The August 2021 takeover by the Taliban has significantly shifted Pakistan-Afghanistan relations from strategic alignment to heightened tensions. The recent escalations have pushed both countries into armed confrontation.

Historical background: The Roots of Hostility

The hostilities between these two countries date back to 1947, when Afghanistan became the only country to vote against the admittance of Pakistan into the United Nations. This was primarily due to the Durand Line Agreement of 1893, signed by Sir Mortimer Durand, representative of British India, and Amir Abdur Rahman Khan of Afghanistan. This agreement drew a line stretching about 2,649 km, cutting through Pashtun tribal regions between the British Raj and Afghanistan. When Pakistan emerged as an independent state in 1947, it inherited the international borders of British India under the principle of state succession. The issue arose when Afghanistan refused to accept the Durand Line Agreement after 1947, arguing that it was only valid between British India and should have been renegotiated after British withdrawal, thus demanding a separate Pashtun state. This resulted in border clashes for the first time in 1949-50.

Contemporary Drivers of Conflict

Today the issues revolve around border fencing, refugee politics, cross-border militancy (primarily TTP), and sovereignty disputes.
Pakistan has fenced most of the Durand Line, which Afghanistan opposes. These have led to armed confrontations at the Torkham and Chaman crossings.
Moreover, Pakistan is host to 3-4 million Afghan refugees, placing significant pressure on its systems. Thus prompting large-scale deportations from 2023 onwards, deporting 2,009,241 from 15 September 2023 to 31 January 2026. The government proclaims the increased crime and suicide bombings as a reason behind these mass deportations, leading to humanitarian and diplomatic tensions.
The key issue, however, remains Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a militant group targeting Pakistan, which Pakistan claims to be operating from Afghan soil. Pakistan views TTP as an existential internal threat, referring to it as Fitna al Khawarij. While Kabul denies harboring them.

The February 2026 Escalation

The recent escalation took place on Thursday, 26 February 2026, when Pakistan launched airstrikes in Afghanistan, including its capital city, Kabul. The birthplace of the Taliban movement, Paktia and Kandahar provinces, was also targeted.
Pakistan claims that the airstrikes were a response to the earlier cross-border attacks. Pakistan launched the operation ‘Ghazb lil Haq,’ targeting militant hideouts across Afghanistan. The information minister Attaullah Tarar in his post on X stated that Pakistan’s armed forces have destroyed 188 Afghan Taliban posts, capturing 31, killing 464 Afghan Taliban, and injuring over 665 since the start of the operation. He further confirmed that Pakistan has destroyed 192 tanks, armored vehicles, and artillery guns while targeting 56 different locations across Afghanistan by air.
Security forces have also conducted intelligence operations in the Domel tehsil of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s Bannu district, reportedly injuring several militants. The information minister confirmed that 40 Taliban personnel were killed in KPK overnight operations. Security forces have also carried out operations in Balochistan in response to their physical attack on 16 locations in the north of the province, killing 27 Afghan Taliban.
State-run PTV news also reported that Pakistan armed forces have carried out operations in Jalalabad targeting Afghan Taliban fighters. Moreover, the Pakistan Air Force has struck the Bagram air base and Khugyani base in an ongoing Ghazab lil-Haq operation, inflicting heavy damages.
The shelling across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in KPK continues, with no major casualties. KPK remains on high alert, announcing the closure of 37 public and private sector educational institutes. There have been reports of intense clashes with heavy firing in the Mohmand district of KPK. According to the residents, 54 educational institutes and local shops have been closed as precautionary measures.

Both countries have repeatedly blamed each other for provoking attacks.

In 2024, the TTP was held responsible for over 480 attacks and 558 deaths, the highest since 2011. Pakistan claims that it has conclusive evidence that TTP was behind the recent bombings in Islamabad, Bajaur, and Bannu. The strikes by Pakistan on 21 February were a response to the terrorist attacks by militant groups operating from Afghan soil. Pakistan accuses Taliban of serving as an Indian proxy. According to Asif, “India wants to engage in a low-intensity war with Pakistan. To achieve this, they are using Kabul.”
The Taliban government says that Pakistan is violating Afghan sovereignty and that the attack by Pakistan was unprovoked. They stated that the Afghan attack was a retaliatory operation against the earlier attack carried out by Pakistan on the night of 21 February in Nangarhar and Paktika provinces, killing at least 13 Afghan civilians, according to UN reports. The Taliban’s spokesperson, Zabihullah Mujahid, said that the “security challenges inside Pakistan have no connection to Afghanistan,” and that Pakistan “must resolve their own issues and refrain from further harming their ties with Afghanistan, as this would be detrimental to both countries and the entire region.”
According to Afghan official Zakir Jalali, active diplomacy is taking place alongside military actions. Jalali stated that Afghanistan has held detailed discussions with the foreign ministries of Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, briefing them on their position.

Islamabad has rejected the Afghan claims and maintains the position that Pakistan launched the operation after the unprovoked firing from across the Afghan border. Pakistan also refused any suggestions of talks; the spokesperson of Prime Minister Mosharraf Zaidi stated that “There won’t be any talks. There is no dialogue. There is no negotiation. Terrorism from Afghanistan has to end.” The Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said, “Now it is open war between us.”

International Response

The international actors have urged both countries to de-escalate and engage in diplomacy. The UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UN, and the Council of the European Union have called for an immediate end to these hostilities and the pursuit of diplomatic means to resolve the conflict.
Throughout 2025, both countries have been involved in a series of heated exchanges. The major escalation took place in Oct 2025, when Pakistan conducted airstrikes inside Afghanistan targeting the militant bases, leading to multiple clashes on the border. After days of fighting, both agreed to the ceasefire in mid-October in Doha. The talks were mediated by Qatar and Turkey to put an end to the violence and work towards peace. However, the follow-up negotiation talks held in Turkey at the end of October failed and did not produce any lasting breakthrough. Since then, trade and the border crossings between the two countries have been shut down.

Pakistan claims that its main objective is to counter terrorist activities, justifying its cross-border intelligence-based operations as necessary security measures to dismantle TTP infrastructures. While Afghanistan aims to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The major dilemma, however, remains the lack of verified information from both sides. As the Taliban does not allow easy access to foreign journalists to investigate the sites and verify the claims. It is also not easy to gather information from borders in Pakistan.
The claims from both sides remain largely accusatory.

Executive Summary

Since 2026, relations between Iran and the U.S. have significantly declined due to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the expanding U.S. military presence throughout the Middle East, and President Trump’s use of coercive diplomacy towards Iran. Iran’s fledgling attempts to develop its own defensive capability, combined with Iran’s support for many proxy organizations throughout the region, will likely lead to an escalation of tensions between these two countries in ways that may seem impossible to imagine.

Strategic Context
Crisis Overview

• Diplomatic Deadlines and Pressure

If Iran cannot negotiate a substantive nuclear agreement (more detailed than the existing agreement) with the USA, it will face significant consequences. The US has repeatedly set deadlines for Iran to conclude negotiations with the US to create an updated nuclear agreement, which will include more stringent oversight of Iran’s nuclear programs; however, Iran views such deadlines as excessive and unreasonable requirements placed by the USA. Thus, during negotiations, both parties will treat each other equally and the US will lift all sanctions against Iran.

Iranian Countermeasures

Iran is enhancing its military and nuclear facilities in anticipation of possible conflict with the United States. The position of Tehran is that any military action by the United States will be deemed an act of aggression and will require a military response from Iran.
Iran is attempting to deter U.S. activity while making clear that U.S. military action will lead to disastrous consequences.

Primary Drivers of Escalation Risk
A. Nuclear Disputes

The continuing dispute between Iran and the United States centers on both parties’ approaches to nuclear armament and the degree of inspection by the United States of Iran’s nuclear capability. On the one hand, the United States insists that Iran has to allow for NATO inspections and have very stringent restrictions on the development of nuclear capability. On the other hand, the United States does not recognize Iran’s self-determination or any other rights to develop nuclear capability. The United States believes that permitting Iran to develop nuclear capability will fundamentally alter the United States’ strategic and economic interests in the Middle East, and grant Iran the rights to internationally develop military power under international law that will impact and harm the United States economically, politically, and militarily on a number of levels.
The IAEA recently reported that the inability of the IAEA to visit and inspect Iranian nuclear installations due to increasing tension and hostilities in the region is quickly becoming impossible. In the absence of a peaceful resolution, both sides would likely resort to military action as the only means to resolve their difference.

B. Naval Operations

1) Iranian forces and the U.S. Navy’s Sixth Fleet are operating in close proximity in the Persian Gulf. The small size of the Persian Gulf and the large number of naval vessels operating in the area creates a high risk of maritime accidents, therefore an increased opportunity for both the Iranian and American naval vessels to collide with each other or to be caused to collide by either side due to negligence. In the event of either nation’s negligence resulting in the collision of vessels, the perceived threat that exists for both nations’ militaries would be exacerbated significantly.
2) Incorrect interpretation of military drills intentions.
3) The rapid escalation of conflict scenarios due to a very minor incident.
The geographic location of the Strait of Hormuz also poses an ongoing threat. Any disruption by a major disruption in access to Jubail & Khobar Ports through the Strait of Hormuz could have major economic consequences worldwide. Potential DISRUPTION of oil flow will also cause strategic implications for the US if military force is used against those who would cause that disruption.
Thus, RISK LEVEL: SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN AVERAGE – LIKELIHOOD OF UNINTENTIONAL ESCALATION.

Escalation Possibilities:

There are various scenarios that will likely lead to escalation, and the most likely short-term escalation will be through “Precision Strikes”. The United States will execute limited air strikes on nuclear and missile facilities, and Iran will engage with calibrated proxies focused on limited proxy activity so as not to escalate into an all-out war. This will create a temporary escalation of tension, high regional tension, and a brief shock to energy markets. The overall risk to contain this situation will be Moderate.
The next Escalation Scenario will be through Limited Regional Warfare. Due to the U.S. initiating a strike on Iranian targets, including nuclear and missile facilities, Iran will engage to a broader extent than through the use of proxy engagement. This would include missile attacks against U.S. military installations, as well as disrupting maritime shipping via the Strait of Hormuz. These actions would result in Multi-Front Proxy Engagement with continuous air operations against Iranian targets, and global economic activity will be significantly disrupted. The risk of containment is expected to range from Low to Moderate.

Broader Implications:

1. A) Regional Safety

The impact of increased tension between Iran and Europe has multiple implications for trade, but perhaps most importantly, the trade lines will also be affected negatively. With trade lanes being disrupted, it will make shipping more expensive and less efficient globally.

1. B) Global Economy

Any disruption of energy (oil) supplies passing through the Hormuz Strait will cause a dramatic increase in the global price of oil, along with a variety of other ramifications such as increased global inflationary pressures and ramifications on the global supply chain..

Conclusion:

The current strain between the US and Iran serves as a unique scenario of both formulating forceful diplomatic events while planning for military deployments to enforce such acts of coercive diplomacy. Both the US and Iran exhibit their might without crossing the threshold of actual war.

The risk of trying to negotiate through this differences continues to be elevated due to known deadlines; the expanding build up of military forces on both sides; and both parties not trusting each other.

The most likely situation to occur will be several different occasions of limited military engagements between both countries rather than one major military conflict. Mistakes or unintended escalation associated with the existence of proxies, land configuration, and global nuclear weapons result in extreme instability until such time as the party implementing sanctions reaches an agreement on how those two issues (sanctions and regional nuclear programs) will be secured through a resolution to both issues. The only other options are to strategically limit the activities of each nation while the two will pursue continued negotiations until settlement is obtained.

Introduction:

The February 6, 2026 (Mosque at Khadija Tul Kubra Imambargah) in Tarlai area of Islamabad was a major terrorist attack with dozens of dead and hundreds injured. The fact that it occurred at a worship service is a demonstration of how unprepared the police and military are for responding to events that may occur during large gatherings of civilians.
It had been widely believed that Islamabad was one of the safest places in Pakistan because of the presence of law enforcement agencies and armed forces. However, this attack showed that critical elements have been neglected and that significant improvements need to be made in many facets of preventing major crime in these safe cities.

Incident Overview and Context

Although the attacker was stopped by security from getting into the Imambargah, he still was able to detonate an explosive device outside the building. Had there not been any security to try and stop him from getting into the Imambargah the number of deaths and injuries to people inside of the building would have been much greater.
The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for this attack; they have known ties to his training for this attack both in the region and overseas.
At the time of this attack the rest of the world was beginning to view Pakistan more positively, because of many cultural events taking place during the early spring, such as Basant, which showed the world’s values, traditions, and ways of living in a positive manner to the world. This attack has probably undone much of the progress of improving relations with other countries.
As a result of this attack, terrorism became a major focus of many media outlets around the world and continued to paint a negative picture of Pakistan because of its history of instability and lack of security.

Security Analysis and Counter-Terrorism Gaps

There were many issues in both intelligence and operation capabilities regarding the counter-terrorism response to the attack at Tarlai. The failure of officials to stop a suicide bomber at a religious site in the city showed a failure to detect and monitor this threat. Because the people killed during the religious service were present at a location where previous attacks had occurred, it suggested that there are other previous attacks at this type of event and therefore there were no appropriate security procedures to keep the people at this religious service safe from the sectarian threats that this site has experienced in the past.
Urban-based terrorist attacks are typically committed at or near locations where many people participate in normal civilian activities. Tarlai bomber fits with the theory of individuals and/or groups that are continually modifying their methods of operation and/or avoiding security measures.

International Reputation and Morale

The emotional fallout from this event for the Pakistani people can be measured by the fact that a number of different communities have united in their sorrow for the lost and have formed numerous amounts of support for one another, demonstrating that the loss experienced by those impact by this event extends well beyond just the communities which were actually impacted and include all citizens of Pakistan. As Pakistan was attempting to create a better image internationally through cultural activities and promoting tourism and supporting development and social initiatives, this attack greatly detracted from those activities by causing the global media to continue focusing on terrorism and security issues instead of showcasing the rich traditions of Pakistan and the peaceful social environment that exists in Pakistan. The long-lasting effect on foreign perceptions, potential tourism opportunities and diplomatic relations related to this attack will remain as long as the attack itself has lasted; however, based on the author’s assessment, the psychological effect will have as much impact as the destruction of the physical structure and will have resulted in the entire nation going into mourning and being in a state of collective shock for an extended period of time because this affected them all as children of the same group.

Recommendations

The Tarlai Incident reminds us that we need more counter-terrorism capacity, government monitoring of religion in your city, the public’s use of public police, and coordination with local law enforcement to monitor public-specific areas for terrorist activity. Therefore, police using intelligence-driven policing can be used as a resource to identify specific terrorist threats and monitor them while conducting monitoring of police across borders to combat terrorist networks and other organizations. A strategy would be to deploy law enforcement in a public safety manner that uses statistical analysis to identify the number of people that may be attending a particular event. This will enable a more accurate strategy for deploying law enforcement personnel based on the risk of violence at that event and allow law enforcement personnel to be placed in areas that would create a safe environment for people attending an event.
In order for Pakistan to achieve a balance between security enforcement and improving its reputation/image on a global basis, Pakistan should strive, like the United States has with Afghanistan, to create a cultural diplomacy and engage in clear communication with other nations to continue to maintain the international relations of Pakistan. In order for Pakistan to maintain incidents such as these, the protection of its citizens and the promotion of the citizens’ morale for the future of Pakistan will allow for Pakistan to maintain its current level of international standing.

Conclusion

The terrorist attack in Tarlai is proof that there is a serious, continuing urban terror threat to cities throughout the world, including Islamabad. Even with increased counter-terrorism measures and risk management strategies, major attacks continue.In this case, the hiding of deficiencies in both the pre-emptive counter-terrorist preparedness of the Islamabad Police and other security agencies, as well as poor risk management procedures. Over 98 lives were lost and more than 150 persons injured as a result.
Overall, the Tarlai bombing has caused an inordinate amount of suffering to people, has severely tarnished Pakistan’s global image and has created an urgent need for the Government of Pakistan to develop and implement a comprehensive plan to reform all counter terrorist systems inside its borders.

Early 2026 has been marked by a severe escalations of militant attacks and regional instability for Pakistan. Recent deadly suicide bombings, growing insurgent activity, cross border tensions has become a matter of serious concern.

Islamabad Terror Attack and Capital Security

The recent attacks on country’s capital has revealed security oversight and intelligence gaps. Islamabad’s recent suicide bombing on 6th February 2026 at Khadija Tul Kubra Shia mosque in Tarlai Kalan arear claimed lives of 30 people and injured over 170, marking it the deadliest attack on the capital since 2008. The Defence Minister alleged that it was planned and financed from across the Afghanistan border, allegations denied by Kabul. On Friday evening, the ISIL (ISIS) group claimed the responsibility for the attack on its telegram channel.
Another incident back in November 2025, at a district court in G-11 took lives of 12 people and injured 27 others. Jummat UL Ahrar, a splinter group of the Tehrik-e- Taliban (TTP) claimed responsibility. The condemnation came from various international partners, including U.S, China, EU, Russia, reflecting global concern over extremist spillover.
These incidents highlights the danger posed by regional affiliate of ISIS and heightened concerns about sectarian violence and militant reach within highly secured cities.

Balochistan Insurgency and Internal security

The militant violence and resistance in Balochistan is not episodic, it is structural. There is strong underlying resentment in Balochistan, which stems from long standing political marginalization, unequal distribution of resources, resources extraction without local ownership, demographic fears, identity and historical grievances, with CPEC seen as intensifying these existing injustices. The core objective behind these militant violence is greater autonomy and an independent Baloch state.

Balochistan has recently witnessed a rise in coordinated militant attacks, mainly by the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and affiliated groups. Reports have indicated at least 177+ militant casualties in counter insurgency operations. These confrontations have led to dozens of civilian and security personnel deaths, necessitating a revamp of the counter terror strategies.

The government has declined negotiation initiative and instead prioritized a security-led, military response to restore stability. Since Baclochistan’s security dynamic directly affects the China Pakistan Economic corridor (CPEC) projects representing billions in investments, the focus is essentially on increasing military presence to protect mineral- rich areas and border routes with Afghanistan and Iran. Initiatives to expand CPEC in 2025 between Islamabad, Beijing and Kabul seeks to improve regional connectivity and economic cohesion while placing additional demands on Pakistan’s security to manage emerging vulnerabilities.

Afghanistan- Pakistan Border security

Pakistan foreign policy regarding Afghanistan has always been based on the principle of Muslim brotherhood. Despite shared geography, ethnicity, and faith, relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan have never been smoother, except for a short period of Taliban rule.

For Pakistan, the cross-border security has always remained a major concern. Although Kabul has publicly denied its involvement and support of anti-Pakistan militant, Pakistani authorities have continuously accused the Taliban-led government in Kabul of enabling anti-Pakistan groups including TTP and other extremists groups. Border tensions have sporadically escalated into violence in Kurram and Bajaur, with mutual accusations of provocations and cross-border militant activities.
Pakistan has taken strict measures to tightened border controls, including periodically closing formal crossings with Afghan border.
According to Centre for research and security studies, there has been significant increase in fatalities, the figure report for violence- related deaths reveals the jump form 2555 in 2024 to 3417 in 2025.
The recent diplomatic engagements of 2025, including Doha truce talks and Trilateral engagements involving China, Pakistan and Afghanistan, aims to mitigate tensions, boost regional cooperation and manage security challenges.

India- Pakistan Relations and regional Tensions

India and Pakistan has remained in deep-rooted historical and culture conflicts, resulting in complex security rivalries. There is a long list of events that has created hostility and security problems for Pakistan but the core issues is the Kashmir dispute.
India’s strategic stance in South Asia continues to overlap with Pakistan’s security concerns. The recent intense exchange of 2025 including missiles, drones and shelling followed by the suspension of Indus Waters Treaty have sparked serious concerns for regional security, stability and economic partnerships.

China-Pakistan strategic Partnership

China-Pakistan’s all weather strategic partnership remains a key aspect of Pakistan’s security and economic policies. Both countries share strategic cooperation to mitigate security threats, which includes counter-terrorism, intelligence sharing, and the protection of Chinese national and infrastructure under CPEC projects.
Despite these high level engagements, both countries faces security challenges from militant attacks, prolonged tensions with India and instability in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry and Chinese Embassy formally agreed to work together to counter extremism and expand security measure, including the establishment of a Special Protection Unit for Chinese personnel and cybersecurity cooperation in early 2026.
This highlights the intensity of China and Pakistan’s partnership, demonstrating shared interests in maintaining stability and Pakistan’s role in Asia’s evolving multipolar security dynamics.

Executive Summary

The action taken by the US on January 26, 2026 changed both the global political sphere and the international security landscape of Venezuela; the objective was to capture President Maduro whose government has been accused of using drug trafficking and to create a better atmosphere in that region.
There are some nations that believe this action was an imposition of the US; they viewed the level of US involvement as an attempt by a more powerful country to take control of less developed countries thereby violating their rights regarding sovereignty. These developments encourage discussions regarding the issues of state sovereignty, the role of international law, and the way the global/order is structured. Many critics of US Policy, have stated that many of the same powerful countries will use ‘national security’ as rational for acting in the manner in which they do throughout the globe. The incidents surrounding this particular event will illustrate how the unilateral decisions of one country adversely affect the security of another country. Therefore, the ultimate thesis presented by this paper will show that the US actions violate international law, create an unstable environment, and destroy international systems and trust in international organizations.

 

History and Context

The relationship between the US and Venezuela has been one of tension over an extended period of time, largely due to political and economic sanctions and ideological rifts. Venezuela’s oil reserves and its government’s anti-US position made it a target for US pressure and containment; the US response had evolved throughout the years from using diplomacy to sanctions and ultimately to economic isolation.

In January 2026 that had become direct military intervention. The US forces invaded the country of Venezuela and captured President Maduro . Although the military operation was sold to the public as a law enforcement operation targeting drug trafficking and other crimes, the magnitude of the military operation indicated much more than law enforcement activity; it was really a political and military action against the sovereign nation of Venezuela.

Analyzing Security and Global Impacts

The idea of intervention is opposed to a very basic societal principle – all nations should be given the sovereignty necessary to control & manage any of their internal affairs. Military actions taken unilaterally violate international law but also violate the right of each nation to be free from interference in its domestic affairs.The continuing violation of the principle of non-intervention and the failure of the Global Peace and Security Law to provide an enforceable universal standard has resulted in the establishment of an altered world order, where establishing political relationships has become less a matter of rules than a matter of the coercive exercise of power. Thus, countries with more power have greater freedom to act while countries with less power have less capacity to act and are therefore more vulnerable, thus creating a climate of fear and doubt and uncertainty in the international system, where all nations are currently subordinating their sovereignty to demonstration of force.

The result of this crisis at the regional level has been further instability in Latin America because the unpredictability associated with politics has increased, public institutions’ ability to impose their authority over citizens has diminished, and the rule of law is becoming less effective as a means of regulating behavior.

Policy Options and Recommendations

The shift away from military force toward cooperative and collaborative efforts to achieve security will need to begin with international cooperation and understanding about how international institutions can define security through law and other forms of non-military power, rather than by using military force in an unilateral manner (or partly unilaterally). Regional states should identify and develop regional cooperative solutions that use other regional states as the primary source of assistance through dialogue and non-controlling means. Security should also focus on the individual through the promotion of economic and political development and the establishment of inclusive political organizations. Furthermore, when dealing with any global challenges (such as drug and crime), governments should act cooperatively rather than use military force or intervening in the domestic affairs of another country.The primary and best principle for governments to use in constructing a security policy that is based on the idea that all security should be built on law, equality, and cooperation, rather than on power or domination.

Conclusion

The present day situation in Venezuela, where the USA has intervened militarily, demonstrates that the US is currently exerting power regionally and globally to reshape the evolution of National Sovereignty; and ultimately, it demonstrates how Security Language (or the Language of Security) is utilized by developed (or super-power) nations to exert historic (and continuing) control over newly independent or sovereign nations while attempting to redefine Security norms globally. Global Security cannot be created via the use of violence and the threat of violence. It must be created based on international recognitions of National Sovereignty, Education about International Norms and Fostering and Sharing in Responsibility Globally. Continuing the theme and topic of this dissertation, the impact of using Security for Power in a new global landscape has created a more volatile and insecure world today than at any other time in human history.

The old border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia has gotten out of hand once again, with Thai air attacks that represent the most severe escalation since the middle of 2025. Fighter jets hit Cambodian military installations on both sides of the frontier that had been contentious, with Thai troops caught in the crossfire and at least one dead and some men and women hurt, on Monday, according to the Thai army. The Cambodians reject the allegations of shooting first and accuse Thailand of unprovoked aggression, injuring at least three civilians in the Preah Vihear province. The 817-kilometre border between Thailand and Cambodia has been simmering for months, especially around temple complexes like Preah Vihear and Ta Muen Thom, where the border is ill-defined and highly symbolic. The immediate catalyst behind the decision by the Bangkok government to summon the air force was a fatal event on Sunday when the Thai government alleges that the Cambodian troops fired shells in Ubon Ratchathani province, killing a Thai soldier and injuring others.

Thai officials deny that the air raids were offensive measures and assert they were limited, defensive measures against artillery positions and troop masses, which they say were concentrated near the border. Thai F-16s attacked Cambodian territory in Preah Vihear and Oddar Meanchey provinces around dawn, the Cambodians counter the Thais, hitting villages in the area and causing people to evacuate. The violence has broken a ceasefire signed in Kuala Lumpur in October, when former U.S. President Donald Trump and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim facilitated the Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord between Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul and his Cambodian counterpart, Hun Manet. The agreement obliged both parties to withdraw heavy arms, to collaborate in the clearance of landmines, and to have ASEAN observers patrol the truce. That was a setup that was already strained. In November, Thailand suspended its deal and claimed that landmines maimed several of its soldiers, who it claimed had been recently planted by Cambodian forces, an allegation Phnom Penh denies. Clashes had sporadically halted its deal, and ASEAN observers had already suspended some of its monitoring visits due to security reasons. Trump has offered the October deal as the flagship achievement of his current foreign policy activism, and Anwar, as the chair of ASEAN, spent significant political capital bringing both sides to Kuala Lumpur. The air attacks of Monday are now threatening to unwind that diplomacy and to bring discredit to ASEAN as a conflict manager in its own region.

The re-emerging conflict is targeting civilians in frontier provinces that had already been traumatised by the clashes in July that claimed dozens of lives and displaced over 300,000. According to Thai officials, over 35,000 residents have already been evacuated in Ubon Ratchathani, Surin, Sisaket and Buriram districts, where their houses are located near potential firing by artillery, in schools and sports halls. Thousands of people are reported to be leaving Preah Vihear and Oddar Meanchey border communities by Cambodian officials in fear that ground confrontations can follow the air raids. There are also threats to the local economies. Major crossings have been shut, the flow of goods across borders has slowed, and farmers who are already feeling the inflation pinch are worried that, even without the war spreading, they may lose access to their farms. Humanitarian organisations have been alerting that mass displacement, as in the July mass exodus, could recur with artillery duels returning to normal.

Deep historical roots of the dispute

Even though the current crisis is associated with ongoing conflicts and broken ceasefires, its origins can be traced back to a century of unresolved border and identity politics. The border between Thailand and Cambodia was initially drawn on a French colonial map in 1907 and has been disputed ever since. In 1962, the International Court of Justice determined that the ancient hilltop temple of Preah Vihear was Cambodian, and, as of 2013, explained that the surrounding territory was also Cambodian. However, Thailand questioned several points of the ruling and the precise delimitation of the adjacent land. Both sides are bolstered by strong nationalist accounts, which add weight to these legal arguments. Many Cambodians regard the temples as the representation of the Khmer civilisation, and Thailand is accused of cultural appropriation and territorial intrusion. Other Thai nationalists, in their turn, also challenge the justice of the colonial-era maps and present concessions as the betrayal of Thai sovereignty. The dispute has been used by politicians and even officials in both countries to seek localised political and military backing, which has complicated the reconciliation process.

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has termed the air attacks as highly worrying and urged Bangkok and Phnom Penh to pull back to the edge and reaffirm the Kuala Lumpur accord with new ASEAN mediation. The former influential leader of Cambodia, Hun Sen, who is the current president of the Senate, has instructed Cambodian forces to maintain caution and reminded them that whoever intensifies the combat will stand to see the peace they have gained destroyed. To date, there is no indication of active intervention by the major powers; however, Washington, Beijing and neighbouring Vietnam would have a significant stake in ensuring that a long-term conflict does not occur, thus derailing trade routes and supply chains, as well as the stability experienced in the region. The U.S. State Department and the foreign ministry of China are likely to put pressure on both sides, one-on-one, to resume the ceasefire arrangements they signed only a few weeks ago. Whether Thailand will cease air operations in the short term is the most critical question, as well as whether Cambodia will persist in its non-direct retaliation. In case both sides intensify the conflict, by regularly bombing the other, firing artillery at populated areas or invading each other, the war may soon go beyond the borders of communities and encourage ASEAN or the UN Security Council to think about more forceful diplomatic intervention. Both governments assert they still intend to continue negotiations, but each accuses the other of violating the truce. Without unbiased surveillance and a reliable system to probe the occurrences, the accusations of who fired first are likely to persist. It is the crisis that highlights the precarious nature of the 2025 peace architecture surrounding the Thai-Cambodian border: historic grievances, vague borders, landmines, and well-armed forces, all within kilometres of each other.

The air attacks on Monday will not be the first, but unless there is continuous pressure from ASEAN, major powers, and domestic populations in both countries, no political settlement, no real demilitarisation of sensitive regions will be achieved.

The new wave of violence is taking place on two fronts in Pakistan despite the state continuing to claim it desires peace and stability. In South Waziristan, Cadet College Wana was attacked by terrorists of Fitna al-Khawarij (linked to TTP and being a foreign-sponsored group, as defined by Pakistan). They attempted to replicate an APS-style massacre by driving a bomb-stuffed vehicle inside the main gate and then trying to go further into the campus. Police transformed to the rescue scene incredibly quickly and killed two of the attackers and surrounded three others in the administrative block, which allowed the hostels and classes of the cadets to remain untouched by the initial attack. Meanwhile, through Operation Azm-e-Istehkam, the army has killed some 20 militants in individual intelligence operations in North Waziristan and Dara Adam Khel, which demonstrates that they are not merely waiting to be attacked, but actively targeting these networks, disrupting their hideouts, supply chains, and channels of communication.

Collectively, all these events indicate a particular pattern: extremist organizations are aiming to strike sensitive targets such as schools and security installations to instill fear, and the state is attempting to push them back with specific anti-terror actions and enhanced security of civilians. The formal communication from Islamabad and Rawalpindi is that Pakistan does not desire a permanent war, but rather peaceful borders, secure cities, and the opportunity for students in regions such as the former tribal areas to study in peace. Through the use of military force with the power of the tongue, development and regional integration, Pakistan is attempting to demonstrate both to itself and the world that it is not combating terrorism to create more tension within the region but rather to achieve a stable, peaceful future.

The same day, the capital of the country also received another tragedy. There was a strong blast at a district court in G-11 area of Islamabad which killed up to 12 people and injured many others as reported by several media houses. Initial reports indicate that it was a car bomb or a suicide bomb close to the court entrance, an area that is normally full of lawyers, litigants and police. The attack has not been explicitly attributed to any group, although the government, once again, used innocent people and the justice system as the central targets of the capital city in Pakistan.

The Wana attack as well as Islamabad court blast can be included in a series whereby extremists and terrorists attempt to spread fear by targeting schools, courts and congested places. The leaders and security forces of Pakistan are attempting to convey the reverse message of what they desire, i.e. peace, good institutions and security of its youth. The state claims through Azm-e-Istehkam and the National Action Plan that it would continue with its accurate counter terror operations besides advocating education, development and enhanced security in the conflict areas. Its official statements insist that neither Pakistan nor any of its neighbours wants war or tension; the country aims at regional cooperation to allow its citizens to enjoy their lives, study and work without fear of bombs in schools and courts.