Pakistan’s “Open War” Warning Amid Peace Talks with Afghanistan in Istanbul

Introduction

The uneasy relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan has once again reached a critical point. As both nations entered peace negotiations in Istanbul, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif issued a severe warning. He said that if the ongoing talks failed to produce results, Pakistan would consider the option of “open war” with Afghanistan. His statement came after weeks of deadly clashes and airstrikes along the border, which killed dozens and displaced many families. The warning has raised concerns that a fragile ceasefire could collapse and that South Asia could see another wave of instability.

The Background of Tension

The tension between Pakistan and Afghanistan is rooted in border disputes and accusations of cross-border militancy. Islamabad has repeatedly alleged that groups such as the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP, operate from Afghan territory and launch attacks inside Pakistan. Kabul, led by the Taliban-run government, denies these allegations and accuses Pakistan of violating its sovereignty through airstrikes and artillery shelling. These claims and counterclaims have created a deep mistrust that makes diplomatic negotiations difficult.

In recent weeks, clashes intensified along the Durand Line, the de facto border separating the two countries. Pakistani security forces carried out air raids targeting what they described as militant hideouts inside Afghanistan, while Afghan forces responded with heavy gunfire. Both sides reported casualties. The violence drew international concern and led to mediation efforts by Qatar and Turkey, which resulted in a temporary ceasefire agreed upon in Doha.

The Istanbul Peace Talks

Building on the Doha truce, delegations from both nations gathered in Istanbul to discuss long-term solutions. The talks were aimed at creating mechanisms to monitor ceasefire violations, strengthen border control, and rebuild diplomatic channels. The Turkish government hosted the discussions, hoping to help stabilize a region that has been in turmoil for decades.

During these talks, Pakistan demanded clear assurances from Afghanistan that militant groups would not be allowed to use its territory to plan or launch attacks. Pakistan’s position was that without visible action against the TTP and similar outfits, peace could not be sustained. The Afghan representatives, in turn, demanded respect for Afghanistan’s sovereignty and said that they would not tolerate unilateral military operations by Pakistan.

The Warning of “Open War”

While the Istanbul talks were still underway, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif made a striking remark that caught the world’s attention. He said that Pakistan preferred peace but that it had the right to defend itself if diplomacy failed. The statement was described as a direct warning to Kabul that Islamabad would not remain passive if cross-border attacks continued.

The phrase “open war” signaled that Pakistan was ready to escalate the conflict beyond limited military actions. Analysts viewed the statement as both a message of deterrence and an attempt to pressure Afghanistan into complying with Pakistan’s security concerns. The tone of the warning added tension to an already fragile peace process and raised doubts about whether the Istanbul dialogue could produce lasting results.

Afghanistan’s Response

Afghanistan’s Taliban-led government responded cautiously to the warning. Its spokesperson said that Afghanistan did not want war and was committed to maintaining good relations with all neighbors. However, Kabul made it clear that it would defend its territorial integrity if attacked. The government emphasized that it would not allow any country to dictate its internal security policies.

At the same time, Afghan officials accused Pakistan of using the issue of militancy as an excuse to interfere in Afghan affairs. They claimed that Afghanistan had taken action against certain armed groups and that Pakistan should also address internal grievances rather than blaming its neighbor for all security challenges.

Regional Implications

The warning of an “open war” comes at a sensitive time for South Asia. The region is already facing economic difficulties, refugee crises, and the aftereffects of decades of instability. Renewed conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan would not only endanger civilians along the border but also disrupt trade routes and humanitarian efforts. Thousands of families living in the border provinces depend on cross-border markets for food and income. If fighting resumes, these communities could face shortages and displacement.

Neighboring countries such as Iran, China, and India are also monitoring the situation closely. A breakdown of peace could push new waves of refugees into nearby countries and complicate regional diplomacy. International observers, including the United Nations, have urged both sides to avoid escalation and return to dialogue.

Why the Situation Is So Fragile

The fragility of peace between Pakistan and Afghanistan lies in mutual suspicion and decades of unresolved grievances. Pakistan has long accused Afghanistan of harboring militants, while Afghanistan blames Pakistan for supporting factions that destabilize its government. The issue of the Durand Line, drawn during the colonial era, remains a sore point. Afghanistan has never formally recognized it as the official border, which leads to repeated confrontations.

In addition to political tensions, economic hardship adds another layer of instability. Both nations are struggling with inflation, unemployment, and lack of investment. Conflict only worsens these problems by diverting resources away from development. Many citizens on both sides of the border have voiced frustration, saying that their lives are being disrupted by a conflict that benefits no one.

The Role of International Mediators

The peace process in Istanbul reflects ongoing international efforts to stabilize the region. Turkey, which hosted the talks, has maintained relations with both governments and positioned itself as a neutral mediator. Qatar, which earlier facilitated discussions in Doha, continues to encourage dialogue. The involvement of these countries shows that the world recognizes the risk of another full-scale conflict between two nuclear-armed neighbors.

Analysts believe that if the Istanbul talks fail, the international community might push for a broader framework involving regional powers and global organizations to prevent escalation. However, such mediation can only succeed if both Islamabad and Kabul show willingness to compromise and take concrete steps to build trust.

The Way Forward

For Pakistan and Afghanistan, the choice is clear but difficult. They can either continue down the path of confrontation or use this moment to reset their relations. Building a lasting peace will require practical measures. Joint border patrols, intelligence sharing, and verification systems could help reduce misunderstandings. Creating channels for civilian and trade cooperation might also lower tensions by linking local communities through shared interests.

However, experts caution that trust cannot be built overnight. It will take consistent dialogue, transparency, and accountability on both sides. Leaders in both countries will have to resist internal political pressure to take aggressive stances and instead focus on long-term stability.

Conclusion

Pakistan’s warning of “open war” during peace talks in Istanbul underscores how delicate the situation has become between the two neighbors. The statement may have been intended to pressure Afghanistan into action, but it also highlights the deep mistrust that continues to fuel their rivalry. The future of the region depends on whether both sides can move beyond threats and build genuine cooperation.

The Istanbul talks represent a crucial opportunity to replace hostility with understanding. If they fail, the consequences could be devastating not only for Pakistan and Afghanistan but for the entire region. Peace in South Asia has always been fragile, but it is still possible if both nations recognize that dialogue, not war, is the only sustainable path forward.