly along the Hindu Kush mountain range, near where the Eurasian and Indian tectonic plates meet.

Afghanistan is contending with multiple crises after decades of war: endemic poverty, severe drought and the influx of millions of Afghans forced back home by neighbouring Pakistan and Iran.

Many modest Afghan homes are shoddily built and poor infrastructure hampers rescue efforts after natural disasters like quakes.

Since 1900, northeastern Afghanistan has been hit by 12 earthquakes with a magnitude above 7.0, according to Brian Baptie, a seismologist with the British Geological Survey.

Source link

Pakistan and Afghanistan agree to maintain truce for another week: Turkiye | Conflict News

Pakistan has accused Afghanistan of harbouring the Pakistan Taliban, a charge Kabul denies.

Pakistan and Afghanistan have agreed to extend a ceasefire for at least another week during talks in Turkiye, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.

The sides plan to meet again at a higher-level gathering in Istanbul on November 6 to finalise how the ceasefire will be implemented, the ministry said in a statement released on behalf of Pakistan, Afghanistan and mediators Turkiye and Qatar.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“All parties have agreed to put in place a monitoring and verification mechanism that will ensure maintenance of peace and imposing penalty on the violating party,” the statement read.

The two neighbours engaged in a weeklong border conflict earlier this month following explosions in Afghanistan, which the Afghan government blamed on Pakistan.

In the subsequent cross-border strikes, Pakistan’s military claimed it killed more than 200 Afghan fighters, while Afghanistan says it killed 58 Pakistani soldiers.

It was the most serious fighting between the two countries since the Taliban regained control of Kabul in 2021.

INTERACTIVE - Pakistan and Afghanistan border clashes - OCTOBER 12, 2025-1760264917
[Al Jazeera]

After the skirmishes, mediation by Qatar and Turkiye led to a ceasefire signed by the defence ministers of Pakistan and Afghanistan on October 19 in Doha.

The two nations — which share a 2,600-kilometre (1,600-mile) frontier — began a second round of talks in Istanbul on Saturday, which broke down Wednesday when both parties failed to reach a consensus on Islamabad’s central demand that Kabul crack down on Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, an armed group often called the Pakistan Taliban or TTP, which has been long accused by Pakistan of carrying out deadly attacks inside its territory.

The Afghan government has consistently denied that it provides safe haven for the group.

Talks resumed on Thursday, leading to the agreement to maintain the ceasefire until a new round of talks on November 6.

Afghan government spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid issued a statement confirming the conclusion of the talks and saying both sides had agreed to continue discussions in future meetings. Pakistan did not immediately comment.

While a ceasefire remains in place, the border between the two countries has been closed for more than two weeks, leading to mounting losses for traders in the region.

In Kandahar on the Afghan side, Nazir Ahmed, a cloth trader, told the newswire AFP both countries “will bear losses.”

“Our nation is tired and their nation is also tired,” the 35-year-old said Wednesday.

Abdul Jabbar, a vehicle spare parts trader in the Pakistani border town of Chaman, said “trade suffers greatly”.

“Both countries face losses — both are Islamic nations,” he told AFP.

Source link

The Normalization Trap: A Former Minister’s Warning on Taliban Diplomacy

For decades, Afghanistan has been dubbed the “graveyard of empires,” but a more enduring and painful truth is its role as a chessboard for regional rivalries. Today, a dangerous new chapter is unfolding: a tense disconnect between escalating violence on the ground and a quiet diplomatic normalization in foreign capitals. As powers like India recalibrate their stance toward the Taliban, a critical question emerges: is engagement building a pathway to peace, or merely rewarding impunity? In an exclusive Q&A, Mr. Masoud Andarabi, Afghanistan’s former Minister of Interior and Acting Director of the National Directorate of Security (NDS), issues a stark warning from the front lines of this crisis: without verifiable conditions, this new diplomatic track risks cementing Afghanistan’s status as a proxy battlefield and an incubator for global terrorism, all while its people endure a silent crisis of “generational trauma.”

The Dangerous Illusion of Normalization

Q: In your article for Cipher Brief, you describe a “dangerous two-track dynamic” of kinetic escalation on the ground and diplomatic normalization in capitals. Given that India’s engagement with the Taliban seems to grant them legitimacy without verifiable commitments, what specific, verifiable actions should a power like India demand from the Taliban before such high-level visits to avoid fueling this dynamic?

A: India should set clear, verifiable conditions before any high-level engagement with the Taliban. At a minimum, New Delhi should insist on three measurable actions:

  1. Restoration of women’s rights – including the right to education and employment.
  2. Concrete counterterrorism steps – such as dismantling safe havens and arresting members of al-Qaeda, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM).
  3. Protection of former Afghan security personnel – many of whom fought terrorism with Indian support and are now being detained, tortured, or executed by the Taliban.

The Taliban continues to persecute minorities, suppress free media, and rule through coercion, not consent. India, as the world’s largest democracy, should not normalize relations with an authoritarian movement that denies fundamental rights and harbors transnational militants. Engagement without conditions only reinforces the Taliban’s impunity and erodes regional security.

Q: You characterize the actions of both Delhi and Islamabad not as malice but as “strategic realism.” Does this mean that for Afghanistan to achieve stability, it must fundamentally accept that its neighbors will always act in their own competitive interests, and simply try to manage it?

A: Yes. Based on my own experience in Afghanistan, stability requires accepting a difficult reality: our neighbors will always act through the lens of their own national interests. The task for any Afghan government is not to escape this rivalry, but to manage it with discipline and balance.

During the Republic, India maintained four consulates in Afghanistan—two of them near the Pakistani border. That decision deeply alarmed Islamabad and fueled Pakistan’s perception that Afghan territory was being used to encircle it. Such steps may have had diplomatic value, but they carried strategic costs that were never fully weighed.

Going forward, Afghanistan must adopt a policy of strict neutrality—restricting both Indian and Pakistani use of its soil for competitive ends, while focusing on national interests above regional alignments. Stability will come not from choosing sides, but from ensuring that no side can use Afghanistan as a platform for its rivalry.

Q: Regarding your proposal for “conditional engagement,” what is a single, achievable benchmark on counter-terrorism that the international community could universally demand from Kabul, and how could it be verified in a way that is convincing to both the West and regional powers?

A: A single, achievable benchmark on counterterrorism should be the verifiable dismantling of terrorist training and recruitment networks inside Afghanistan, including those linked to the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), al-Qaeda, and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU).

Verification must not rely on Taliban assurances. It should involve independent monitoring through UNAMA, supported by satellite imagery, shared intelligence from regional and Western partners, and credible field reporting. Only external verification can make any Taliban commitment meaningful.

Current backchannel intelligence contacts between the Taliban and Western agencies may offer short-term tactical benefits, but they carry long-term risks. The Taliban’s continued expansion of radical madrasas, its protection of foreign militants, and its repression of women’s education all point to a future threat environment in the making.

Without verifiable counterterrorism action, engagement risks legitimizing Afghanistan’s return as a sanctuary for global terrorism. Conditional engagement must therefore combine immediate, measurable security steps with sustained political pressure for broader governance and, ultimately, elections that allow Afghans to determine their own future.

The Regional Quagmire: A Shared Threat to All

Q: Pakistan’s deep leverage inside Afghanistan is well-documented, but it has also resulted in significant blowback, including attacks from groups like the TTP. From your perspective, is Pakistan’s current policy a net strategic gain or loss for its own national security?

A: Pakistan’s policy toward Afghanistan has been a net strategic loss for its own national security. For decades, Islamabad has pursued the illusion that supporting proxy groups could secure influence in Kabul. This approach began in the 1990s under Interior Minister Nasrullah Babar, when Pakistan helped create and arm the Taliban, a policy that ultimately contributed to the conditions leading to 9/11. After 2008, Pakistan repeated the same mistake, backing the Taliban’s resurgence. The result today is a regime that harbors transnational militants and allows the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) to operate freely, threatening Pakistan itself.

Islamabad’s strategy has produced instability, international isolation, and the empowerment of extremist actors beyond its control. For Afghanistan’s de facto authorities, the lesson is clear: do not be drawn into the India–Pakistan rivalry. Kabul must restrict the use of Afghan soil against any neighbor, monitor foreign influence carefully, and assure both Delhi and Islamabad that Afghanistan will not serve as a platform for proxy competition. True stability will come only when Afghanistan acts as a neutral, sovereign state, neither a client nor a battlefield for others. And I believe a true democracy in Afghanistan can assure that.

Q: You propose a U.S.-led regional security initiative with monitoring mechanisms. Given the profound distrust between India and Pakistan, what would be a truly impartial body capable of monitoring such a pact? The UN? A coalition of neutral states?

A: Given the level of distrust between India and Pakistan and the nuclear dimension of their rivalry, a hybrid mechanism combining the United Nations with select neutral states would offer the most realistic path forward. The UN provides legitimacy and an existing framework for conflict monitoring, while a coalition of neutral states like Japan, could bring technical credibility and political distance from regional rivalries.

The United States should play a catalytic and convening role, even if its direct influence is limited. Washington’s engagement, alongside China and key UN partners, could help establish minimal confidence-building measures: verified incident reporting along the border, humanitarian coordination, and early-warning systems for escalation.

The June clashes underscored how quickly border violence between two nuclear-armed neighbors can spiral. It’s time for the U.S., China, and the UN to take a more active role in preventing South Asia’s oldest rivalry from becoming its most dangerous flashpoint.

Q: Your analysis focuses on India and Pakistan. How does China’s growing engagement with both Kabul and Islamabad—and its own security concerns about Uyghur militancy—complicate or perhaps even offer a solution to this entrenched India-Pakistan rivalry on Afghan soil?

A: China’s engagement with both Kabul and Islamabad is narrow and security-driven, not transformative. Beijing’s primary concern is the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) and the risk of Uyghur militancy spilling into Xinjiang. Through close coordination with Pakistan and calculative engagement with the Taliban, China seeks to ensure ETIM remains contained, rather than to address Afghanistan’s broader instability.

While Chinese investments and economic outreach may give the appearance of regional engagement, Beijing’s strategy remains transactional and defensive, focused on countering specific threats, not building regional order. This limited approach neither resolves nor balances the India–Pakistan rivalry. If anything, China’s alignment with Pakistan reinforces the asymmetry in South Asia and risks deepening rather than mitigating the competition on Afghan soil.

The Path to Sovereignty: Neutrality and Legitimacy

Q: You’ve argued compellingly that external competition “saps Afghan agency.” In your view, what is the single most important step the Taliban’s de facto authorities could take right now to assert genuine sovereignty and reduce their vulnerability to being used as a proxy battlefield?

A: The single most important step the Taliban could take to assert genuine sovereignty is to return power to the Afghan people through free and inclusive elections. No state can claim true sovereignty while denying its citizens the right to choose their leaders. The Taliban’s current authoritarian model has isolated Afghanistan, empowered foreign interference, and turned the country into a proxy arena for regional powers.

By restoring democratic participation, allowing political diversity, women’s involvement, and media freedom, the Taliban would move from ruling by force to governing by legitimacy. Only then could Afghanistan reclaim genuine sovereignty and begin to shape its own future, independent of external manipulation.

Q: Finally, looking beyond crisis management, what is the first, most critical step in shifting Afghanistan’s trajectory from being a “chessboard for others’ strategies” back toward a truly sovereign state that determines its own future?

A: The first and most critical step is for Afghanistan to restore genuine neutrality—to stay out of the India–Pakistan rivalry and manage both relationships with strategic balance. Past governments, particularly during the Republic, had opportunities to do so but failed, despite strong international support. Instead, foreign competition seeped into Afghan politics, eroding sovereignty from within.

Moving forward, Afghanistan must rebuild legitimacy through democracy, not repression. Some argue that democracy cannot work in Afghanistan, but that view ignores the will of the Afghan people. Afghans risked their lives to vote—even losing fingers to prove their commitment. The Republic did not fail because Afghans rejected democracy; it failed because of poor leadership and mismanagement, both domestically and in foreign policy.

True sovereignty will come only when Afghans are again allowed to choose their leaders freely and when their government serves national interests rather than foreign agendas. Neutrality in regional politics and legitimacy at home are the twin pillars of a stable, independent Afghanistan.

Q: You state that the human cost is the “clearest metric of failure.” Beyond displacement and livelihoods, what is one less-discussed, tangible impact of this proxy war on the daily lives of ordinary Afghans that the world is missing?

A: When we talk about failure in Afghanistan, the clearest metric isn’t just economic collapse , it’s generational trauma.

Beyond displacement and loss of livelihood, the most enduring cost of this proxy war is the generational loss of normalcy. In nearly every Afghan village, there is a family that has lost someone—a father, a son, a husband—to four decades of conflict. Few countries have endured such continuous trauma. The wars of the mujahideen era, the Taliban’s rise, the Republic’s fall, and now renewed regional rivalries have left almost no Afghan household untouched.

Education and healthcare systems have collapsed, women and children bear the greatest suffering, and an entire generation has grown up knowing only conflict. This is not just a humanitarian tragedy—it is a strategic one. A population stripped of opportunity becomes vulnerable to radicalization and manipulation. If the current India–Pakistan tensions spill further into Afghanistan, they risk igniting yet another cycle of destruction that Afghans can no longer afford to endure.

This sobering assessment leaves no room for ambiguity: the current path of unconditional engagement rewards impunity and fuels regional insecurity. The alternative is a dual mandate. Externally, powers like India and Pakistan must anchor diplomacy to verifiable acts—on women’s rights, counter-terrorism, and protection of allies. Internally, the only exit from this cycle is for the Taliban to exchange coercion for consent. True sovereignty will not be gifted by neighbors nor won through proxy battles; it will be earned only when Afghans are once again allowed to choose their own leaders. The nation’s future hinges on this shift from being a chessboard for others to becoming a sovereign state for its people.

Source link

‘Last-ditch push’: Pakistan-Afghanistan talks falter amid deep mistrust | Taliban News

Islamabad, Pakistan – After three days, talks between Pakistan and Afghanistan in Istanbul, aimed at ending a tense and violent standoff between the South Asian neighbours, appeared to have hit a wall in Istanbul on Tuesday.

Mediated by Qatar and Türkiye, the negotiations followed an initial round of dialogue in Doha, which produced a temporary ceasefire on October 19 after a week of fighting that left dozens dead on both sides.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

But even though officials and experts said that “last-ditch” efforts were expected to continue to try to pull the two countries back from a full-fledged conflict, the prospects of new hostilities between them loom large after their inability, so far, to build on the Doha truce, analysts say.

Pakistani security officials said that on Monday, talks went on for nearly 18 hours. But they accused the Afghan delegation of changing its position on Islamabad’s central demand – that Kabul crack down on the Pakistan Taliban armed group, known by the acronym TTP. One official, speaking to Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the dialogue, alleged that the “instructions received from Kabul” for the Afghan team were complicating negotiations.

Kabul, however, blamed the Pakistani delegation for a “lack of coordination,” claiming the Pakistani side was “not presenting clear arguments” and kept “leaving the negotiating table”, Afghan media reported.

The Afghan team is being led by the deputy minister for administrative affairs at the Ministry of Interior, Haji Najib, while Pakistan has not publicly disclosed its representatives.

Recent cross-border attacks between the militaries of the two countries have killed multiple people, troops and civilians, and injured many more in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

United States President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly sought credit for resolving global conflicts, also waded in, saying he would “solve the Afghanistan-Pakistan crisis very quickly”, while speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the Association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN) summit in Malaysia earlier in the week.

Yet, any long-term settlement appears difficult due to the two nations’ “profound mutual distrust and conflicting priorities”, said Baqir Sajjad Syed, a former Pakistan fellow at the Wilson Center and a journalist who covers national security.

Syed added that their historical grievances and Pakistan’s past interventions in Afghanistan make concessions politically risky for the Afghan Taliban.

“In my view, the core issue is ideological alignment. The Afghan Taliban’s dependence on TTP for dealing with internal security problems [inside Afghanistan] makes it difficult for them to dissociate from the group, despite Pakistani concerns,” he told Al Jazeera.

A fraught friendship

Historically, Pakistan was long perceived as the primary patron of the Afghan Taliban. Many in Pakistan publicly welcomed the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021 after the withdrawal of US forces.

But relations have sharply deteriorated since, largely over the TTP, an armed group that emerged in 2007 during the US-led so-called “war on terror”, and which has waged a long campaign against Islamabad.

FILE PHOTO: A police officer holds a machine-gun with thermal binoculars attached to it, on the rooftop of Sangu's outpost, in the outskirts of Peshawar, Pakistan, February 9, 2023. REUTERS/Fayaz Aziz/File Photo
Pakistani security personnel have faced increasing attacks from the TTP armed group [Fayaz Aziz/Reuters]

The TTP seeks the release of its members imprisoned in Pakistan and opposes the merger of Pakistan’s former tribal areas into its Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. Although independent from the Afghan Taliban, the two groups are ideologically aligned.

Islamabad accuses Kabul of providing sanctuary not only to the TTP but to other groups, including the Balochistan Liberation Army and the ISIL (ISIS) affiliate in Khorasan Province (ISKP), charges Kabul denies.

The Afghan Taliban have insisted that the TTP is a Pakistani problem, repeatedly arguing that insecurity in Pakistan is a domestic matter. And the Taliban have themselves long viewed the ISKP as enemies.

Mullah Yaqoob, Afghanistan’s defence minister who signed the ceasefire in Doha with his Pakistani counterpart, Khawaja Asif, last week, said in an interview on October 19 that states sometimes used the label “terrorism” for political ends.

“There is no universal or clear definition of terrorism,” he said, adding that any government can brand its adversaries as “terrorists” for its own agenda.

Meanwhile, regional powers including Iran, Russia, China, and several Central Asian states have also urged the Taliban to eliminate the TTP and other armed groups allegedly operating from Afghanistan.

That appeal was renewed in Moscow in early October, in consultations also attended by Afghan Minister of Foreign Affairs Amir Khan Muttaqi.

Rising toll, rising tensions

In recent days, several attacks have killed more than two dozen Pakistani soldiers, including officers.

The year 2024 was among Pakistan’s deadliest in nearly a decade, with more than 2,500 casualties recorded, and 2025 is on track to surpass that, analysts say.

Both civilians and security personnel have been targeted, with most attacks concentrated in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. TTP operations have increased sharply in both frequency and intensity.

“Our data show that the TTP engaged in at least 600 attacks against, or clashes with, security forces in the past year alone. Its activity in 2025 so far already exceeds that seen in all of 2024,” a recent Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED) report said.

Ihsanullah Tipu Mehsud, an Islamabad-based security analyst, says that Pakistani negotiators must recognise that ties between the Taliban and the TTP are rooted in ideology, making it hard for Afghanistan’s government to give up on the anti-Pakistan armed group.

Journalist Sami Yousafzai, a longtime observer of Pakistan-Afghanistan relations, agreed, saying that the prospects of a détente now look increasingly remote.

Both Mehsud and Yousafzai pointed to the Taliban’s history of sticking by allies even in the face of international pressure, and even military assault.

“We have seen this same attitude from the Afghan Taliban in 2001, when, after the 9/11 attacks, they continued to remain steadfastly with Al al-Qaeda,” Mehsud said.

According to Yousafzai, “the Afghan Taliban are war veterans, and they can withstand military pressure”.

Failed diplomacy?

In recent months, both sides have pursued diplomacy, nudged also by China, which has mediated talks between them, in addition to Qatar and Turkiye.

Yet, analysts say Islamabad might soon conclude that it has few nonmilitary options to address its concerns.

Syed pointed to Pakistani Defence Minister Asif’s recent threat of an “open war” and said that these comments could presage targeted air strikes or cross-border operations against alleged TTP sanctuaries in Afghanistan.

“That said, mediators, particularly Qatar and Turkiye, are expected to make a last-ditch push to revive dialogue or shift it to another venue. There is also a small possibility of other countries joining in, especially after President Trump’s latest signal of readiness to step in and de-escalate the crisis,” he said.

Syed said that economic incentives, including aid, in exchange for compliance with ceasefire provisions could be one way to get the neighbours to avoid a full-fledged military conflict.

This is a tool Trump has used in recent months in other wars, including in getting Thailand and Cambodia to stop fighting after border clashes. The US president oversaw the signing of a peace deal between the Southeast Asian nations in Kuala Lumpur last weekend.

Afghan Defence Minister, Mullah Mohammad Yaqoob Mujahid and Pakistan's Defence Minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif shake hands, following the signing of a ceasefire agreement, during a negotations meeting mediated by Qatar and Turkey, in Doha, Qatar, October 19, 2025. Qatar Ministry Of Foreign Affairs/Handout via REUTERS THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY A THIRD PARTY. MANDATORY CREDIT. NO RESALES. NO ARCHIVES.
Afghan Defence Minister Mullah Mohammad Yaqoob Mujahid and Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif shake hands following the signing of a ceasefire agreement, during negotiations in Doha, Qatar, October 19, 2025 [Handout/Qatar Ministry of Foreign Affairs via Reuters]

Unintended consequences

While Pakistan has far superior military capabilities, the Taliban has advantages, too, say analysts, cautioning against overconfidence on the part of Islamabad.

Yousafzai argued that the crisis with Pakistan had helped bolster domestic support for the Taliban, and military action against it could further elevate sympathy for the group.

“The response by the Afghan Taliban of attacking the Pakistani military on [the] border was seen as a forceful response, increasing their popularity. And even if Pakistan continues to bomb, it could end up killing innocent civilians, leading to more resentment and anti-Pakistani sentiment in [the] public and among [the] Afghan Taliban,” he said.

This dynamic, according to Yousafzai, should be worrying for Islamabad, particularly if the Taliban’s supreme leader, Haibatullah Akhunzada, steps in.

“If Akhunzada issues an edict, declaring Jihad against Pakistan, many young Afghans could potentially join the ranks of [the] Taliban,” Yousafzai warned. “Even if it will mean a bigger loss for Afghans, the situation will not be good for Pakistan.”

The only beneficiary, he said, would be the TTP, which will feel even more emboldened “to launch attacks against the Pakistani military”.

Source link

Pakistan says five soldiers and 25 fighters killed in Afghan border clashes | Taliban News

Fighting comes as Taliban submits proposal at Pakistan-Afghanistan talks in Turkiye, while Islamabad warns of ‘open war’ if deal fails.

Fresh clashes near the border with Afghanistan have killed at least five Pakistani soldiers and 25 fighters, Pakistan’s army says, even as the two countries hold peace talks in Istanbul.

The Pakistani military said armed men attempted to cross from Afghanistan into Kurram and North Waziristan on Friday and Saturday, accusing the Taliban authorities of failing to act against armed groups operating from Afghan territory.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

It said on Sunday that the attempted infiltrations raised questions over Kabul’s commitment to tackling “terrorism emanating from its soil”.

Afghanistan’s Taliban government has not commented on the latest clashes, but has repeatedly rejected accusations of harbouring armed fighters and instead accuses Pakistan of violating Afghan sovereignty with air strikes.

Delegations from both countries arrived in Istanbul, Turkiye on Saturday for talks aimed at preventing a return to full-scale conflict. The meeting comes days after Qatar and Turkiye brokered a ceasefire in Doha to halt the most serious border fighting since the Taliban takeover of Kabul in 2021.

The violence earlier this month killed dozens and wounded hundreds.

‘Open war’

Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif said the ceasefire remains intact and that Kabul appears interested in peace, but warned that failure in Istanbul would leave Islamabad with “open war” as an option.

Pakistan’s military described those involved in the weekend infiltrations as members of what it calls “Fitna al-Khwarij”, a term it uses for ideologically motivated armed groups allegedly backed by foreign sponsors.

United States President Donald Trump also weighed in on Sunday, saying he would “solve the Afghanistan-Pakistan crisis very quickly”, telling reporters on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit in Malaysia that he had been briefed on the ongoing talks.

Separately, Taliban-controlled broadcaster RTA said on Sunday that Kabul’s delegation in Turkiye had submitted a proposal after more than 15 hours of discussions, calling for Pakistan to end cross-border strikes and block any “anti-Afghan group” from using its territory.

The Afghan side also signalled openness to a four-party monitoring mechanism to supervise the ceasefire and investigate violations.

Afghanistan’s delegation is led by Deputy Interior Minister Haji Najib. Pakistan has not publicly disclosed its representatives.

Analysts expect the core of the talks to revolve around intelligence-sharing, allowing Islamabad to hand over coordinates of suspected Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) fighters for the Taliban to take direct action, instead of Pakistan launching its own strikes.

Source link

Pakistan minister warns of ‘open war’ with Afghanistan if peace talks fail | Politics News

Defence minister’s warning comes as countries hold talks in Istanbul to consolidate last week’s Doha ceasefire.

Officials from Pakistan and Afghanistan have met in Istanbul for talks on how to ensure a recent ceasefire deal between the two countries holds, with the Pakistani defence minister warning of “open war” should the efforts fail.

The discussions, which began on Saturday and are expected to continue on Sunday, come just days after a truce was brokered in Doha by Qatar and Turkiye to end deadly clashes between the neighbours. The cross-border violence killed dozens of people and injured hundreds more.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“We have the option, if no agreement takes place, we have an open war with them,” Pakistan Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif said from the eastern Pakistani city of Sialkot on Saturday.

“But I saw that they want peace,” he added.

Reporting from Istanbul, Al Jazeera’s Sinem Koseoglu said the “technical-level talks” in Turkiye are expected “to pave the way for a permanent solution between the two neighbours”.

While Afghanistan’s Deputy Interior Minister Haji Najib is leading his country’s delegation in Turkiye, Pakistan has not given details about its representatives.

On Friday, a spokesperson for Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the negotiations must address “the menace of terrorism emanating from Afghan soil towards Pakistan”.

Pakistan has accused Afghanistan of harbouring what it calls “terrorist groups”, including the Pakistani Taliban (TPP). Kabul denies the allegation and has blamed Islamabad for violating its sovereignty through military strikes.

Key crossings between the countries remain shut following the recent fighting, with Afghanistan’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry estimating that traders are losing millions of dollars each day that the closure persists.

Ibraheem Bahiss, an International Crisis Group analyst in Afghanistan, told the AFP news agency that a key topic of discussion during the Istanbul talks would be intelligence-sharing on armed groups.

“For example, Pakistan would give coordinates of where they suspect TTP fighters or commanders are, and instead of carrying out strikes, Afghanistan would be expected to carry out action against them,” he said.

Meanwhile, the ceasefire that was announced in Doha last Sunday continues to hold.

“There has been no major full-scale terrorist attack emanating from Afghan soil in the last two to three days,” Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tahir Andrabi said.

“So, the Doha talks and outcome were fruitful. We would like the trend to continue in Istanbul and post-Istanbul.”

Source link

Pakistan speeds up expulsion of Afghan refugees amid tensions with Taliban | Refugees

Islamabad, Pakistan – Allah Meer’s parents were among the millions of Afghans who fled their country after the then-Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

His family settled in a refugee village in Kohat in northwestern Pakistan. That’s where Meer, now 45, was born. Meer says that more than 200 members of his extended family made the journey from Afghanistan to Pakistan, which has been their home ever since.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Over the past two years, as Pakistan has moved to send back hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees, the family has feared for its future, but managed to evade Islamabad’s dragnet.

Last week, the threat of expulsion hit home: Pakistan announced it would close all 54 Afghan refugee villages across the country as part of the campaign it began in 2023 to push out what it calls “illegal foreigners”. These include the villages in Kohat, where Meer and his family live.

“In my life, I visited Afghanistan only once, for two weeks in 2013. Apart from that, none of my family have ever gone back,” Meer told Al Jazeera. “How can I uproot everything when we were born here, lived here, married here, and buried our loved ones here?”

Amid heightened tensions between Pakistan and the Taliban, which returned to governing Afghanistan in 2021, families like Meer’s are caught in a vortex of uncertainty.

Fighting erupted between Afghan and Pakistani forces along the border earlier in October, pushing already strained relations into open hostility. On Sunday, officials from both sides met in Qatar’s capital, Doha, and signed a ceasefire agreement, with the next round of talks scheduled in Istanbul on October 25.

Yet, tensions remain high. And families like Meer’s fear that they could become diplomatic pawns in a border war between the neighbours.

From welcome to expulsion

Pakistan has hosted millions of Afghan refugees since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As civil war gripped Afghanistan and the Taliban first rose to power in 1996, successive waves of Afghans fled across the border.

After the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001 following the September 11 attacks on the US, the Taliban’s fall prompted thousands of Afghans to return home. But their return was short-lived.

The Taliban’s stunning comeback in August 2021 triggered yet another exodus, when another 600,000 to 800,000 Afghans sought refuge in Pakistan.

However, as relations between Kabul and Islamabad soured during the past four years, Pakistan – which was once the Taliban’s principal patron  – accused Afghanistan of harbouring armed groups responsible for the cross-border attacks. The government’s stance hardened towards Afghan refugees, even those who have lived in the country for decades – like Meer.

An Afghan man rests in a mosquito net tent beside a loaded truck as he prepares to return home, after Pakistan started to deport documented Afghan refugees, outside the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) repatriation centre in Nowshera, Pakistan August 27,2025. REUTERS/Fayaz Aziz
An Afghan man rests in a mosquito net tent beside a loaded truck as he prepares to return to Afghanistan, in August, outside the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) repatriation centre in Nowshera, Pakistan [Fayaz Aziz/Reuters]

A father of 10, Meer earned a degree in education from a university in Peshawar, and now runs a vocational training project for Afghan refugee children backed by the United Nations refugee agency, the UNHCR.

Since 2006, the UNHCR has issued what are known as Proof of Registration (PoR) cards to document Afghan citizens living in Pakistan. These cards have allowed them to stay in Pakistan legally, giving them some freedom of movement, although this is restricted, as well as access to some public services, including bank accounts.

But from June 30 this year, the Pakistani government has stopped renewing PoR cards and has invalidated existing ones.

“We all possess the UNHCR-issued Proof of Residence cards, but now, with this current drive, I don’t know what will happen,” Meer said.

In 2017, Pakistan also started issuing Afghan Citizenship Cards (ACC) to undocumented Afghan nationals living in the country, giving them identification credentials to provide them with a temporary legal status.

But the ACC is not a protection against deportation any more.

According to the UNHCR, more than 1.5 million Afghans left Pakistan – voluntarily or forcibly – between the start of the campaign in 2023 and mid-October, 2025.

‘Illegal in our home’

About 1.2 million PoR cardholders, 737,000 ACC holders and 115,000 asylum seekers  remain in Pakistan, Qaiser Khan Afridi, the UNHCR’s spokesperson in Pakistan, told Al Jazeera.

Pakistan’s tensions with the Taliban have added new precarity to their status.

“For over 45 years, Pakistan has shown extraordinary generosity by hosting millions of Afghan refugees,” Afridi said. “But we are deeply concerned by the government’s decision to de-notify refugee villages all over Pakistan and to push for returns [to Afghanistan].”

“Many of those affected have lived here for years, and now fear for their future. We urge that any return should be voluntary, gradual, and carried out with dignity and safety.”

Meer, who has volunteered for the UNHCR over the years, said that seven refugee villages in Kohat alone house more than 100,000 people. He accused both Pakistan and Afghanistan of using the refugee issue as political leverage.

“With the latest situation, our family elders have sat together to discuss options. We thought about sending some of our young men to Afghanistan to look for houses and means to do business, but the problem is, we have no connections there at all,” he said.

With his PoR card now invalidated by the Pakistani government, he has no recognised identity card, making it hard for him to access even medical facilities when his children need treatment for any illness.

“We are, for all practical purposes, considered illegal in a country that I and my children call home,” he said.

Caught between borders

Pakistan’s plan to expel Afghan residents began in late 2023, amid a rise in rebe attacks. Since then, violence has surged, with 2025 shaping up to be the most violent year in a decade.

Pakistani authorities argue Afghan refugees pose a security risk, accusing the Taliban government of sheltering armed groups, a charge Kabul denies.

Two years ago, Pakistan’s then interior minister, Sarfraz Bugti, alleged that 14 out of 24 suicide bombings in the country in 2023 were carried out by Afghan nationals. He did not provide any evidence to back his claim, and he did not clarify if the individuals were refugees living in Pakistan, or Afghan nationals who had crossed the porous border between the two countries.

But Meer fears that Afghan refugees in Pakistan will be distrusted back in Afghanistan, too, given the climate of animosity between the neighbours.

“We will be seen as Pakistanis, as enemies there, too,” he said.

Afridi, the UNHCR spokesperson, urged Pakistan to reconsider its repatriation drive.

“UNHCR calls on the government to apply measures to exempt Afghans with international protection needs from involuntary return,” he said.

“Pakistan has a proud history of hospitality, and it’s important to continue that tradition at this critical time,” he said.

Source link

What we know about Pakistan-Afghanistan ceasefire, will it hold? | Pakistan Taliban News

Pakistan and Afghanistan have agreed to an “immediate ceasefire” after a week of deadly clashes along their border, as the ties between the two South Asian neighbours plunged to their lowest point since the Taliban returned to power in 2021.

Both countries agreed to stop fighting and work towards “lasting peace and stability” after peace talks in Doha, the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Sunday, about the deal it mediated alongside Turkiye.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Dozens of people have been killed and hundreds wounded in the worst bout of violence in recent years. The violence erupted on October 11 at multiple fronts along their 2,600km (1,600-mile) border, after Islamabad allegedly carried out strikes in Kabul and the southeastern province of Paktika against what it said were armed groups linked to attacks inside Pakistan.

So, what do we know about the truce agreement and what might come next?

What do we know about the ceasefire?

After a round of negotiations between Pakistan and Afghanistan in the Qatari capital, Doha, “the two sides agreed to an immediate ceasefire and the establishment of mechanisms to consolidate lasting peace and stability between the two countries,” Qatar’s Foreign Ministry announced in a statement.

“The two parties also agreed to hold follow-up meetings in the coming days to ensure the sustainability of the ceasefire and verify its implementation in a reliable and sustainable manner, thus contributing to achieving security and stability in both countries,” the statement added.

Following the Qatari ministry’s statement, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif posted confirmation of the deal on X.

“Cross-border terrorism from Afghan territory will cease immediately,” Asif wrote. “Both countries will respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Asif further confirmed a “follow-up meeting between the delegations is scheduled to take place in the Turkish city of Istanbul on October 25 to discuss the matters in detail.”

Residents remove debris from a house damaged by attacks.
Residents remove debris from a house damaged by Wednesday’s two drone attacks, in Kabul, Afghanistan, Thursday, October 16, 2025 [Siddiqullah Alizai/AP Photo]

Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said the truce was “the first step in the right direction”.

“We look forward to the establishment of a concrete and verifiable monitoring mechanism, in the next meeting to be hosted by Turkiye, to address the menace of terrorism emanating from Afghan soil towards Pakistan. It is important to put all efforts in place to prevent any further loss of lives,” he posted on X.

Zabihullah Mujahid, the Taliban spokesperson, said that under the terms of the agreement, “both sides reaffirm their commitment to peace, mutual respect, and the maintenance of strong and constructive neighbourly relations.

“Both sides are committed to resolving issues and disputes through dialogue,” Mujahid said in a post on X. “It has been decided that neither country will undertake any hostile actions against the other, nor will they support groups carrying out attacks against the Government of Pakistan.”

Mujahid said the countries have agreed on refraining “from targeting each other’s security forces, civilians, or critical infrastructure”.

Mujahid, as well as Dar and Asif, thanked Qatar and Turkiye for their role in facilitating the talks that led to the ceasefire.

Why Pakistan has blamed the Taliban for attacks inside its territory?

Pakistan wants the Taliban to rein in armed groups such as the Taliban Pakistan, known by the acronym TTP, and others blamed for carrying out attacks on its territory. Armed attacks by TTP rebels and the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), which operates in the resource-rich Balochistan province, have surged in recent years, with 2025 on track to become the deadliest year.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, which border Afghanistan, have borne the brunt of the violence.

At least 2,414 deaths have been recorded in the first three quarters of this year, according to the Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS), an Islamabad-based think tank.

Pakistan and the Taliban, once allies over shared regional security interests, have fallen out as Islamabad claims that Afghanistan is giving haven to the TTP – an allegation Kabul has rejected.

Kabul and Islamabad have also clashed over their international border, called the Durand Line, which is recognised by Pakistan but not by Afghanistan.

TTP’s ideology is aligned with the Taliban in Afghanistan. However, the groups have different goals and operate independently.

Pakistan has sought assurances from the Taliban that these groups, which operate in the porous border regions with Afghanistan, will not be allowed to operate freely and that the attacks across the border will cease.

In a post later on Sunday, Mujahid, the Taliban spokesman, stressed that the Afghan soil “will not be allowed to be used against any other country”. It is “the consistent stance of the Islamic Emirate” he said, referring to the official name of the Afghanistan government.

“It does not support any attack against anyone and has always emphasised this stance,” he posted on X.

People bring an injured man for medical treatment at a hospital.
People bring a man, who was injured in the border clashes between Pakistan and Afghan forces, for medical treatment at a hospital in Chaman, a town on the Pakistan side of the border, on October 15, 2025 [H Achakzai/AP Photo]

Islamabad also wants the Taliban to prevent the regrouping or expansion of anti-Pakistan networks within Afghanistan, which the government considers a threat to Pakistan’s stability and broader regional strategy.

Abdullah Baheer, a political analyst based in Kabul, said the bombing of Afghanistan and killing of civilians is “a problematic model”.

“Show me one piece of evidence that shows they hit any TTP operative in Afghanistan in the past week of bombing, despite the 50-odd dead and 550 injured,” he told Al Jazeera.

He added that the TTP is a local rebel group within Pakistan that far precedes the Taliban’s coming to power in Afghanistan. “Are you expecting the Taliban to come forth and stop the TTP from pursuing any of its political or military goals?” he asked.

“Let’s take the argument that TTP are operating from safe havens within Afghanistan. The question is, you mistake influence over a group that is an independent group to an extent of controlling them,” he added.

As previously mentioned, the Taliban denies providing safe haven to TTP within Afghanistan’s borders.

Why the spike in attacks inside Pakistan?

Islamabad was the prime backer of the Taliban after it was removed by US-led NATO troops in 2001. It was also accused of providing a haven to Taliban fighters as they waged an armed rebellion against the United States’ occupation of Afghanistan for 20 years.

But relations have soured over the surge in attacks inside Pakistan.

The TTP has re-emerged as one of Pakistan’s biggest national security threats, as it has conducted more than 600 attacks against Pakistani forces in the past year, according to a report by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED), an independent nonprofit.

According to the CRSS, the Islamabad-based think tank, the first three-quarters of this year have seen a 46 percent surge in violence compared with last year.

The violence attributed to the TTP had decreased from its peak in the late 2000s and early 2010s after Islamabad involved the armed groups in talks and addressed some of their demands in 2021, which include the release of their members from prison and an end to military operations in the tribal areas.

The TTP also demanded the reversal of the 2018 merger of the tribal region with the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. A stricter imposition of their interpretation of Islamic law is also one of their demands.

A month after the Taliban took over Kabul in August 2021, it mediated talks between the Pakistani military and the TTP, a decision endorsed and pushed by Imran Khan, Pakistan’s then-prime minister. But Khan, who championed talks with the armed groups, was removed as prime minister in April 2022.

Violence surged after the TTP unilaterally walked out of the ceasefire deal in 2022, after accusing Islamabad of renewed military operations in the region.

Since its founding in 2007, the TTP has targeted civilians and law enforcement personnel, resulting in thousands of deaths. Their deadliest attack came in December 2014, when they targeted the Army Public School (APS) in Peshawar, killing more than 130 students.

The group remains banned in Pakistan and has been designated a “terrorist” group by the US.

The Pakistani army has conducted multiple operations to eliminate the group, but has struggled to achieve its goal as fighters have used the porous border to move back and forth between the neighbouring countries.

Baheer, the political analyst, said that there are “no winners in war. There are only losers”.

“This logic of bombing Afghanistan into submission didn’t work for the United States for 20 years of their occupation. Why do we think it will work now?” the Kabul-based analyst asked.

Source link

Will the Pakistan-Afghanistan peace agreement hold? | Conflict News

The neighbours have agreed to an immediate ceasefire after a week of cross-border violence.

Pakistan and Afghanistan have agreed to stop fighting, after talks in the Qatari capital, Doha.

Cross-border violence in the past week or so marked the most serious escalation since 2021, when the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan.

Islamabad accuses Kabul of harbouring fighters from Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, an armed group that’s stepped up attacks in Pakistan. Afghanistan’s Taliban leaders deny the accusations.

Mediators say the foundations have been laid for long-term peace. But what are the guarantees? And how does the conflict play out regionally?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Javaid Ur-Rahman – Investigative journalist and parliamentary correspondent for The Nation, a Pakistani daily newspaper

Elizabeth Threlkeld – Senior fellow and director of the South Asia Program at the Stimson Center

Obaidullah Baheer – Adjunct lecturer at the American University of Afghanistan

Source link

Afghanistan, Pakistan agree to immediate ceasefire after talks in Doha | Conflict News

South Asian neighbours also agreed to hold follow-up meetings in coming days to ensure peace deal’s implementation.

Afghanistan and Pakistan have agreed to an immediate ceasefire after talks mediated by Qatar and Turkiye following a week of fierce and deadly clashes along their disputed border.

Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said early on Sunday that Afghanistan and Pakistan had agreed to the ceasefire “and the establishment of mechanisms to consolidate lasting peace and stability between the two countries”.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Doha said the two countries also agreed to hold follow-up meetings in the coming days “to ensure the sustainability of the ceasefire and verify its implementation in a reliable and sustainable manner”.

Earlier, both sides said they were holding peace talks in Doha on Saturday as they sought a way forward, after clashes killed dozens and wounded hundreds in the worst violence between the two South Asian neighbours since the Taliban seized power in Kabul in 2021.

“As promised, negotiations with the Pakistani side will take place today in Doha,” Afghan government spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid had said, adding that Kabul’s negotiating team, led by Defence Minister Mullah Muhammad Yaqoob, had arrived in the Qatari capital.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said earlier that the country’s defence minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, had led discussions with representatives of Afghanistan’s Taliban leadership.

“The talks will focus on immediate measures to end cross-border terrorism against Pakistan emanating from Afghanistan and restore peace and stability along the Pak-Afghan border,” the Foreign Office said.

Cross-border fighting between the one-time allies and Pakistani air strikes along their contested 2,600km (1,600-mile) frontier were triggered after Islamabad demanded that Kabul rein in rebels who had stepped up cross-border attacks in Pakistan, saying the fighters were operating from safe havens in Afghanistan.

The Taliban has denied giving haven to armed groups to attack Pakistan, and accuses the Pakistani military of spreading misinformation about Afghanistan and sheltering ISIL (ISIS)-linked fighters who have undermined the country’s stability and sovereignty.

Islamabad has denied Kabul’s accusations. Pakistan has accused Kabul of allowing armed groups to reside inside Afghanistan and wage war for years against the Pakistani state in a bid to overthrow the government and replace it with their strict brand of Islamic governance system.

On Friday, a suicide attack near the border killed seven Pakistani soldiers and wounded 13, security officials said.

“The Afghan regime must rein in the proxies who have sanctuaries in Afghanistan and are using Afghan soil to perpetrate heinous attacks inside Pakistan,” Pakistani Army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir said on Saturday, addressing a graduation ceremony of cadets.



Source link

Afghanistan pulls out of cricket series after it says Pakistan air strike killed local players

BBC A large crowd of likely hundreds of people seen outside beside mountainsBBC

A large crowd gathered for the players’ funeral on Saturday

Afghanistan will no longer take part in an upcoming cricket series after three players in a local tournament were killed in an air strike, the nation’s cricketing body says.

The Afghanistan Cricket Board (ACB) said it would withdraw from November’s tri-nation T20 series out of respect for the dead, who it said were “targeted” in an “attack carried out by the Pakistani regime” on Friday. The three did not play for the national team.

The strike hit a home in Urgon district in Paktika province, where the players were eating dinner after a match, witnesses and local officials told the BBC.

Eight people were killed, the ACB said. Pakistan said the strike hit militants and denied targeting civilians.

The ACB named the three players who were killed as Kabeer Agha, Sibghatullah and Haroon, calling their deaths “a great loss for Afghanistan’s sports community, its athletes, and the cricketing family”.

The International Cricket Council (ICC) said it was “deeply saddened and appalled” by the “tragic deaths of three young and promising Afghan cricketers” in an air strike that also “claimed the lives of several civilians”.

“The ICC stands in solidarity with the Afghanistan Cricket Board and echoes their grief,” it said in a statement, adding that it “strongly condemns this act of violence”.

The attack came hours after a temporary truce between Afghanistan and Pakistan was due to expire following days of deadly clashes on the border between the two nations. Dozens of casualties have been reported.

Pakistan said it had targeted Afghan militants in the air strike and that at least 70 combatants had been killed.

Pakistan’s Minister of Information Attaullah Tarar said claims that the attack targeted civilians are “false and meant to generate support for terrorist groups operating from inside Afghanistan”.

Afghanistan Cricket Board/X Three portraits of the killed cricketersAfghanistan Cricket Board/X

The Afghanistan Cricket Board shared this image of the three players who were killed

In a social media post, Afghan national team captain Rashid Khan paid tribute to the “aspiring young cricketers who dreamed of representing their nation on the world stage”.

Other players for the Afghan national side joined the tributes, including Fazalhaq Farooqi, who said the attack was a “heinous, unforgivable crime”.

On Saturday, large crowds of people were seen gathering at the funeral for the strike’s victims.

Several coffins laid out in front of a large outdoor crowd in Afghanistan

The strike came after Pakistani officials said seven soldiers were killed in a suicide attack near the Afghan border on Friday.

The 48-hour truce between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which began on Wednesday at 13:00 GMT, has reportedly been extended to allow for negotiations.

An Afghan delegation arrived in the Qatari capital of Doha on Saturday for peace talks with the Pakistani side.

The Taliban government said it would take part in the talks despite “Pakistani aggression”, which it says was Islamabad’s attempt to prolong the conflict.

Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Pakistan should “reconsider its policies, and pursue friendly and civilised relations” with Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s Foreign Office said on Saturday that Defence Minister Khawaja Asif would lead the country’s delegation in Doha.

It said the talks will focus on ending cross-border terrorism and restoring peace and stability on the Pakistan-Afghan border.

Zimbabwe will now replace Afghanistan in the T20 series.

Source link

Tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan spike as truce about to expire | Conflict News

Suicide car bomber strikes in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa amid unconfirmed reports that Qatar has offered to host peace talks.

Tensions are mounting between Pakistan and Afghanistan amid reports of a brutal border attack on the former’s troops as a fragile truce between the neighbours, and once allies, nears its expiry.

A 48-hour ceasefire between the two sides, which came into effect this week after days of bloody cross-border attacks, is set to expire at 13:00 GMT on Friday.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

As the end of the truce approached, Pakistani police official Irfan Ali said a suicide car bomber backed by Pakistan Taliban, known by the acronym TTP, attacked a military compound in Mir Ali, a city in North Waziristan district, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

Accounts of losses suffered during the attack varied.

The official, quoted by news agency The Associated Press, said three fighters were killed in an intense shootout and did not report any troop casualties.

News agency Reuters quoted Pakistani security officials as saying seven Pakistani soldiers were killed in an attack by a fighter who rammed an explosive-laden vehicle into the wall of a Pakistani military camp in North Waziristan.

The anonymous officials said two other fighters were shot dead as they tried to get into the facility. At least 13 were left injured.

Pakistan’s Geo News reported that four assailants from TTP were killed in a suicide attack on a military camp in North Waziristan, with security sources saying security forces had suffered no losses.

Pakistan’s army did not immediately comment.

Deadly clashes

The truce, imposed on Wednesday, brought a temporary halt to the deadliest clashes between the neighbours since 2021, when the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of United States and NATO forces.

The conflict, which threatens to destabilise a region where groups like ISIL (ISIS) and al-Qaeda are trying to resurface, was triggered after Islamabad demanded that Kabul rein in fighters who had stepped up attacks in Pakistan, saying they operated from havens in Afghanistan.

The Taliban denies the charge and accuses the Pakistani military of spreading misinformation about Afghanistan, provoking border tensions, and sheltering fighters to undermine its stability and sovereignty.

Media reported that Qatar has offered to host peace talks between the two countries in Doha, though neither government has confirmed the offer.

Reporting from Peshawar, Al Jazeera’s Kamal Hyder said there had been “some talk of a meeting in Doha … Friendly countries are trying to make efforts in order to ensure that the ceasefire is extended,” he said.

He described the situation on the border as “tense”, adding that Pakistan had stated that unless the Afghan side addressed its concerns, the situation would be “precarious and can escalate at any moment”.

Afghanistan’s Taliban government said on Thursday that Pakistan had carried out two drone attacks on Kabul the previous day, just before the ceasefire came into effect. Doctors told AP that five people were killed and dozens were injured.

The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan said on Thursday that 37 civilians were killed and 425 were wounded in Afghanistan as a result of cross-border clashes with Pakistan this week.

Pakistan has not provided figures for civilian casualties suffered on its side of the border.

On Thursday, Dawn cited Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the media wing of the military, as saying 34 “India-backed terrorists” from “Fitna-al-Khawarij” – the government’s term for TTP – had been killed during multiple operations across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa during the week.

Source link

Analysis: Why Pakistan and the Taliban won’t find it easy to patch up | Conflict News

The recent downward spiral in Afghanistan-Pakistan relations would have been hard to imagine when Pakistani military and civilian leaders welcomed the Taliban’s return to power in Kabul in August 2021.

A Taliban government, Islamabad believed, would be friendly to Pakistan and would become a bulwark against any security threats to the country. After all, Pakistan’s military and intelligence services had for more than two decades supported the Afghan Taliban movement.

Between 2001 and 2021, this meant a contradictory foreign policy. On the one hand, by supporting the United States’ military intervention in Afghanistan, Pakistan recognised the US-backed governments that ruled the country. At the same time, Pakistan covertly tolerated – and even enabled – the resurgence of the Taliban inside Pakistani territory, which also included co-habitation with other Pakistani militant groups.

Yet, that relationship has now collapsed as Pakistani airforce struck targets in Kabul for the first time ever this week.

An apparent disconnect in their mutual expectations, and disrespect for each other’s capabilities, makes it harder for them to resurrect what they once had.

What is at stake for both countries?

The Pakistani security establishment, comprised of the army and the country’s powerful military intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), is responsible for devising and driving the nation’s Afghan policy.

Historically, the army has also exercised significant power over the civilian administrations, even when Pakistan has not been under military rule.

Pakistan has faced a surge of unprecedented attacks against its security forces since 2021, coinciding with the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan. More than 2,400 deaths were recorded for the first three quarters of 2025, towering over last year’s figure of approximately 2,500 people killed in attacks across Pakistan.

Pakistan has blamed a majority of attacks on the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the so-called Pakistan Taliban, whose leaders are now based in Afghanistan. TTP members hail largely from the tribal areas of Pakistan, along the Afghan border.

Pakistan had hoped that TTP leaders would leave Afghanistan once the Pakistan-friendly Taliban government was established in Kabul. Some TTP fighters reportedly did return home, but this did not translate into a decline in violence. The TTP demands a localised implementation of Islamic law and the reinstatement of the former semi-autonomous status of tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

For Pakistan, confronting a deadly and persistent uprising at home has become a national security crisis. Pakistan is, meanwhile, also reeling from several other intersecting crises: a stunted economy, geopolitical tensions with archrival India – marked by the recent conflict in May – as well as a growing domestic political discontent, and natural disasters.

Taliban leaders in Afghanistan insist that the TTP is a domestic challenge for Pakistan to address. In 2022, shortly after forming an interim administration, the Taliban government mediated talks between TTP leaders and the Pakistani army in Kabul. After initial indications of progress, underpinned by a temporary ceasefire, the talks collapsed.

For the Taliban government, which is heavily sanctioned and isolated from international financial institutions, the realities of ruling a vastly underdeveloped and economically poor country are stark. Over four years since taking power, Russia is the only country that has formally recognised the Taliban administration, though a growing number of countries – China, India and Iran among them – have, in effect, acknowledged the group as Afghanistan’s rulers and are hosting their diplomatic representatives.

Afghans are suffering from the near-collapse of the economy, and public sector institutions – such as health and education services – are on the brink of a complete breakdown. Faced with severe food insecurity and humanitarian challenges, common Afghans suffer as United Nations-led aid agencies face funding cuts. A prolonged conflict with Pakistan is likely to further deepen these challenges.

Can both sides return to their past friendship?

Both sides appear, at the moment, to be digging their heels in. Though they have agreed to temporary ceasefires, neither side wants to look weak by admitting it needs to back down.

Official Pakistani government statements now refer to the Taliban government – whose return to power in Kabul was once celebrated – as a “regime”, calling for a more “inclusive” administration in Afghanistan. They warn of continuing attacks within Afghan territories if the Taliban fail to act against the TTP.

To be sure, Pakistan possesses a substantially more powerful military, technologically advanced weaponry, and considerable geopolitical leverage against the Taliban government. There is also a renewed sense of self-confidence as Pakistan considers it successfully fought the recent war with India in May 2025, including by downing multiple Indian jets.

Since the 1980s, it has hosted millions of Afghan refugees, a generation of whom were educated and have built livelihoods in Pakistani cities. This, according to Pakistani leaders and some public opinion, should mean that Afghans must bear goodwill towards Pakistan. Forcing out Afghan refugees will be a key leverage Pakistan would want to use against the Taliban government.

Fundamentally, Pakistani leaders view their country as a serious and powerful entity with strong global alliances – one that any Afghan government, especially one led by a group supported by Pakistan, should respect and cooperate with.

The Taliban, on the other hand, view themselves as victorious, battle-hardened fighters who waged a long and successful war against foreign occupation by a global superpower. Hence, a potential conflict imposed by a neighbour would be a lesser mission.

Taliban spokesmen are pushing back against Pakistani officials’ recent narrative, underlining the significance of the ongoing information war on both sides. They have alleged, for instance, that Pakistan’s tribal border areas shelter ISIS/ISIL fighters with tacit backing from elements of the Pakistani army.

Nonetheless, as a landlocked country, Afghanistan is heavily dependent on trade routes via Pakistan, which remain shut due to ongoing tensions, resulting in major losses for traders on both sides. The Taliban government lacks air defence systems, radars or modern weaponry to counter any further incursions by Pakistani drones and jets.

The path to de-escalation

The Pakistani army continues to frame its fight against TTP as part of the wider confrontation with India. It has alleged, without evidence, that the armed group is backed by New Delhi. Pakistan also expects the Taliban to disown and distance themselves from the TTP and instead align themselves with Islamabad.

However, the TTP and Taliban share long-term camaraderie, ideological compatibility and social bonds that go beyond stringent organisational peculiarities. For the Taliban, a conflict with the TTP could also risk creating space for minacious actors such as the ISIL-Khorasan armed group.

And while Pakistan is stronger militarily, the Taliban have their own tools that could hurt Islamabad.

What if the Taliban’s Kandahar-based supreme leader, Mullah Haibatullah Akhunzada, were to issue a fatwa for jihad against Pakistan’s security establishment? The TTP leadership had already pledged allegiance to Akhunzada in 2021. But the Taliban’s top leader is also held in high religious regard by a large segment of Pakistani religious school students and religious leaders, and a call against Islamabad from Akhunzada could lead to serious internal security challenges for Pakistan.

Islamist political groups in Pakistan would also not support an all-out war with the Taliban. Meanwhile, any sustained Pakistani attacks against Afghanistan will likely bolster domestic support for the incumbent Taliban administration, even when there is palpable resentment among Afghans against the Taliban.

To prevent further escalation and seek meaningful political dialogue, there is an urgent need for a trusted mediation actor capable of sustainable engagement. This role is best suited for Middle Eastern and Muslim nations trusted by both sides, such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

There is evidence that this is a fruitful pathway. Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi confirmed in a news conference in New Delhi last week that the Taliban ceased retaliatory attacks against Pakistan after Qatar and Saudi Arabia mediated.

But first, there needs to be a real desire for peace from the leaders in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Even as Afghan and Pakistani officials hurl warnings at each other, and their forces engage in repeated bouts of cross-border fire, both countries are acutely aware that war will cost them heavily.

However, this does not mean that relations will return to the erstwhile bilateral warmth anytime soon or that miscalculations cannot happen.

Geography and history bind Afghans and Pakistanis into interdependence, which needs to be capitalised upon.

Governments need to stop hoping in vain for the success of failed approaches that have been tried for decades. Afghan leaders must work at developing amicability with Pakistan. Pakistani leaders need to reciprocate by conceiving a wholesome foreign policy towards Afghanistan, which is not coloured by rivalry with India.

The world does not need yet another war in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. It can never bear better dividends than peace.

Source link