Margalla News | Special Research Review
A fundamental question about the use of state force is whether the immediate military benefit of an air operation also produces a political benefit. Afghanistan researcher Antonio Giustozzi drew attention to the potential political consequences of Pakistani strikes in a February 2026 interview with The Guardian. He argued that such operations could increase Afghan nationalist sentiment rather than put the Taliban leadership under pressure.
Giustozzi has researched internal Taliban factions, local power networks and the politics of war. His analysis looks beyond the immediate military target to how governments, opposing groups and ordinary civilians respond after an attack.
Pakistani officials maintain that targeting alleged militant sanctuaries in Afghanistan may be necessary to prevent attacks at home. Islamabad regards TTP activity as a genuine security threat. The Taliban government rejects the allegations and describes Pakistani strikes as violations of Afghan sovereignty.
Giustozzi has argued that failing to respond to foreign attacks could damage the political standing of Taliban leader Hibatullah Akhundzada. In his view, a wave of national solidarity inside Afghanistan following such strikes could strengthen the Taliban's position. This is an interpretation of possible political consequences, not the definitive result of an opinion poll.
That does not mean all Afghans support every Taliban policy. Objections to restrictions on women's education, employment and political freedoms persist. Yet when a country is attacked from outside, public attention may temporarily shift towards national territory and civilian casualties, even while internal political disagreements remain.
Understanding such responses is important in armed conflicts. If the local population comes to regard an attacking state as the more immediate danger, a military operation can sometimes provide the opposing leadership with a fresh political argument.
Giustozzi has also made claims concerning the armed insurgency in Balochistan, including specific groups and alleged regional support. Such sensitive claims should not be presented as established facts without independent information and the positions of relevant states.
The economic costs for Afghanistan and Pakistan are evident: border closures, delayed supplies, shortages of goods in markets and reduced earnings for workers in border towns. The longer military tension continues, the greater the political cost of negotiation may become for both sides.
Security strategy therefore needs three distinct measures: whether the intended military target was actually affected; whether armed attacks in Pakistan declined sustainably; and whether relations with Afghan civilians improved or deteriorated. Success by one measure cannot compensate automatically for failure by the others.
A possible way forward involves reliable border communication, exchange of evidence about specific armed activities and independent assessment of civilian casualties. Arrangements for ceasefires and talks should prevent the entire communication system from collapsing after each incident.
An important lesson from Giustozzi's position is that the political effects of an airstrike deserve as much examination as its military effects. Its impact on Afghan nationalism and the Taliban's domestic standing can ultimately be judged only through time, evidence on the ground and the independent experiences of civilians.
Sources and acknowledgements: This is Margalla News' own independent Urdu article informed by Antonio Giustozzi's research, published column or public interviews. It is not a complete translation of his work. Where an original source is an interview conducted or reported by another journalist, the statements have not been incorrectly attributed to Giustozzi as if he authored that report.