Shamim shahid
Rising tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan have once again pushed the region toward uncertainty, underscoring the dangerous consequences of war hysteria. Whatever the intentions or motives of policymakers in Rawalpindi-Islamabad and Kabul, escalating rhetoric and military posturing threaten not only the people of the two neighboring countries but also stability across the wider Asian region.
In conflicts of this nature, the involvement of so-called “big powers” can rarely be dismissed. Global actors have historically pursued their strategic objectives through proxies, often leaving smaller nations to bear the human and economic costs. The relative silence of US-led allies at this critical juncture appears significant. Some observers believe Washington may be recalibrating its regional strategy once again. However, the geopolitical landscape has shifted: the Russian Federation has re-emerged as a formidable rival to the United States, while China continues to prioritize global trade expansion over direct strategic confrontation.
The latest escalation began late Thursday when Afghanistan’s Defense Ministry announced attacks on Pakistani security check posts and installations along the Pak-Afghan border. Islamabad swiftly rejected the claims and, in turn, asserted that it had inflicted significant human and logistical losses on Afghan forces. By Sunday noon, Kabul claimed it had conducted air strikes inside Pakistani territory, particularly in areas around Peshawar, a claim once again denied by Pakistani officials, who reiterated counter-claims of heavy losses on the Afghan side.
The absence of fully independent media in both countries and ongoing restrictions on freedom of expression make independent verification of these claims nearly impossible. In such an environment, competing narratives fuel public anxiety and intensify nationalist sentiments, further complicating diplomatic space for de-escalation.
Most regional and friendly countries are closely monitoring the situation. The Islamic Republic of Iran has publicly denounced the fighting and offered to mediate between the two neighbors. Qatar, Türkiye, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia countries that previously played key roles in brokering a temporary ceasefire during last October’s hostilities are reportedly disappointed by the renewed tensions. Despite hosting multiple rounds of dialogue aimed at establishing a durable peace, their earlier efforts faltered as both sides remained entrenched in their respective positions.
The gravity of the situation is amplified by concerns over nuclear security. Reports that an international nuclear body cautioned Afghanistan against targeting nuclear-related sites in Pakistan highlight the seriousness of the crisis. Pakistan, a recognized nuclear-armed state, has long faced scrutiny from certain Western officials who have expressed concerns about the safety of its nuclear assets. In the context of rising hostilities, such warnings may signal fears of broader international involvement.
It is undeniable that Pakistan’s defense capabilities significantly surpass those of Afghanistan. However, history offers sobering lessons. In December 1979, Afghanistan became the theater for a prolonged proxy conflict following the Soviet intervention—an episode that reshaped regional geopolitics. There are concerns among analysts that renewed tensions could once again draw external actors into a destabilizing regional contest.
Beyond geopolitics, the human dimension must not be overlooked. Pakistan and Afghanistan share deep cultural, tribal, and familial bonds that transcend borders. Both nations grapple with similar internal challenges, including terrorism, extremism, poverty, unemployment, and political instability. Armed conflict would only exacerbate these hardships, further straining fragile economies and governance structures.
War hysteria benefits no one. It diverts attention from pressing socio-economic issues and risks plunging the region into prolonged instability. At this critical juncture, voices of reason must prevail. Sensible leadership and sober public discourse are urgently needed to prioritize early mediation and pursue a permanent, durable reconciliation.
The path forward lies not in escalation, but in dialogue.
