Last week, a third round of high-stakes talks between Afghanistan and Pakistan collapsed in Istanbul, exposing deep and unresolved divisions between the two neighboring countries over how to prevent cross-border terrorism and restore stability to a region long plagued by conflict. The negotiations, which were attended by mediators from Qatar and Türkiye, ended without agreement, dimming hopes for a breakthrough after deadly border clashes in October 2025.
According to the Daily Times, the breakdown of talks was followed by a flurry of diplomatic activity. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi spoke by telephone on November 12, exchanging views on the aftermath of the failed negotiations and the broader regional security situation. The Russian foreign ministry, in a statement on Telegram, welcomed an agreement reportedly reached between Kabul and Islamabad—mediated by Qatar and Türkiye—on a mutual ceasefire and a halt to cross-border shootings along the Afghan-Pakistani frontier. The ministry added, “The sides called for continued dialogue between the two friendly states (Afghanistan and Pakistan) to resolve differences by political and diplomatic means, in the interests of ensuring regional stability and security.”
Yet, the optimism of external mediators contrasted sharply with the grim tone in Kabul. Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi, speaking to reporters on November 13, laid blame for the talks’ failure squarely at Islamabad’s feet. “Pakistan’s demands were unrealistic and unreasonable,” Muttaqi said, according to Afghan Voice Agency. He confirmed that the Afghan delegation, which had traveled to Turkey in good faith, returned home after negotiations ended in stalemate. In a pointed critique, Muttaqi accused Pakistan of repeatedly violating Afghan sovereignty over the past four years—targeting civilians, shops, and markets, and even breaching Kabul’s airspace. He dismissed Pakistan’s demand that Afghanistan guarantee no security incidents on its soil as “illogical.”
Muttaqi’s criticism did not stop there. He alleged that Pakistan had planned to relocate fighters from Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) into Afghanistan, allowed ISIS militants to cross the border, and carried out repeated airstrikes. “Despite attending all talks in good faith, Afghanistan said Pakistan abandoned discussions and dismissed all proposals,” Muttaqi stated. The atmosphere of mistrust and mutual recrimination only deepened as the two sides traded accusations in the wake of the failed Istanbul round.
Meanwhile, concerns about external influence and regional instability grew louder. Political experts, cited by Afghan Voice Agency, warned that Pakistan’s public commitments to the United States in its dealings with Afghanistan were opening the door for greater Western involvement in the region. “These commitments, in whatever field, open America’s hand in the region and provide more opportunities to implement Western colonial policies,” one expert noted. The perception that Washington and its allies are using Pakistan as a proxy to advance their interests has fueled anxiety in Tehran and Moscow—two capitals with their own interests in keeping the region stable and free from Western dominance.
Pakistan’s actions in recent months have only added fuel to the fire. According to experts interviewed by Afghan Voice Agency, Pakistan has engaged in military incursions into Afghan territory, blocked trade routes, pressured refugees, issued unreasonable demands, and sabotaged peace talks under various pretexts. The country’s Defense Minister recently announced a renewed military invasion of Afghanistan, insisting that only written commitments from Afghan leaders would suffice—a demand that many in Kabul see as both hypocritical and unattainable, given Pakistan’s own history of disregarding such agreements.
Dr. Mohammad Akram Azimi, a political analyst, summed up the dilemma: “Considering Pakistan’s dual and contradictory policies, which on the one hand threaten military attacks and make impossible demands from Afghanistan, and on the other hand demand dialogue, the tensions between the two countries have no political solution; unless Pakistan gives up its excesses or the TTP is contained and Pakistan is saved from internal insecurity.” Azimi praised the mediation efforts of Russia and Iran but argued that Turkey’s role could be even more effective, given its strong relations with Pakistan. He also pointed to the outsized influence of Pakistan’s military leadership—particularly Army Chief Asim Munir, who has reportedly met with American officials multiple times—as evidence that Western hands are shaping Islamabad’s approach to Afghanistan.
The perception of Western interference is not limited to Afghanistan’s political class. Syed Qaribullah Sadat, another expert, told Afghan Voice Agency that “Afghanistan’s negotiations with Pakistan were held based on the interest of the Afghan side and efforts were made to ensure that the talks did not lead to failure, but Pakistan disrupted the negotiations process under various pretexts.” Sadat welcomed the mediation of Qatar and Turkey and said that if Russia and Iran also want to resume negotiations, it would be a positive step. However, he cautioned, “there is no trust in Pakistan.”
The stakes are high not only for Afghanistan and Pakistan but for the entire region. Sadat warned that Pakistan’s military threats “will not only be against Afghanistan, but also against the entire region,” and expressed confidence that neighboring countries and the international community would not allow unchecked Pakistani actions. He described Pakistan’s war-mongering policy as dictated by the West, while emphasizing that the Afghan government and people want security and stability, and are open to any mediation that can contain Western colonial policies.
Regional powers have taken note of the rising tensions. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, in his call with Russia’s Lavrov, expressed concern over the recent border clashes and stressed the importance of constructive regional efforts to safeguard peace and stability. Araghchi also referenced recent moves by the United States and European countries at the United Nations Security Council regarding Palestine, warning that draft resolutions imposing international trusteeship over Gaza and Palestine contradict the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and are “doomed to fail.” Lavrov, for his part, reiterated Moscow’s readiness to continue bilateral and regional consultations to maintain collective security.
The two foreign ministers also discussed Iran’s cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ahead of an upcoming Board of Governors meeting. Last month, Iran declared it was no longer bound by restrictions on its nuclear program after the expiration of a landmark 10-year deal with world powers—a development that adds yet another layer of complexity to the regional security equation.
As the dust settles from the failed Istanbul talks, the path forward remains uncertain. Afghanistan’s negotiators insist they have acted in good faith and are open to continued dialogue, but suspicion of Pakistan’s motives runs deep. With Western influence looming large and regional powers stepping up mediation efforts, the next chapter in this long-running saga is likely to be shaped as much by external actors as by the two countries themselves. For now, the promise of peace remains elusive, leaving the region on edge and its people yearning for stability.
