Since the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan in August 2021, tensions with neighboring Pakistan have simmered and periodically flared. On Friday, those tensions reached a new peak as both sides exchanged strikes in the most serious escalation since the Taliban once controlled much of southern Afghanistan in the 1990s.
The last large-scale outbreak of violence occurred in October 2025, leaving about 70 people dead on both sides. That episode produced several rounds of talks and an initial ceasefire brokered by Qatar and Turkey, but no lasting agreement followed. On Friday, Pakistan’s defense minister declared an “open war” between Islamabad’s forces and the Afghan Taliban.
Pakistan accuses the Taliban government in Kabul of sheltering and supporting militant groups, notably the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the Islamic State – Khorasan Province (ISIS‑K). Earlier this month ISIS‑K claimed a suicide attack on a Shiite mosque in Islamabad that killed at least 31 people. Pakistani officials said the bomber had traveled to Afghanistan before the attack. Maleeha Lodhi, an international affairs expert and former Pakistani ambassador to the US and UN, said the security threat from groups based in Afghanistan made 2025 the deadliest year in a decade for Pakistan in terms of casualties from such violence. She noted successive UN Security Council monitoring reports documenting the surge in cross-border attacks.
The latest fighting began when Pakistan’s military carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan last Sunday, targeting what it called militant hideouts in border provinces such as Nangarhar, Paktika and Khost. A few days later, a Taliban government spokesperson said the group had launched “large‑scale offensive operations against Pakistani military bases and military installations along the Durand Line” in response to those strikes, and claimed 19 Pakistani army posts were destroyed.
Pakistan then launched large-scale airstrikes on multiple Taliban military targets in several Afghan cities in the early hours of Friday. Pakistani officials said strikes hit targets in Kabul, Paktia and Kandahar, killing more than 130 Taliban fighters and destroying headquarters, ammunition depots, tanks and artillery. Afghanistan’s Taliban-run Defense Ministry countered that 55 Pakistani soldiers were killed, with several taken captive. Those tallies and damage assessments could not be independently verified. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid also said Pakistani reconnaissance aircraft were flying over Afghan airspace.
Analysts point to complex drivers behind the violence. Muhammad Israr Madani of the Islamabad think-tank International Research Council for Religious Affairs said while the Afghan Taliban leadership understands the sensitivity of the TTP issue, many mid- and lower-level fighters share jihadist sympathies with Pakistani militants and may not be inclined to act against them. For the Taliban leadership, using force against the TTP risks fracturing its own ranks and potentially pushing Pakistani militants toward ISIS‑K.
From an Afghan perspective, some analysts say Pakistan is viewed as a primary instigator. Kabul-based security analyst Tameem Bahiss said Afghans, after decades of conflict and a fragile return to relative stability, see Pakistan’s strikes as an attempt to portray Afghanistan as a militant haven and drag the country back into violence. That sentiment, Bahiss added, can be exploited by the Taliban leadership to bolster its legitimacy.
In Pakistan, many officials and security experts argue that strikes have become routine. Islamabad-based security expert Qamar Cheema told DW that Pakistani military strikes “have become the new normal in Afghanistan,” intended to signal to Afghan publics that the Taliban are harboring terrorists. Cheema said Pakistan had exhausted diplomatic options and would continue targeting military sites linked to the Taliban, TTP and ISIS‑K to try to alter Taliban behavior.
Lodhi said Pakistan has moved to “raise the costs” for the Taliban by combining coercive military action with economic and diplomatic measures such as border closures and trade suspensions, after concluding that dialogue had not produced results. Yet the Taliban government maintains it favors negotiation. At a press conference, Mujahid said Kabul repeatedly emphasized a peaceful solution and still seeks to resolve the dispute through dialogue.
The recent exchanges represent a dangerous escalation with regional implications. With mutual accusations, unverified casualty claims and active strikes across the border, the risk of sustained confrontation has grown. Whether this cycle of tit‑for‑tat airstrikes becomes an enduring “new normal” will depend on whether either side can reestablish credible diplomatic channels, whether outside mediators can broker a lasting arrangement, and whether the Taliban can rein in militant groups operating from Afghan territory without triggering internal splits.