Kabul accuses Pakistan of bombing Paktika market, warns of border tensions Azad News HD

 

Afghanistan’s Accusation & Pakistan’s Position: What We Know

In early October 2025, the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan accused Pakistan of launching overnight airstrikes near the Afghan capital Kabul and in the eastern province of Paktika. The Afghan Defense Ministry characterized the strikes as “shameful and unprecedented violations” of its sovereignty, alleging that Pakistan bombed a civilian market in the Margha region of Paktika near the Durand Line and also violated airspace over Kabul. 

At the same time, Pakistan has neither fully denied nor explicitly confirmed the strikes in Kabul, but has framed its actions as counter-terrorism or self-defense measures. Islamabad claims that militants, including Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and groups referred to as “Fitna al-Khawarij,” operate from Afghan territory and carry out attacks on Pakistani civilians and security forces. These militant sanctuaries are, according to Pakistan, a major security threat.

Afghanistan, on its side, rejects claims of providing safe havens to militants, condemns the strikes as violations of international law and sovereignty, and has summoned the Pakistani envoy, lodged protests, and warned of consequences. 

---

Historical Context: Past Incidents & Mutually Accused Violations

To understand today’s tensions, it helps to review how we got here:

• Since the Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 2021, Pakistan has often accused Afghan territory of being used as a base for militants launching attacks in Pakistan. Such attacks have increased in border regions. 

• Afghanistan, while not always accepting these accusations, has consistently condemned cross-border air or drone strikes that result in civilian casualties, property damage, or violations of its sovereignty. 

• Notably, in December 2024, airstrikes in Paktika (Barmal district) were blamed by Kabul on Pakistan; reports claim dozens of civilians, including women and children, were killed. Pakistan described these as operations targeting militants. 

Hence, the current accusations are part of a recurring pattern of mutual distrust, security threats, and occasional cross-border operations.

---

Legal, Moral, and Diplomatic Dimensions

Given the facts (as reported) and what is known of international law, here are the issues at stake:

1. Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity

   • Under international law (including the UN Charter), states have sovereignty over their territory. Any military incursion, airstrike, or violation of borders without consent is generally considered illegal unless there is a legal basis (e.g., UN mandate) or the right of self-defense that meets strict criteria.

   • Afghanistan has accused Pakistan of violating these norms. If airspace was violated over Kabul and/or a civilian market bombed, that strengthens Afghanistan’s claim to have suffered breaches of both sovereignty and humanitarian norms. 

2. Right to Self-Defense vs. Proportionality

   • States are allowed self-defense under international law if they are under attack, or if non-state actors from the territory of another state are attacking them and that other state is unwilling or unable to prevent such attacks.

   • However, any response must be necessary and proportional. Mistaken targeting, excessive civilian harm, or unnecessary escalation risk violating international law. Reports of civilian markets struck, children/women killed in past alleged operations raise serious concerns about whether these conditions are met. 

3. Evidence & Transparency

   • For accusations to hold weight internationally, credible evidence is required: when, where, how the strike was carried out; who was targeted; what intelligence basis was used; and what were the civilian impacts. Both sides will likely assert evidence.

   • In many of the past cases, Pakistan has said strikes are intelligence-based, against militant hideouts; Afghanistan has often contested civilian harm and the legality of such operations. 

4. Diplomatic Norms & Consequences

   • Summoning envoys, issuing formal protests (démarches), public condemnations are standard diplomatic tools. If repeated violations occur, international forums (UN, human rights bodies) may become involved.

   • Political fallout may include strained bilateral cooperation, foreign policy shifts, border security increasing, possible reprisals or reciprocal operations, and reputational damage.

5. Human Rights and Civilian Protection

   • Civilian casualties, damage to infrastructure, displacement, refugee flow—all form ethical and legal concerns under international humanitarian law. Protecting civilians is a core norm.

---

Pakistan’s Position: Motivations, Justifications, Risks

Pakistan’s claims and actions must also be understood in terms of its security environment, internal pressures, and strategic logic.

Motivations & Justifications

• Militant Threats from Afghan Soil: Pakistan has repeatedly alleged that groups such as TTP, which have carried out many deadly attacks inside Pakistan, are operating from bases inside Afghanistan. If this is true, Islamabad perceives that inaction would undermine its internal stability. 

• Domestic Political Pressure: Pakistani authorities are under political and social pressure when bombings or militant attacks happen on their side. Citizens demand security and accountability; government credibility depends on visible action.

• Limited Leverage Over Afghanistan’s Authorities: Given Afghanistan’s own internal challenges, and the fact that its control over some border or remote districts is weak, Pakistan may feel compelled to take direct action rather than rely only on diplomatic channels.

• Self-Defense Argument: Pakistan’s Foreign Office has described these operations as part of its legitimate self-defense efforts. Intelligence-based operations are claimed. 

Risks & Downsides

• Escalation of Conflict: Cross-border strikes risk triggering retaliation. Border skirmishes or escalation to more regular aerial or artillery strikes could happen, increasing instability.

• Civilian Casualties and Backlash: Even if militants are targeted, collateral damage (to civilians, markets, homes) can generate domestic outcry (in Afghanistan) and international condemnation. This can undercut Pakistan’s narrative, attract criticisms from human rights groups.

• Diplomatic Isolation: Violating sovereignty (if proven) can undermine Pakistan’s position in international forums; other states may be less willing to support it or engage in cooperation.

• Moral / Legal Precedent: Once such cross-border actions become normalized, it’s harder to draw lines. If rules of engagement aren’t clear, the distinction between legitimate action and aggression becomes murky.

---

Potential Consequences & Scenarios

Given the current dynamic, several possible outcomes or onward trajectories may occur:

1. Heightened Border Security & Increased Tensions

   • Both sides could increase military readiness along the border. More frequent patrols, checkpoints, air surveillance.

   • Escalation of verbal exchanges, diplomatic protests, possibly summoning ambassadors repeatedly.

   • Local populations in border regions may suffer displacement or casualties if crossfire or operations expand.

2. Diplomatic and International Pressure

   • Afghanistan may press for international investigations via UN, human rights bodies, or regional groupings (e.g., OIC).

   • Third parties (other countries, NGOs) may call for transparency, restraint, and civilian protections.

   • Pakistan may need to present credible proof of militant presence, intelligence indicating threats, and show efforts to minimize civilian harm.

3. Negotiations & Cooperation

   • One possible route is renewed bilateral negotiations: establishing mechanisms to share intelligence, coordinate border security, and jointly address militant sanctuaries.

   • Either formal or ad hoc arrangements where Afghanistan agrees (or is pressured) to take stronger action against militants, in exchange for Pakistan reducing or stopping cross-border strikes.

4. Potential for “Tit-for-Tat” Operations

   • If Afghanistan considers some strikes excessively harmful or views them as unjustified, they might retaliate—militarily, diplomatically, or via supporting other actors.

   • Risk of miscalculation or unintended escalation is real.

5. Domestic Political Impacts

   • In Pakistan: government may use the narrative of external threat to gain support; opposition may criticize weakness or excess.

   • In Afghanistan: pressure on Taliban government to show it can protect sovereignty; balancing between domestic expectations and limited capacity is a challenge.

6. Legal Proceedings or Accountability Mechanisms

   • NGOs or UN agencies might initiate investigations into specific alleged strikes, especially those with civilian deaths.

   • Legal arguments may be raised about violation of international law, especially if evidence emerges of disproportional or indiscriminate attacks.

---

Criticisms & Uncertainties

While both sides have made strong claims, there are areas with gaps, ambiguities, or competing versions:

• Confirmation of Targets & Casualties: In many reports, Pakistan has not fully confirmed what targets were struck or what the actual casualty numbers are. Afghanistan often gives higher numbers of civilian victims; independent verification is limited. 

• Proof of Safe Havens: While Pakistan asserts militants use Afghan territory, Afghanistan disputes or denies the scale or the deliberate protection of those groups. Clarity is lacking on which specific militant groups, where exactly, what kind of support or tolerance is provided.

• Nature of Strikes: Whether they are drone strikes, missile or airforce sorties, how precise or indiscriminate they are. Some reports mention drone activity; others mention bombs or airstrikes. The difference is legally and morally important. 

• Intent vs Consequence: Even if Pakistan’s intention is targeting militants, if strikes hit civilians or marketplaces, the consequences may undermine legitimacy. Distinguishing intentional targeting from collateral consequences is essential.

---

What International Law & Norms Say

Drawing on established norms and precedents, the following principles are relevant:

• UN Charter Article 2(4) prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

• Right of Self-Defense (Article 51) allows use of force in response to an armed attack, but the defense must be necessary and proportionate.

• Humanitarian Law / Laws of Armed Conflict principles: distinction (between combatants and civilians), proportionality (harm to civilians must not be excessive compared to military advantage), and precautions in attack.

• State Responsibility & Sovereignty: States are obliged to respect other states’ sovereign territory. Violations may require reparations or at least diplomatic apologies.

• Customary International Law on Counterterrorism also recognizes that states sometimes must respond to cross-border threats, but with constraints: due process, avoiding indiscriminate harm, and where possible, gaining cooperation.

---

Possible Strategic Implications for the Region

Beyond bilateral relations, this incident and its handling could have wider implications:

• Regional Stability: Pakistan and Afghanistan share long, porous borders. Tensions here can spill over, affecting neighboring countries, refugee flows, trade disruptions, and general instability.

• Influence of External Actors: Other regional powers (India, Iran, China, Gulf States) may see opportunity to influence or mediate. For example, Afghanistan’s increasing diplomatic engagement with India is mentioned in some reports. 

• Counterterrorism Cooperation vs Distrust: While both countries have a stated interest in countering militant groups, distrust and repeated accusations may impede cooperation, intelligence sharing, or joint border control.

• Humanitarian Concerns: Continued strikes, civilian casualties, displacement, insecurity along border areas can worsen humanitarian conditions, refugee crises, or internally displaced populations.

---

What Needs to Be Done / Possible Paths Forward

To avoid further escalation, to address the core grievances, and to find some stable modus vivendi, here are potential steps both sides and international actors could take.

1. Transparent Investigation

   • Independent or joint investigations into the most recent alleged airstrikes: which targets were hit, whether civilian harm occurred, what intelligence was used.

   • Sharing findings publicly to reduce rumors, build trust.

2. Diplomatic Engagement

   • Bilateral negotiations specifically on restrictions of cross-border strikes, setting conditions under which action can be taken, and defining acceptable forms of response.

   • Engagement via third-party mediation if bilateral channels are insufficient—regional organizations, UN, Islamic cooperation forums.

3. Security Cooperation and Intelligence Sharing

   • Pakistan can provide intelligence about militants; Afghanistan can take actual steps to dismantle militant safe havens (if they exist), or at least increase monitoring.

   • Joint border patrols, joint operations with oversight to reduce misidentification and blur zones.

4. Rules of Engagement & Safeguards

   • Both sides should commit to minimizing civilian casualties. Use of drones or air assets should follow strict rules, precise targeting, avoiding markets or residential areas.

   • Notification or communication channels to avoid misunderstandings; e.g. hotlines between military or intelligence agencies.

5. Legal & Normative Commitment

   • Reaffirm commitment to international law, humanitarian norms. Possibly agreements on mutual respect for sovereignty.

   • If violations occur, offer reparations where justified, or apology; non-repetition assurances.

6. Regional and International Oversight

   • International bodies (UN, OIC, Human Rights Commissions) could facilitate oversight, fact-finding missions.

   • Pressure via diplomatic means for restraint and verification.

7. Domestic Accountability and Policy Clarity

   • Pakistan needs to ensure that its counter-terrorism policy inside and outside borders is clear, legal, with oversight and accountability.

   • Afghanistan needs to address whether militants are indeed operating from its soil; if so, either remove them or deny them support; if allegations are false, provide credible evidence to refute.

---

Likely Outcomes & Scenarios

Considering the stakes, several scenarios may unfold:

Scenario	Description	Risks & Benefits
De-escalation via Diplomacy	Pakistan and Afghanistan agree to reduce cross-border military strikes, increase cooperation, possibly mediated by a third party.	Reduces immediate risk of conflict, saves lives, improves bilateral relations. But may be fragile; mutual suspicion remains.
Tit-for-Tat Escalation	Continued strikes, counter-strikes, possibly border skirmishes, increased militarization, diplomatic fallout.	Risk of conflict spillover, civilian casualties, humanitarian crises. Benefit (for one side) might be seen as retaliation or deterrence—but overall damage likely.
International Intervention / Mediation	UN or regional bodies intervene to investigate, propose agreement, maybe sanctions or pressure tactics.	Might impose order, but could create resentment. If done fairly, could stabilize situation. If perceived as biased, could worsen distrust.
Status Quo with Frequent Flare-ups	Repeated accusations, occasional strikes, but without full war or resolution.	Persistent instability, suffering of border communities, diplomatic tension, but no clear resolution.

---

Conclusion

The situation between Afghanistan and Pakistan over the recent overnight airstrikes is a serious diplomatic, legal, and moral issue. Afghanistan’s claim of a “shameful and unprecedented violation” of sovereignty strikes at the heart of international norms; Pakistan’s claim of self-defense and counterterrorism reflects very real security challenges. Both positions have some legitimacy, but each also carries risk, especially when civilian harm or lack of transparency is involved.