THE confrontation between Pakistan and Afghanistan has taken a dangerous turn. Attacks, retaliatory strikes and the massing of forces along the border have transformed already fraught ties into what our defence minister described as an “open war”. Amid this volatility, the Afghan Taliban have indicated that they are “ready for dialogue”, even as hostilities continue. Such statements are not new. Kabul has, on several occasions, expressed a “preference” for engagement and mutual understanding. The difficulty has not been the absence of talks, but the absence of outcomes that address Pakistan’s central grievance, which is the continued use of Afghan territory by the banned TTP and other terrorist groups to mount attacks inside Pakistan. Islamabad maintains that it exhausted diplomatic avenues before resorting to force. Multiple rounds of engagement — including mediation efforts by Qatar, Turkiye and Saudi Arabia — produced discussions and proposals but no binding guarantees. Pakistan demanded written commitments; Kabul confined itself to verbal assurances. Meanwhile, attacks by the TTP and other groups registered a sharp uptick, intensifying public pressure and deepening mistrust between the two neighbours.

Kabul has described its own actions as retaliatory and claimed that civilians were targeted in recent strikes. International actors have moved quickly to contain the fallout. Iran has offered to facilitate dialogue, while China, Russia, Britain and the UN have urged restraint and an immediate ceasefire. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are also engaged in efforts to prevent the situation from spiralling further. De-escalation is imperative. Yet a ceasefire, while necessary, will not by itself resolve the underlying dispute. The pattern of dialogue followed by renewed violence has repeated itself too often to inspire confidence. If the Taliban’s renewed call for negotiations is to carry credibility, it must be accompanied by more than rhetoric. What is required is a formal, written undertaking that Afghan territory will not be used against neighbouring states, specifically Pakistan. Such a pledge should be backed by a credible monitoring mechanism, potentially involving a mutually acceptable third party, to verify compliance. Without enforceable guarantees, negotiations risk becoming another episode in a recurring cycle. Neither side stands to gain from sustained confrontation. Durable peace will depend not on assurances, but on verifiable commitments capable of breaking the spiral of escalation.

Published in Dawn, March 1st, 2026