Islamabad — Hours after a night of heavy exchanges along the Pak–Afghan border subsided at midnight, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid released a statement accusing Pakistan’s military of “provocations” and harbouring the Islamic State – Khorasan Province (ISIS-K) leadership on its soil.
The terse morning statement by the spokesman of Afghan Interim Government (AIG) Zabihullah Mujahid attempting to cast Pakistan as the aggressor after last night’s border exchanges has sharpened a war of words between Kabul and Islamabad.
Mujahid’s comments, issued at 11:26am following clashes that Pakistani officials say ended at midnight, framed Afghanistan as the victim of a “conspiracy” and insisted that the Afghan interior was secure. Islamabad has rejected those claims, accused Kabul of deflection, and reiterated offers for transparent, joint investigation into militant sanctuaries along the frontier.
Mujahid’s statement, which opens with a liturgical praise, asserts that “the situation along all official borders and disputed lines of Afghanistan is under full control” and describes the Islamic Emirate’s actions as having “crushing responses” to alleged incursions. He went further to say that certain groups in Afghanistan’s neighbourhood “have turned to various conspiracies” and accused unspecified elements inside Pakistan’s military and political establishment of fomenting unrest.
Most pointedly, the Taliban spokesman named senior figures of the Islamic State – Khorasan Province (ISIS-K) and claimed they were “present and hiding on Pakistani soil,” requesting that Pakistan “hand over” or expel them so Afghanistan could deal with the threat. Mujahid also emphasised that the Afghan defence ministry had taken “a series of special measures” to secure the country and insisted that “generally the security situation in Afghanistan is reassuring.”
Islamabad: Present Facts, Demand Evidence
Pakistan’s foreign-policy and defence officials rejected the statement in full, describing it as an attempt to deflect attention from Afghanistan’s failure to curb Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) sanctuaries operating from its territory. Officials stressed that repeated requests for verifiable action against these groups have gone unanswered.
Analysts argue that ISIS-K’s operational footprint lies inside Afghanistan, particularly in Nangarhar, Kunar, and Kabul, as confirmed by United Nations monitoring reports, not in Pakistan’s border districts. Pakistani officials added that the militants who routinely stage attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan move from Afghan territory, not vice versa.
Pakistani security sources and spokespeople stress that last night’s operations were “intelligence-driven, targeted at armed formations and checkpoints that directly threatened border communities,” and describe Pakistan’s posture as defensive and proportionate.
Security analysts in Islamabad argue that the Taliban government’s repeated attempts to externalise blame signal a loss of territorial control rather than strategic confidence.
“If Kabul truly controlled its borders,” one senior official said, “TTP elements wouldn’t be operating freely in Khost, Kunar, and Paktika. Pakistan’s responses target armed sanctuaries, not civilians.”
“Rather than deflect blame, Afghanistan must act decisively against Tehreek-eTaliban Pakistan (TTP) and allied militant sanctuaries operating from its territory,” a security source said. Pakistan points to recent operational evidence, including repulsed breach attempts at Duran Mela, Utaar and Manujaba, the destruction of enemy checkpoints and the neutralisation of hostile cadres, as proof that Islamabad has been targeting militant infrastructure, not conducting gratuitous strikes.
The Contested Geography of ISIS-K and TTP
The ideological and operational lines between local militant groups, transnational jihadi movements and state actors in the region are contested and politically charged. Pakistani statements note that international and UN reporting has repeatedly highlighted ISIS-K activity in eastern Afghan provinces, notably Nangarhar, Kunar and parts of Kabul, and argue that allegations of ISIS-K command and control being based inside Pakistan require concrete, forensically verifiable proof.
Conversely, Islamabad points to incident mapping and recent data showing sustained cross-border attacks and infiltration attempts as evidence of persistent TTP activity emanating from Afghan territory. “Far from being a solved problem, TTP and allied militant activity remain a persistent regional threat,” security sources told HTN. Pakistani authorities say their operations have targeted militant sanctuaries, logistics nodes and checkpoints that facilitate cross-border violence.
Propaganda, social media and the wider diplomatic choreography
Beyond kinetic operations, officials in Islamabad accuse Kabul, and, they allege, Indian-linked narrative networks, of mounting a coordinated information campaign to obscure battlefield losses during and after the Saturday clash. Pakistani analysts point to a surge in recycled combat footage and resurfaced clips, that have trended across X and other platforms during the clashes. They say such “propaganda cannot substitute for verifiable battlefield facts.”
Mujahid’s statement itself accused “malicious circles” in Pakistan of manufacturing “false information” and fomenting division.
On the other hand, according to the analyst in Islamabad, Afghan General Directorate of Intelligence (GDI) linked accounts and a cluster of Indian handles have also been mocking the Pak–Saudi Defence Pact, revealing what Pakistani analysts describe as “hybrid coordination between Kabul and Delhi’s narrative cells.”
Kabul–Delhi choreography
The timing of Zabihullah Mujahid’s remarks, issued just a day after Afghan Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi’s meetings with India’s External Affairs Ministry, has not gone unnoticed in Islamabad.
Officials and analysts view the overlap between border aggression and diplomatic optics as more than coincidence.
Diplomatic observers in Islamabad describe the sequence as a carefully choreographed act, with Kabul supplying the provocation and New Delhi providing the stage. The pattern, they argue, fits a wider regional strategy aimed at manufacturing pressure on Pakistan through synchronized political and information fronts.
“India’s sudden embrace of the Taliban leadership is not just diplomacy, it’s geopolitical posturing,” a senior Pakistani policy analyst told HTN. “The intent is not reconciliation, but repositioning, and Pakistan is fully aware of the design.”
Officials emphasise that Pakistan remains alert and unshaken, confident in both its military preparedness and diplomatic outreach. The country, they say, continues to respond with discipline, precision, and restraint, even as others attempt to turn the border into a theatre for political signalling.
Humanitarian and Regional Stakes
Beyond the security narrative, officials warned that Afghanistan’s current posture and the current confrontational trajectory harms ordinary Afghans who depend on cross-border movement for essential services. Pakistani officials note that a significant portion of Afghan trade, medical care and higher-education access runs through Pakistan; they argue that continued instability will “punish common Afghans who rely on Pakistan for education, healthcare and commerce.”
Roughly 70 percent of Afghan trade, medical supplies, and educational exchanges pass through Pakistan. Islamabad’s ministries note that over 70,000 Afghans receive treatment in Pakistan each year and thousands study in Pakistani universities.
“Every round of border tension closes doors on those Afghans, not on us,” one official said.
“If the Afghan government prioritises subversive alliances over its citizens’ welfare, it risks alienating the very population it claims to protect,” said an Islamabad-based analyst. Pakistan reiterated its readiness to pursue combined, neutral verification mechanisms, shared patrols, and intelligence fusion, to separate contested claims from demonstrable facts and to prevent further escalation.
Islamabad’s Position and Red Line
Analysts in Islamabad note that Pakistan’s approach remains consistent; defensive in posture, intelligence-led in execution, and focused on preventing further escalation.
They emphasise that any activity to neutralize militant threat against Pakistan along the frontier remains a precision response to active threats, not acts of aggression, and that propaganda cannot alter operational reality.
Observers say Islamabad’s security calculus is clear. As long as TTP sanctuaries and cross-border networks remain active inside Afghanistan, Pakistan will maintain its right to respond proportionately and decisively against imminent threats.
“This is not a dispute of words,” said one senior analyst. “It is a contest of actions, and Pakistan’s actions are guided by necessity, not impulse.”
Joint Inquiry and a Caution
Policy experts believe Pakistan is likely to welcome neutral verification or joint investigative mechanisms to assess competing claims, provided they are transparent and evidence-based.
The onus, they argue, lies on Kabul to substantiate allegations about ISIS-K presence inside Pakistan, especially when UN and regional assessments place the group’s operations squarely within Afghan territory.
At the same time, analysts caution that continued cross-border provocations and disinformation campaigns risk triggering a broader crisis that would harm Afghanistan’s already fragile stability.
For now, Islamabad’s posture remains calm but firm, open to dialogue, yet unwilling to compromise on its territorial integrity or counterterrorism imperatives.