The much-anticipated peace talks between Pakistan and Afghanistan in Istanbul on November 2, 2025, were supposed to mark a turning point for two neighbors locked in a cycle of violence and suspicion along the Durand Line. Instead, the negotiations exposed the depth of mistrust, diplomatic confusion, and the high stakes facing both countries as they try to avoid further bloodshed. According to Khamma Press and multiple international outlets, what began as a bid to prevent new border clashes quickly unraveled into a tangle of contradictory messaging, reversals, and public frustration.
The backdrop to these talks was grim. The month of October had witnessed the deadliest flare-up since the Taliban’s return to power in 2021, with more than 70 people killed and hundreds wounded after explosions rocked Kabul on October 9. Taliban authorities blamed Pakistan for the attacks, while Islamabad pointed the finger at militant groups using Afghan territory as a launchpad for cross-border violence. The United Nations mission in Afghanistan reported at least 50 Afghan civilian deaths and 447 wounded in just one week, while Pakistan’s military cited 23 personnel killed and 29 wounded—though it did not disclose civilian casualties.
It was in this climate of fear and anger that Turkish and Qatari mediators managed to broker a temporary ceasefire in Doha on October 19, creating a narrow window for dialogue. By the time the delegations assembled in Istanbul, however, the optimism had already faded. As described by Khamma Press, both sides arrived with rigid demands: Pakistan insisted that Kabul take decisive action against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and prevent its members from using Afghan soil to strike across the border, while Afghanistan sought written assurances that Pakistan would halt alleged airspace violations and respect its territorial integrity.
The talks quickly became mired in confusion. Within hours of the opening session, social media erupted with unverified claims, partisan narratives, and contradictory accounts, fueling an atmosphere of distrust. Afghan commentators accused Pakistan of inflexibility and misconduct, while Islamabad charged Kabul with shirking responsibility for terror networks. Neither delegation provided verifiable evidence, and the resulting information vacuum only intensified tensions.
Observers noted that both parties had entered negotiations with unrealistic expectations. Pakistan’s demand for a written Afghan commitment to rein in the TTP was as improbable as Kabul’s insistence on formal guarantees against airspace violations, given the complexity of the security landscape and the history of mutual suspicion. Instead of working toward gradual trust-building, both sides clung to maximalist positions, illustrating a lack of diplomatic subtlety that has long hampered their relationship.
The situation worsened when Pakistan’s Defence Minister, Khawaja Asif, issued a public warning that Pakistan could “obliterate” the Taliban government if provoked. The remark, broadcast on state-run PTV and quickly picked up by Afghan media, caused outrage and reinforced perceptions of Pakistan’s aggressive posture. Asif’s statement, “Our inflexible demand is attacks (should stop) from Afghan soil, and that the Afghan Taliban in Kabul should stop providing shelter to the TTP,” underscored the hard line Islamabad was taking. Afghan Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani responded with his own pointed words: “We are Muslims, brothers, neighbours, but some (in Pakistan), consciously or unconsciously, are playing with fire and war.”
At a critical juncture, Pakistan’s delegation reportedly agreed to consider Afghanistan’s reciprocal security guarantee—namely, that Kabul would not allow its territory to be used against Pakistan if Islamabad ceased airspace violations. However, after a brief recess and consultations with Islamabad, the Pakistani negotiators abruptly reversed their stance. This sudden shift, described by Khamma Press as causing “visible embarrassment” for Qatari facilitators, deepened doubts about Pakistan’s policy coherence and the coordination between its military and diplomatic establishments.
Despite these setbacks, Turkish and Qatari mediation managed to salvage a joint statement and extend the fragile ceasefire. Turkey’s foreign ministry announced the agreement and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to ensure peace and penalize violations. Afghan Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid confirmed, “The Islamic Emirate seeks good relations with other neighbouring countries, it also desires positive ties with Pakistan and remains committed to relations based on mutual respect, non-interference in internal affairs, and not posing a threat to any side.” Pakistan’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Tahir Andrabi, told journalists, “We have taken note of assurances from the Afghan side on this issue,” and added, “Islamabad hopes for a positive outcome in the talks, and is entitled to be this optimistic for the subsequent round.”
Yet, beneath the surface, mistrust remained. The Istanbul episode, as reported by Khamma Press and other outlets, highlighted the limits of Pakistan’s current approach to Afghanistan—one marked by short-term tactical calculations, reliance on coercive rhetoric, and internal divisions that have eroded its ability to project influence or secure cooperation. Analysts warn that such missteps could have far-reaching consequences, complicating Pakistan’s efforts to attract foreign investment and undermining its credibility as a stable regional actor. For traders and ordinary citizens on both sides of the border, the ongoing closure of crossings has brought hardship. Nazir Ahmed, a cloth trader in Kandahar, lamented, “Our nation is tired and their nation is also tired.” Abdul Jabbar, a vehicle spare parts trader in Chaman, echoed the sentiment: “Trade suffers greatly. Both countries face losses—both are Islamic nations.”
The frustration has not been limited to those living along the border. Turkey and Qatar, eager to play constructive roles as mediators, were reportedly dismayed by Islamabad’s inconsistent messaging during the talks. Each diplomatic failure, observers say, chips away at Pakistan’s image and raises questions about its capacity to balance security imperatives with economic priorities. The erosion of trust among key partners could limit Islamabad’s ability to maneuver in future negotiations, not only with Afghanistan but also with other regional players.
Experts argue that the only path to durable peace lies in a shift away from threats and blame. Pakistan, they say, must abandon coercive rhetoric, build trust-based mechanisms, and invest in border communities—particularly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa—where winning the confidence of local populations and addressing long-standing grievances will do more to secure the frontier than any show of force. Afghanistan, for its part, must move decisively against anti-Pakistan militants and address Islamabad’s legitimate security concerns.
As the two sides prepare for another round of talks in Istanbul on November 6, the stakes could hardly be higher. The Istanbul negotiations have demonstrated that dialogue, however fragile, remains indispensable. For Pakistan, the challenge is to restore coherence between its civilian and military institutions, rebuild confidence with Afghanistan, and focus on internal stability and economic revival. Anything less risks further isolation, continued insecurity, and the erosion of regional credibility. In a region where crises are too often met with confrontation, the lesson from Istanbul is clear: peace requires patience, consistency, and the courage to break old patterns.
