Any diplomatic optimism surrounding the upcoming Pakistan-Afghanistan dialogue in Doha is colliding with a brutal reality on the ground. The path to negotiation is not being paved with trust, but with fresh violence. A fragile ceasefire has been shattered, followed by the grim return of bodies from Afghanistan bearing marks of torture, a terrorist attack in Wana, and culminating in Pakistan’s retaliatory precision strikes against terrorist commanders in Paktika. This rapid escalation, capped by Afghanistan’s predictable pivot to a narrative of victimhood, transforms the proposed talks from a potential off-ramp into a high-stakes confrontation.
The recent timeline of events reads like a case study in conflict escalation. A tentative ceasefire, meant to de-escalate tensions, was followed by a grim exchange. Afghanistan returned the bodies of deceased individuals, with credible reports, including from the BBC, highlighting severe torture marks on them. This act alone sent a chilling message, suggesting a brutal disregard for the conventions of conflict and human dignity. The situation was further aggravated by a terrorist attack in Waziristan, a region that has long borne the brunt of cross-border militancy.
Pakistan’s response was swift and forceful. In a series of intelligence-based precision strikes in Afghanistan’s Paktika province, it targeted and neutralized a significant number of senior commanders from the Hafiz Gul Bahadur (HGB) group and affiliated Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) factions. The list of those killed, including key figures like Commander Farman Al-Karamah, Commander Sadiqullah Dawar, and Fazlur Rehman, the uncle of Gul Bahadur himself, represents a major blow to the operational capabilities of a terrorist network that has orchestrated countless attacks within Pakistan.
Predictably, the aftermath of the strikes saw Afghan officials and social media activists pivot to a narrative of victimhood. This response is a calculated move within the broader information war. By portraying Pakistan’s counter-terrorism operations as acts of foreign aggression, the Afghan interim government seeks to deflect from the undeniable reality of terrorist sanctuaries operating with impunity on its soil. This narrative of grievance was simultaneously accompanied by a more provocative campaign on social media, where many regime-affiliated accounts began peddling slogans and maps advocating for a “Greater Pashtunistan,” an ethno-nationalist concept that lays claim to Pakistani territory. This dual-pronged strategy serves multiple purposes: playing the victim, rallies domestic support and appeals to international sympathy, while the revival of irredentist claims aims to stir nationalist sentiment and challenge Pakistan’s territorial integrity, shifting the focus away from Afghanistan’s responsibility under international law to prevent its territory from being used for terrorist acts.
However, this narrative conveniently ignores the catalyst for Pakistan’s actions. No sovereign state can be expected to perpetually endure terrorist attacks planned and executed from a neighbouring country. Pakistan’s strikes in Paktika were not an unprovoked act of aggression but a counter-strike, a measure of last resort taken after repeated diplomatic entreaties and intelligence sharing failed to yield concrete action from Kabul. From Islamabad’s perspective, the primary responsibility for the escalation lies with the Afghan authorities who have demonstrated either an unwillingness or an incapacity to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure operating under their jurisdiction. The presence of high-value targets like the HGB commanders so close to the border is, in itself, an indictment of this failure.
This shift from diplomatic protest to direct military action signals a significant evolution in Pakistan’s counter-terrorism doctrine. It appears Islamabad has adopted a new policy of direct and proportionate retaliation that any terrorist attack on Pakistani soil, planned or executed by Afghanistan-based groups, will be met with targeted strikes against their infrastructure and leadership across the border. For years, militants have exploited the rugged, often porous, international border as a strategic tool, using Afghan territory as a safe haven to regroup, train, and launch attacks before melting back across the frontier. Pakistan’s recent actions indicate a firm resolve to neutralize this advantage, making it clear that the border will no longer serve as a one-way shield for terrorism.
This cycle of violence and recrimination places the upcoming Doha dialogue in a precarious position. For the talks to have any chance of success, both sides must navigate a minefield of deep-seated mistrust and conflicting national interests.
For Pakistan, the core issue is non-negotiable: the complete dismantlement of TTP, HGB, and other affiliated terrorist safe havens. The precision strikes in Paktika were a clear signal that Pakistan’s strategic patience had ended, replaced by a policy of active defense. The Pakistani delegation will likely join talks Doha with a portfolio of evidence and a firm demand for verifiable action, not just verbal assurances. The central message will be that the sanctity of the international border must be respected and that Afghanistan can no longer be a staging ground for attacks that cost Pakistani lives.
For the Afghan delegation, the situation is more complex. On one hand, they need to project an image of sovereign strength and resist being seen as capitulating to Pakistani pressure. On the other hand, they are governing a country facing immense economic and humanitarian crises, and further alienating a powerful neighbour is not a sustainable long-term strategy. Their victim narrative may play well on social media, but it does little to solve the underlying security dilemma. The Afghan Taliban’s ideological kinship with the TTP further complicates their ability to act decisively against them, creating a fundamental contradiction between their stated policies and their on-the-ground reality.
The dialogue, therefore, hinges on whether both sides can move beyond the current impasse. Afghanistan must acknowledge the legitimacy of Pakistan’s security concerns and demonstrate a genuine commitment to eliminating terrorist sanctuaries. This would require more than mere denials; it would necessitate active intelligence sharing and joint operations.
While dialogue is the only civilized path forward, it cannot succeed if it is used as a tool to buy time or deflect responsibility. There is a well-documented historical pattern of groups like the Taliban and TTP engaging in dialogue during the harsh winter months, not out of a genuine desire for peace, but to gain a strategic pause to recuperate and rearm before launching fresh offensives in the spring. The strikes have raised the stakes, demonstrating that the cost of inaction for Kabul will be high. The success or failure of the Doha talks will depend on whether the Afghan government is ready to abandon its dangerous double-game and confront the terrorist cancer within its borders, and whether Pakistan can leverage its military pressure into a sustainable diplomatic outcome. Without a fundamental shift in Kabul’s strategic calculus, this dialogue risks becoming another chapter in a long history of missed opportunities, with the people of both nations continuing to pay the price in blood.
The New Normal: End of Pakistan’s Strategic Restraint
Any diplomatic optimism surrounding the upcoming Pakistan-Afghanistan dialogue in Doha is colliding with a brutal reality on the ground. The path to negotiation is not being paved with trust, but with fresh violence. A fragile ceasefire has been shattered, followed by the grim return of bodies from Afghanistan bearing marks of torture, a terrorist attack in Wana, and culminating in Pakistan’s retaliatory precision strikes against terrorist commanders in Paktika. This rapid escalation, capped by Afghanistan’s predictable pivot to a narrative of victimhood, transforms the proposed talks from a potential off-ramp into a high-stakes confrontation.
The recent timeline of events reads like a case study in conflict escalation. A tentative ceasefire, meant to de-escalate tensions, was followed by a grim exchange. Afghanistan returned the bodies of deceased individuals, with credible reports, including from the BBC, highlighting severe torture marks on them. This act alone sent a chilling message, suggesting a brutal disregard for the conventions of conflict and human dignity. The situation was further aggravated by a terrorist attack in Waziristan, a region that has long borne the brunt of cross-border militancy.
Pakistan’s response was swift and forceful. In a series of intelligence-based precision strikes in Afghanistan’s Paktika province, it targeted and neutralized a significant number of senior commanders from the Hafiz Gul Bahadur (HGB) group and affiliated Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) factions. The list of those killed, including key figures like Commander Farman Al-Karamah, Commander Sadiqullah Dawar, and Fazlur Rehman, the uncle of Gul Bahadur himself, represents a major blow to the operational capabilities of a terrorist network that has orchestrated countless attacks within Pakistan.
Predictably, the aftermath of the strikes saw Afghan officials and social media activists pivot to a narrative of victimhood. This response is a calculated move within the broader information war. By portraying Pakistan’s counter-terrorism operations as acts of foreign aggression, the Afghan interim government seeks to deflect from the undeniable reality of terrorist sanctuaries operating with impunity on its soil. This narrative of grievance was simultaneously accompanied by a more provocative campaign on social media, where many regime-affiliated accounts began peddling slogans and maps advocating for a “Greater Pashtunistan,” an ethno-nationalist concept that lays claim to Pakistani territory. This dual-pronged strategy serves multiple purposes: playing the victim, rallies domestic support and appeals to international sympathy, while the revival of irredentist claims aims to stir nationalist sentiment and challenge Pakistan’s territorial integrity, shifting the focus away from Afghanistan’s responsibility under international law to prevent its territory from being used for terrorist acts.
However, this narrative conveniently ignores the catalyst for Pakistan’s actions. No sovereign state can be expected to perpetually endure terrorist attacks planned and executed from a neighbouring country. Pakistan’s strikes in Paktika were not an unprovoked act of aggression but a counter-strike, a measure of last resort taken after repeated diplomatic entreaties and intelligence sharing failed to yield concrete action from Kabul. From Islamabad’s perspective, the primary responsibility for the escalation lies with the Afghan authorities who have demonstrated either an unwillingness or an incapacity to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure operating under their jurisdiction. The presence of high-value targets like the HGB commanders so close to the border is, in itself, an indictment of this failure.
This shift from diplomatic protest to direct military action signals a significant evolution in Pakistan’s counter-terrorism doctrine. It appears Islamabad has adopted a new policy of direct and proportionate retaliation that any terrorist attack on Pakistani soil, planned or executed by Afghanistan-based groups, will be met with targeted strikes against their infrastructure and leadership across the border. For years, militants have exploited the rugged, often porous, international border as a strategic tool, using Afghan territory as a safe haven to regroup, train, and launch attacks before melting back across the frontier. Pakistan’s recent actions indicate a firm resolve to neutralize this advantage, making it clear that the border will no longer serve as a one-way shield for terrorism.
This cycle of violence and recrimination places the upcoming Doha dialogue in a precarious position. For the talks to have any chance of success, both sides must navigate a minefield of deep-seated mistrust and conflicting national interests.
For Pakistan, the core issue is non-negotiable: the complete dismantlement of TTP, HGB, and other affiliated terrorist safe havens. The precision strikes in Paktika were a clear signal that Pakistan’s strategic patience had ended, replaced by a policy of active defense. The Pakistani delegation will likely join talks Doha with a portfolio of evidence and a firm demand for verifiable action, not just verbal assurances. The central message will be that the sanctity of the international border must be respected and that Afghanistan can no longer be a staging ground for attacks that cost Pakistani lives.
For the Afghan delegation, the situation is more complex. On one hand, they need to project an image of sovereign strength and resist being seen as capitulating to Pakistani pressure. On the other hand, they are governing a country facing immense economic and humanitarian crises, and further alienating a powerful neighbour is not a sustainable long-term strategy. Their victim narrative may play well on social media, but it does little to solve the underlying security dilemma. The Afghan Taliban’s ideological kinship with the TTP further complicates their ability to act decisively against them, creating a fundamental contradiction between their stated policies and their on-the-ground reality.
The dialogue, therefore, hinges on whether both sides can move beyond the current impasse. Afghanistan must acknowledge the legitimacy of Pakistan’s security concerns and demonstrate a genuine commitment to eliminating terrorist sanctuaries. This would require more than mere denials; it would necessitate active intelligence sharing and joint operations.
While dialogue is the only civilized path forward, it cannot succeed if it is used as a tool to buy time or deflect responsibility. There is a well-documented historical pattern of groups like the Taliban and TTP engaging in dialogue during the harsh winter months, not out of a genuine desire for peace, but to gain a strategic pause to recuperate and rearm before launching fresh offensives in the spring. The strikes have raised the stakes, demonstrating that the cost of inaction for Kabul will be high. The success or failure of the Doha talks will depend on whether the Afghan government is ready to abandon its dangerous double-game and confront the terrorist cancer within its borders, and whether Pakistan can leverage its military pressure into a sustainable diplomatic outcome. Without a fundamental shift in Kabul’s strategic calculus, this dialogue risks becoming another chapter in a long history of missed opportunities, with the people of both nations continuing to pay the price in blood.
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
Recent
Zohran Mamdani Stands Up for Justice: Holding Modi and Netanyahu Accountable
Zohran Mamdani, a rising progressive voice in the U.S., has boldly equated Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with war crimes. Drawing on global principles like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and ICC indictments, Mamdani challenges the immunity of influential leaders and advocates for accountability for mass atrocities in Gujarat (2002) and Gaza.
How Pakistan can Benefit from the World Bank’s New Nuclear Policy
The World Bank’s decision to lift its decades-old ban on nuclear energy financing marks a turning point for developing nations. For Pakistan, this policy shift offers a rare opportunity to tackle its chronic energy crisis through clean, affordable, and reliable nuclear power. By aligning with the IAEA’s safety standards, engaging with World Bank institutions like IFC and MIGA, and integrating nuclear expansion into its national climate goals, Pakistan can position itself at the forefront of sustainable energy transformation.
Why Kabul’s Trade Boycott Hurts Itself More Than Pakistan
Afghanistan’s bid to pivot trade away from Pakistan after the October 2025 closures reveals the limits of sovereignty without geography. Islamabad’s leverage remains structural, grounded in security and logistics, not coercion.
The Re-Emergence of Terror: Afghanistan as a Global Terrorist Hub
The Taliban’s return to power has revived Afghanistan’s role as a global Terrorist hub. Despite pledges under the 2020 Doha Agreement, the regime continues to shelter and enable groups such as Al-Qaeda, TTP, and ETIM, creating a volatile nexus of terrorism that threatens regional stability and global security. As internal conflicts deepen and governance collapses, Afghanistan’s transformation into an ideological sanctuary ensures a cycle of chaos and suffering that primarily victimizes its own people.
The End of Dollar Dominance: How Gold is Rewriting the Rules of Global Finance
After nearly eight decades of U.S. dollar supremacy, the global financial order is entering a historic transition. As nations seek refuge from debt crises, sanctions, and monetary manipulation, gold is regaining its status as the world’s most trusted store of value. Led by China’s strategic accumulation and supported by a worldwide shift toward de-dollarisation, this transformation signals the birth of a multipolar, asset-backed financial era, one anchored not in promises, but in tangible wealth.