Avoiding a Wider Catastrophe in South-Central Asia
Critique and need for a paradigm shift
March 1, 2026
By Omar SAMAD
Published in ThePrint on March 1, 2026, Ayesha Siddiqa’s incisive analysis exposes a stark reversal: Pakistan, once jubilant over the Taliban’s 2021 takeover of Kabul—with former ISI chief Lt Gen Faiz Hameed assuring “everything will be okay”—now openly uses kinetic means to exert maximum pressure to accomplish its objectives with little regard to historical precedence, social order or political risk.
Siddiqa, a senior fellow at King’s College London, likens current cross-border hostilities to the 1960-61 Bajaur clashes, driven by frustration over the Taliban’s curent refusal to rein in the Pakistani militant group Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which has intensified attacks inside Pakistan since 2022.
She asserts that under Gen Asim Munir, Pakistan’s military leadership sees the Taliban as uncooperative, pushing for escalation and even whispers of regime change. Failed talks in Doha, Istanbul, and Riyadh over the past few months featured Pakistani ultimatums rather than compromise. A 2022 deal under Gen Bajwa—relocating TTP fighters to Pakistan with disarmament promises—collapsed after leadership changes, coinciding with TTP surges.
Siddiqa alleges refugee expulsions are backfiring, unifying Afghans behind the Taliban and breeding resentment. Mutual suspicions persist: Pakistan accuses Kabul of Indian collusion, while regional players navigate the distrust. Domestic Pakistani misalignments—between security forces, federal government, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa administration, and PTI opposition to war—complicate efforts. We have to add that two live insurgencies in Baluchistan and the Pashtun tribal regions, further exacerbate tensions.
Siddiqa warns that regime change, impractical without ground troops, could spark a protracted, ideologically charged conflict surpassing India-Pakistan wars in depth, fueled by ethnic and historical complexities like the colonial legacy of the Durand Line. She urges leveraging Saudi Arabia and Qatar for genuine negotiations, prioritizing tactical de-escalation over aggression.
The Analytical Critique
As a former diplomat and analyst in regional security and peace processes, I commend Siddiqa’s realism and timely warning. Her thesis captures the irony of alliances built on expediency crumbling into accusations of TTP complicity, validating Afghan views of Pakistan treating sovereignty as strategic backyard. Refugee expulsions have not isolated the Taliban but galvanized national solidarity amid humanitarian strain. Failed talks highlight a pattern: demands over dialogue, ignoring how Pakistan’s own policies exacerbated threats.
As controversial as it may sound, balance and principled professionalism (rare commodities nowadays) require acknowledging all losses, including Pakistan’s, and decades of Afghan and indigenous suffering from Pakistani sanctioned sanctuaries. Shared responsibility is key: security demands mutual fortification, not blame-shifting. Kabul urges Islamabad to tackle internal ethnic, political, and socioeconomic grievances rather than externalize them. The Taliban react to unjustified claims that need hard proof.
Siddiqa’s analysis could deepen by more granularly examining Afghanistan’s agency. The Taliban, despite flaws—education bans, women’s rights curbs, power monopolization—have consolidated post-2021, imposing surface calm at isolation’s cost. Some Afghans dispute this claim as part of white-washing. Others see no other practical solution on the horizon.
Furthermore, external “inclusivity” calls from Islamabad ring hollow amid historical Pashtun militant favoritism and reports of convening anti-Taliban factions in more recent days, evoking 1990s divide-and-rule that prolonged civil war.
Imposed extreme change from the outside risks fracture, not stability—exacerbating ethnic rifts, empowering ISKP and other terror outfits, and sparking regional spillover. Airstrikes (that usually target civilians) degrade but cannot control without ground forces, absent consensus from major stakeholders in the region and beyond, fearing vacuums and refugee waves. A repeat of Afghanistan in the 1990s is to no one’s advantage.
Mediation offers the realistic path: Qatar and Turkey, with proven ceasefire hosting; Gulf anchors (Saudi Arabia, UAE) for economic incentives; China, Russia, for balanced pressure. Beleaguered Iran has now become a distracted player. The Central Asians are alarmed by the latest tensions and watching events unfold with much interest.
the Timing—post-Ramadan lulls—could build traction via phased, verifiable commitments on TTP containment and Pakistani dialogue.
On a practical scale, change is incentivizing internal Taliban reforms: exploiting pragmatist-hardliner divides to broaden governance, rescind the unpopular girls’ education bans and foster socio-political inclusivity. Conditioned in talks, this could yield gradual progress, averting collapse into anarchy or civil war revival while addressing humanitarian priorities, poverty, desperation and isolation.
On the Afghan Side
Meanwhile, the Taliban bear “operational” responsibility to curb cross-border militancy, respect international norms, and respond to overwhelming Afghan expectations for girls’ education and basic rights. For some, internal rifts could present a narrow opportunity to broaden legitimacy and reduce isolation through incremental reforms, but persistent intransigence risks deepening domestic alienation, economic collapse, and eventual regime fragility or fragmentation.
From the Taliban’s perspective, Pakistani tactics—air raids, refugee deportations, and regime-change rhetoric—are viewed as blatant violations of sovereignty, echoing colonial-era interference and betraying past alliances. In reaction, they have ramped up defiant rhetoric, denied TTP ties while launching retaliatory strikes, and sought closer ties with regional powers like India and Iran to counterbalance Islamabad, framing the conflict as a defense of Taliban style unity and independence against external meddling.
Afghans in exile, scattered across the diaspora, also hold diverse views: some condemn Taliban intransigence and urge regime change with external support; others advocate pragmatic engagement to push reforms from within, fearing escalation could trigger another civil war and humanitarian disaster. The diversity of views range from engagement to military intervention and even fringe calls of separatism.
The Evolving Regional Volatility
These tensions unfold amid broader regional volatility, notably the escalating Iran crisis where US-Israeli strikes apparently killed the country’s Supreme Leader, triggering Iranian retaliations against targets in the region. India’s observant and active strategy—deepening ties with the Taliban through diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and condemnation of Pakistani strikes while affirming Afghan sovereignty—fuels Islamabad’s exaggerated accusations of an India-Kabul nexus, potentially turning bilateral friction into a proxy rivalry. Meanwhile, the US has recently sided with Pakistan, affirming its “right to defend itself” against Taliban attacks, offering condolences for losses, and monitoring closely without deeming Islamabad the aggressor— an irritant for Kabul and Afghans who see themselves as victims.
These developments could exacerbate Afghan-Pakistani strains: Iran’s turmoil might divert resources or invite spillover militancy, empowering groups like ISKP; India’s engagement risks entrenching Pakistan’s paranoia, escalating to three-way conflicts; and US backing may embolden Rawalpindi’s aggression, further isolating Kabul while pressuring for de-escalation amid Middle East distractions. Yet, they also open doors for multilateral mediation, leveraging shared fears of regional “pollination” to push dialogue over brinkmanship.
The Need for a Paradigm Shift
Which brings us back to Siddiqa’s sobering call against a “bigger conflict,” demanding a paradigm shift: from outdated interference to sovereign respect and earnest, mediated dialogue. Escalation serves neither; coordinated action—tackling root causes like borders and economic interdependence—could forge equitable partnership. Afghanistan’s post-NATO path, and regional stability, hinge on prudence over brinkmanship. Timing and resolve matter—neither side can afford chaos, unless other hands are seeing an opportunity for forceful action and possible change./
Omar SAMAD is a former Afghan Ambassador to France and Canada, Government spokesperson and Advisor. He is a facilitator/convener of dialogue processes, and CEO of Silkroad Consulting. With extensive media and speaker experiences, he also worked as Senior Fellow- NR Atlantic Council, USIP Senior Expert and New America.
Sources:
Original article “Pakistan desperately wants to replace the Afghan government. It risks a bigger conflict” by Ayesha Siddiqa (published in The Print on March 1, 2026)
https://x.com/theprintindia/status/2027972464865906866?s=46&t=jMYIcMCGpvgK-5EYVYewiw
Pakistan-Afghan Taliban relations face mounting challenges - A Middle East Institute (MEI) analysis detailing rising tensions between Islamabad and Kabul since the Taliban’s 2021 takeover, including Pakistan’s diminishing leverage and the Afghan Taliban’s growing independence. 21
The Resurgence of the Pakistani Taliban – Implications for Afghanistan-Pakistan Relations - A PRIF Blog post examining how Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) attacks from Afghan soil have strained bilateral ties, leading to cross-border escalations and diplomatic breakdowns. 22
Analysis: Why have Pakistan’s ties with the Afghan Taliban turned frigid? - An Al Jazeera article exploring the shift from alliance to hostility, attributing it to unmet expectations, nationalist rhetoric from Kabul, and the emboldening of militant groups like TTP. 23
Borderland struggles: the consequences of the Afghan Taliban’s takeover on Pakistan - A peer-reviewed article in The Round Table journal analyzing how the Taliban’s return has led to TTP resurgence and progressive deterioration in relations since 2021, with historical context on Pakistan’s support for the group. 25
PAKISTAN – AFGHANISTAN RELATIONS: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE - An NDU Journal academic paper providing a historical overview of bilateral ties, noting how the Taliban’s 2021 rise initially promised improvement but led to worsened security and terrorism spillover into Pakistan. 26
Afghanistan-Pakistan ties and Future stability in Afghanistan - A US Institute of Peace (USIP) report discussing scenarios like civil war or Taliban dominance, and how deteriorating relations, including refugee issues and border conflicts, threaten regional stability. 28
The Pakistan-Taliban Divorce Gets Messy - A Project Syndicate commentary by Shashi Tharoor on how Pakistan’s long-term support for the Taliban has backfired, leading to escalating tensions and risks of broader conflict by late 2025. 29