For the third time in recent years, Pakistan’s efforts to achieve a durable peace with the Afghan Taliban have ended in failure. Despite repeated rounds of high-level diplomacy, including the most recent talks, the core issue cross-border militancy emanating from Afghan territory remains unresolved. Pakistan has consistently sought verifiable assurances that the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and allied groups will no longer find sanctuary in Afghanistan, yet Kabul has failed to provide commitments sufficient to stabilize the border. This recurring impasse reflects not only the operational challenges of controlling militant networks but also a deliberate strategic calculation by the Afghan Taliban, whose tolerance of the TTP is a calculated decision that serves multiple internal and regional purposes.
The latest escalation in 2025 and in December 2024 illustrates the persistent security threat. The TTP carried out a coordinated attack on a Pakistani military outpost near the border, killing sixteen security personnel and seizing weapons and equipment. In response, Pakistan conducted targeted airstrikes in Afghanistan’s Paktika province, aiming to neutralize the insurgent infrastructure. Reports indicate that Afghan civilians, including refugees from Waziristan, were among the casualties, highlighting the human cost of the ongoing cross-border conflict. While Pakistan engaged in dialogue aimed at preventing such incidents, the Afghan Taliban framed the TTP’s presence as a matter of domestic jurisdiction, emphasizing sovereignty while preserving strategic ambiguity. This duality demonstrates that Kabul’s tolerance is not mere negligence but a deliberate instrument of regional leverage.
Understanding the Afghan Taliban’s protection of the TTP requires considering the internal, strategic, and operational realities they face. Internally, the Taliban confront persistent threats from the Islamic State-Khorasan (IS-K) and other insurgent groups that challenge their authority and territorial control. The TTP, in contrast, functions as a manageable proxy: a force that can operate across the border to project influence and exert pressure on Pakistan without directly destabilizing the Afghan regime. This arrangement allows the Taliban to focus on domestic consolidation while maintaining the ability to wield the TTP as a strategic tool, whether for deterrence, bargaining, or operational advantage.
From a regional perspective, the Afghan Taliban’s sheltering of the TTP provides a form of diplomatic and strategic leverage. Pakistan has sought repeated assurances that militant sanctuaries will be dismantled, yet Kabul has consistently offered ambiguous commitments. By maintaining a militant presence on its soil, the Taliban enhance their negotiating position and preserve flexibility in responding to regional dynamics. This is a calculated choice: the benefits of tactical leverage and cross-border influence outweigh the potential diplomatic cost of failed peace talks, at least from the Afghan regime’s perspective.
Operationally, the Afghan Taliban benefit from ideological and logistical alignment with the TTP. Both groups share similar interpretations of Islamist governance and a Pashtun-centric worldview, which lowers the operational cost of tolerance. TTP fighters have access to training grounds, recruitment networks, and, notably, weapons and equipment left behind following the NATO withdrawal in 2021. According to UN reports, the TTP has an estimated 6,000 to 6,500 fighters operating within Afghanistan, a force sufficiently robust to sustain cross-border attacks and maintain a permanent presence while remaining under the Taliban’s implicit protection. The UN and independent observers have repeatedly noted that the TTP receives financial support and logistical facilitation, enabling its continued operational capacity.
The repeated failures of peace talks highlight the structural challenge of reconciling Pakistan’s security imperatives with Kabul’s internal and regional priorities. Pakistan has pursued dialogue to complement military and intelligence operations, seeking an enforceable solution that addresses the sanctuary problem. Yet each round of negotiations now numbering three major rounds over the past few years has failed to deliver measurable results. The Afghan Taliban’s reluctance to offer concrete, verifiable commitments reflects the enduring strategic logic behind their actions: the TTP functions as a controllable asset that enhances internal security, preserves regional leverage, and provides operational flexibility.
The implications of this dynamic are profound. For Pakistan, the presence of a militant group operating from Afghan soil poses ongoing security challenges, threatens regional stability, and complicates the protection of critical infrastructure and investment projects. Beyond the bilateral context, the TTP’s links with groups such as Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent raise the potential for a broader transnational threat, extending the consequences of sanctuary beyond Pakistan’s borders. International stakeholders have an interest in reducing cross-border militancy, yet progress is constrained by the Taliban’s strategic calculus and the limitations of external influence.
Ultimately, the Afghan Taliban’s continued protection of the TTP is a calculated, strategic choice that serves multiple purposes: preserving internal control, projecting influence across borders, and retaining a bargaining tool in regional diplomacy. While Pakistan has repeatedly sought resolution through dialogue, the persistence of militant sanctuaries underscores the limits of negotiation when commitments are non-binding and enforcement mechanisms are absent. Addressing this challenge requires a multifaceted approach that combines sustained diplomacy, regional engagement, intelligence coordination, and robust border management. Only by understanding the strategic logic underpinning the Afghan Taliban’s tolerance of the TTP can Pakistan and its partners develop policies that are effective, sustainable, and capable of mitigating the enduring security risks posed by cross-border insurgency.
The repeated failure of talks serves as a reminder that diplomacy alone, without enforceable commitments and clear operational accountability, is insufficient to resolve deeply entrenched security challenges. Until Kabul aligns its strategic choices with verifiable anti-TTP action, the Pakistan–Afghanistan border will remain a zone of ambiguity, and peace negotiations will continue to face significant obstacles.
