Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar’s address at the ISSI seminar on Pakistan’s evolving counter-terrorism landscape put Islamabad’s position plainly: terrorism is the defining challenge for the region and the world, Afghan soil remains central to the threat facing Pakistan, and the state will act decisively to protect its citizens.
A Decision Taken as a Last Resort
On KP emergency, Dar described the step as a difficult decision but one without an alternative, saying the government had run out of options. The sequence he outlined is one of exhausted engagement: dialogue and political outreach came first, and constitutional intervention followed once those channels failed to produce cooperation on security. He also argued that protest politics had imposed costs before, noting that earlier sit-ins damaged the national economy. In his framing, the question was not whether to act but what remained after other routes were tried.
The Afghan Dimension
The core of the address was Pakistan’s position on Afghan territory. Dar said Pakistan continues to press the Taliban regime to prevent its soil being used against Pakistan, and that attacks from Afghan territory must stop. He said Pakistan has completed fencing along the Afghan border, has provided substantial humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, and that action against terrorists is in Afghanistan’s own interest. He also called on the Taliban to end all support to militants, including arms, and stated that the Jaffar Express hijacking plot was planned on Afghan soil.
He recalled a conversation with Taliban Deputy Prime Minister Mullah Muhammad Hasan Akhund, in which he said his Afghan counterpart accepted Pakistan’s concerns, and that he had warned that failure to act against these groups would eventually rebound on Kabul itself.
That warning has analytical weight. Pakistan’s diplomatic argument is that tolerating militant sanctuaries is a strategic liability for the host as well as the neighbour. The wider regional picture supports it. As this platform has documented, the Taliban face growing armed opposition, ISKP activity and a deepening legitimacy gap at home. A regime that cannot or will not restrain one set of armed groups invites the growth of others.
Corroboration From Outside Pakistan
This account does not rest on Pakistani testimony alone. The Atlantic Council’s assessment, discussed in our earlier commentary, identifies the Taliban’s inability or unwillingness to deter terrorist groups as the largest counter-terrorism challenge in the region, and names TTP as one of its most dangerous allies operating from Afghan bases. UN counter-terrorism monitoring has also repeatedly documented the presence of Al-Qaeda, TTP, IS-K, ETIM and other networks inside Afghanistan. The Deputy Prime Minister’s account fits this wider evidentiary base.
Terrorism Without a Religious Cover
Dar made a further point on legitimacy: no group can claim a licence for violence by invoking religion. The point matters because armed groups regularly use religious language to justify attacks, and a clear rejection of that framing is a prerequisite for any serious regional approach.
The International Dimension
Dar placed these decisions in a multilateral setting. Pakistan, he said, has briefed the international community on its counter-terrorism operations, raised its concerns with the World Bank, and works on the issue across international forums. He called for international cooperation to strengthen the capacity of Pakistan’s law enforcement agencies, and described terrorism as the greatest challenge facing the region and the world. He also affirmed the commitment of Field Marshal Asim Munir to eliminating terrorism, and restated Pakistan’s position that India backs terrorism inside the country, citing the Kulbhushan Yadav case.
Conclusion
The seminar’s central message is that Pakistan sees its response as proportionate to the threat and as the end of a long engagement rather than a first resort. The strategic test is whether international partners treat the evidence, from Pakistani officials, the Atlantic Council and UN monitors, as a basis for sustained pressure on the Taliban Regime and for practical support to Pakistan’s frontline institutions. The cost of treating this as a bilateral dispute will fall on the whole region.
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
Emergency, Sanctuary and Diplomacy: Pakistan’s Counter-Terrorism Message at ISSI
Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar’s address at the ISSI seminar on Pakistan’s evolving counter-terrorism landscape put Islamabad’s position plainly: terrorism is the defining challenge for the region and the world, Afghan soil remains central to the threat facing Pakistan, and the state will act decisively to protect its citizens.
A Decision Taken as a Last Resort
On KP emergency, Dar described the step as a difficult decision but one without an alternative, saying the government had run out of options. The sequence he outlined is one of exhausted engagement: dialogue and political outreach came first, and constitutional intervention followed once those channels failed to produce cooperation on security. He also argued that protest politics had imposed costs before, noting that earlier sit-ins damaged the national economy. In his framing, the question was not whether to act but what remained after other routes were tried.
The Afghan Dimension
The core of the address was Pakistan’s position on Afghan territory. Dar said Pakistan continues to press the Taliban regime to prevent its soil being used against Pakistan, and that attacks from Afghan territory must stop. He said Pakistan has completed fencing along the Afghan border, has provided substantial humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, and that action against terrorists is in Afghanistan’s own interest. He also called on the Taliban to end all support to militants, including arms, and stated that the Jaffar Express hijacking plot was planned on Afghan soil.
He recalled a conversation with Taliban Deputy Prime Minister Mullah Muhammad Hasan Akhund, in which he said his Afghan counterpart accepted Pakistan’s concerns, and that he had warned that failure to act against these groups would eventually rebound on Kabul itself.
That warning has analytical weight. Pakistan’s diplomatic argument is that tolerating militant sanctuaries is a strategic liability for the host as well as the neighbour. The wider regional picture supports it. As this platform has documented, the Taliban face growing armed opposition, ISKP activity and a deepening legitimacy gap at home. A regime that cannot or will not restrain one set of armed groups invites the growth of others.
Corroboration From Outside Pakistan
This account does not rest on Pakistani testimony alone. The Atlantic Council’s assessment, discussed in our earlier commentary, identifies the Taliban’s inability or unwillingness to deter terrorist groups as the largest counter-terrorism challenge in the region, and names TTP as one of its most dangerous allies operating from Afghan bases. UN counter-terrorism monitoring has also repeatedly documented the presence of Al-Qaeda, TTP, IS-K, ETIM and other networks inside Afghanistan. The Deputy Prime Minister’s account fits this wider evidentiary base.
Terrorism Without a Religious Cover
Dar made a further point on legitimacy: no group can claim a licence for violence by invoking religion. The point matters because armed groups regularly use religious language to justify attacks, and a clear rejection of that framing is a prerequisite for any serious regional approach.
The International Dimension
Dar placed these decisions in a multilateral setting. Pakistan, he said, has briefed the international community on its counter-terrorism operations, raised its concerns with the World Bank, and works on the issue across international forums. He called for international cooperation to strengthen the capacity of Pakistan’s law enforcement agencies, and described terrorism as the greatest challenge facing the region and the world. He also affirmed the commitment of Field Marshal Asim Munir to eliminating terrorism, and restated Pakistan’s position that India backs terrorism inside the country, citing the Kulbhushan Yadav case.
Conclusion
The seminar’s central message is that Pakistan sees its response as proportionate to the threat and as the end of a long engagement rather than a first resort. The strategic test is whether international partners treat the evidence, from Pakistani officials, the Atlantic Council and UN monitors, as a basis for sustained pressure on the Taliban Regime and for practical support to Pakistan’s frontline institutions. The cost of treating this as a bilateral dispute will fall on the whole region.
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
SAT Commentary
Recent
Emergency, Sanctuary and Diplomacy: Pakistan’s Counter-Terrorism Message at ISSI
Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar’s address at the ISSI seminar on Pakistan’s evolving counter-terrorism landscape put Islamabad’s position plainly: terrorism is the defining challenge for
The Borrowed Weapon: Strategic Insolvency and the Nuclear Compensatory Reflex
In January 1953, Dwight Eisenhower entered the White House carrying a conviction that would define American strategic culture for the next seven decades. The United
Security First: Reading the Emergency Debate in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
The federal cabinet’s decision to advise the President to invoke Articles 232 and 234 of the Constitution in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) is among the most
The Great Indian Delusion
India’s aggressive diplomatic bid to host the 2036 Olympic Games has unleashed widespread global skepticism, exposing a glaring chasm between New Delhi’s high-tech geopolitical pretensions
Prioritizing Power Over Security Undermines Governance in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
The ruling administration in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa remains consumed by political self-preservation and systemic power struggles rather than addressing severe governance failures and deteriorating public security.