KARACHI: Diplomatic efforts to resolve long-standing tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan collapsed this week, as the third round of Istanbul talks ended without agreement, which experts believe was the result of entrenched positions shaped by “hyper sentiments” in both countries.
While a ceasefire along the border technically remains in place, analysts warn the breakdown could embolden militant groups and destabilize the wider region.
The talks, mediated by Turkiye and Qatar on November 6 and 7, were aimed at addressing cross-border attacks by Pakistani militant groups operating from Afghan soil, specifically the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Islamabad pressed Kabul to take concrete action against these groups, which have repeatedly attacked Pakistani civilians and security forces.
Afghan journalist and war reporter Sami Yousafzai described the pre-negotiation environment as highly charged.
“Even before these talks officially began, both sides had already attacked each other, which made the atmosphere very tense,” he told Arab News from Afghanistan over the phone. “On social media and in public, there was a lot of hype and pressure. Both sides were in a position where showing even a little flexibility due to hyper sentiments would have made them vulnerable to public pressure.”
Yousafzai said the talks were also hindered by incompatible demands.
“Pakistan came with a single-point agenda: that the TTP should be controlled and their attacks stopped. This, however, was not feasible for the Afghan Taliban. Similarly, Afghan demands, such as halting US drone operations and other matters were beyond Pakistan’s control,” he added.
Asked why it was not viable for Kabul to rein in the TTP, he said officials in Kabul were reluctant since these militants could defect to Daesh, the Afghan Taliban’s sworn enemies. Additionally, he said the TTP enjoyed support within segments of the Afghan Taliban administration.
Elaborating on Kabul’s demand regarding drone operations, he said it was to counter Pakistan’s demand at the negotiating table. The last US drone strike, publicly acknowledged by the Central Intelligence Agency, took place three years ago, when Al Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri was killed in Kabul in July 2022.
He noted that while the Taliban never publicly accepted the drone attack, they believe there have been some other US drone attacks in Afghanistan that have taken place as well.
Evaluating the overall situation, Yousafzai warned that with emotions running high on both sides, some attack was inevitable.
A Sweden-based research expert, Abdul Sayed also highlighted the role of narratives on social media as one of the factors contributing to the failure of talks.
“During the talks, accounts linked to the Afghan Taliban presented a narrative on social media that Pakistan’s demands were illogical and unworkable, while Pakistan’s media and officials blamed the Afghan Taliban for avoiding required actions,” he said.
Pakistan’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar placed responsibility for the breakdown of talks squarely on Afghanistan in a social media post a day earlier after it became clear that the talks had failed. He expressed gratitude to Türkiye and Qatar for hosting the talks but insisted that “onus lies on Afghanistan to fulfil its long-standing international, regional and bilateral pledges regarding control of terrorism, in which so far they have failed.”
Tarar asserted that Pakistan “shall continue to exercise all options necessary to safeguard the security of its people and its sovereignty.”
Afghan Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid, in turn, said Kabul’s negotiating team participated in good faith in the talks but that they collapsed due to Pakistan’s “irresponsible and non-cooperative attitude.”
Mujahid stated that the Pakistani side attempted to “refer all responsibilities regarding its security to the Afghan government, while at the same time it did not demonstrate any willingness to assume responsibility for either Afghanistan’s security or its own.”
He reiterated the Taliban’s position that Afghan territory will not be used against other countries, and that the Islamic Emirate “will firmly defend against any aggression with the help of Allah and the support of its people.”
EXPERTS WARN OF ESCALATION
Former Pakistani Special Representative to Afghanistan Asif Durrani described the deadlock as a setback to regional security, urging the continuation of dialogue.
“This should not deter negotiations, even if they have to go for another 30 rounds. The chain of dialogue should not be broken at any cost,” he said.
Durrani also cautioned that TTP attacks from Afghan soil could provoke a Pakistani response, stressing that any action against armed groups would be justified under state security principles.
“A non-state actor cannot be given permission to carry weapons and then fulfil their agenda through force,” he said.
Yousafzai warned that the ceasefire remains fragile.
“If there is a major attack, the ceasefire could collapse,” he said. “At present, Pakistan has options, and so do the Afghan Taliban. Pakistan can launch an attack inside Afghanistan at any time, while the Taliban can restart fighting along the border with Pakistan.”
“Pakistan’s challenge is that the TTP is also active inside Pakistan, meaning it would have to fight on two fronts,” he continued, adding that unlike the US which was thousands of kilometers away while conducting strikes inside Afghanistan,
Pakistan shares a border with the Taliban, making it a “dangerous scenario” for both.
Sayed warned of the regional implications of the failed talks.
“A war between the two countries would actually benefit militant groups in the region, including the Pakistani Taliban, which would cause great harm to regional peace.”
He further cautioned against the anticipated Pakistani response, noting that past airstrikes in Afghanistan resulted in civilian casualties, “increasing hatred and anger toward Pakistan among the Afghan population and boosting open sympathies for anti-Pakistan groups.”
Sayed warned that kinetic responses to TTP attacks could inadvertently strengthen militant networks rather than neutralize them.
“Instead of countering the militant threat to Pakistan, they would create conditions that strengthen and expand those militant groups,” he said.
