Margalla News | Special research review
Tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan are not rooted in one armed organisation alone. Border questions, national identity, regional rivalries, trade and the memory of prolonged warfare also contribute. In a critical Al Jazeera article published on July 31, 2026, former Afghan diplomat Zardasht Shams examined Pakistani airstrikes and strategic priorities against this broader background. He argued that the TTP threat exists but cannot by itself explain every aspect of the dispute.
A central theme of Shams's discussion is Pakistan's historical approach to Afghanistan. From the Soviet period to the post-2001 war and the Taliban's return to power in August 2021, different Pakistani governments linked security in Afghanistan to rivalry with India and the protection of their western border. According to Shams, this outlook kept Kabul's internal politics on Pakistan's national-security agenda.
There is another side to the picture. The TTP and associated groups have carried out serious attacks on Pakistani civilians, police and soldiers. Islamabad says some attackers use sanctuaries in Afghanistan, while Taliban officials reject those allegations. Disputed claims require verifiable evidence concerning individual incidents. Alleging cross-border presence and demonstrating direct operational assistance by the Afghan government are distinct matters.
Shams referred to human losses following a March 2026 strike on a drug rehabilitation centre in Kabul. Reports by the United Nations and human rights organisations have highlighted the need to investigate civilian deaths and establish accountability. Claims about the military nature of a target and the fact of civilian deaths are separate questions; investigations need to examine both.
For Afghan civilians, an attack means far more than a distant debate about foreign policy. Destroyed homes, separated families, lost livelihoods and living under enduring fear can affect generations. Pakistanis have also suffered from extremist attacks. Rather than treating these experiences as competing grievances, the safety of every civilian should be the basic principle.
Shams interprets some Pakistani state policies as efforts to maintain political predominance over Afghanistan. This is a strong and debatable interpretation, not a motive established by a court. Pakistani policymakers generally cite border security, militant attacks and insufficient cooperation from Afghan officials to justify their actions. Comprehensive analysis should present both positions and ask which policies are actually reducing violence.
Historically, access to trade and seaports through Pakistan has been important to Afghanistan's economy. Prolonged border closures harm traders in both countries, but Afghan businesses reliant on relatively limited land routes may face greater uncertainty. Routes through Iran and Central Asia may provide economic security for Afghanistan, although these also require infrastructure and political stability.
Shams's criticism of political grievances in Pakistan's Pashtun and Baloch regions adds another sensitive dimension. Militant attacks, state security measures and civil liberties are connected in these areas, but it is wrong to presume that every political activist belongs to an armed group or that every security concern is a mere pretext. Claims must be examined separately.
Under international humanitarian law, military necessity does not permit indiscriminate killing of civilians. A fair inquiry examines targeting decisions, precautions and whether civilian harm was disproportionate. Conversely, deliberate attacks on civilians by armed groups are also unacceptable, whatever political aims they profess.
A route out of the crisis would begin with reliable direct border contacts, independent incident investigations, advance arrangements for trade and travel, and clear obligations preventing any country from allowing its territory to be used for armed attacks against a neighbour. Force alone cannot restore trust between the two societies.
The value of Shams's article lies in highlighting the political and historical disputes beneath military confrontation. Readers need not accept all his interpretations to consider seriously his questions about Afghan sovereignty, civilian safety and the long-term consequences of Pakistani policy.
Sources and acknowledgments: Margalla News thanks Zardasht Shams and the original publisher for research and commentary informing this review. This is an independently prepared Margalla News analysis, not a copy or complete translation of the original English article. Attributed views are differentiated from independent observations.