By: Ms. Fatima Tuz Zehra Editor-in-Chief of The Gulf Observer , President The Gulf Observer Research Forum and Sr. Foreign Affairs Expert
Silence along borders is not always a symbol of peace; at times, it is merely the prelude to a storm that suddenly knocks at a nation’s doorstep. Pakistan’s decision to conduct targeted operations at seven locations inside Afghanistan represents a measured response to such a storm. It revives a long-standing and pressing question: when attacks are planned across the border, when perpetrators cross over to execute them, and when the neighboring state denies the very existence of this chain of events, what is a sovereign nation to do? Should it continue to watch its citizens become targets, or should it take the necessary steps to defend its security?
On February 22, Pakistan’s Ministry of Information stated that the action was carried out against “intelligence-based selected targets” linked to the banned Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Daesh-Khorasan. These strikes came in response to recent suicide attacks, including the assault on a mosque in Islamabad and deadly incidents in Bajaur and Bannu. These tragedies once again demonstrated that terrorism is no longer a sporadic threat but a coordinated strategy aimed at constantly testing the state’s capacity, response speed, and the resilience of its people.
Two parallel narratives are emerging. One is rooted in evidence, facts, and the interconnected nature of the attacks. The other is shaped by political interests, retaliatory rhetoric, and propaganda. Pakistan maintains that it possesses credible evidence indicating that the planning of recent attacks was carried out by leadership elements based in Afghanistan. Islamabad asserts that it has repeatedly sought verifiable action from Kabul, yet meaningful progress has not materialized. In contrast, Kabul continues to deny these allegations while simultaneously issuing warnings of a “proportionate response,” despite multiple reports pointing to the same geography as the origin of these attacks.
Claims have also surfaced from Kabul alleging civilian casualties, including schoolchildren, and damage to educational institutions. However, independent verification of these assertions has not been possible. Such ambiguity creates fertile ground for extremist elements, as every contested narrative deepens mistrust between the two countries. This environment benefits those who seek to divert attention from the core issue through blame-shifting and sensationalism.
According to Pakistan’s security institutions, the matter is no longer confined to rhetoric—it is a stark reality. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa remains under persistent attack, and the pattern of incidents indicates a systematic campaign. The drone strike on a military post in Karak, followed by an ambush on ambulances transporting the injured, underscores the evolving capabilities of terrorist networks. The use of modern technology and coordinated tactics suggests that these operations are part of a broader, well-planned strategy rather than isolated acts.
The central question now is not why Pakistan acted, but what comes next. Airstrikes may temporarily disrupt terrorist hideouts, but they are not a permanent solution. The real challenge lies in establishing a framework that denies terrorists safe havens while preventing the region from descending into a cycle of endless retaliation. The term “targeted operation” reflects Pakistan’s effort to emphasize that the strikes were directed at militant infrastructure, not civilian facilities.
Extremist groups often embed themselves within civilian populations, using innocent people as shields—a long-standing tactic designed to complicate state responses. Similarly, some elements misuse religious institutions such as mosques and seminaries to establish operational bases, despite the fact that these same groups have repeatedly targeted religious sites and public spaces within Pakistan. For Kabul, the issue extends beyond Pakistan’s warnings. Voices from within Afghanistan itself have acknowledged that extremist elements pose a threat not only to Pakistan but to Afghanistan and the wider region. This underscores that the matter is not merely a bilateral dispute but a broader security crisis demanding collective resolve. Critics often argue that Islamabad shifts responsibility outward. Yet Pakistan continues to conduct extensive counterterrorism operations domestically, carrying out thousands of intelligence-based missions and neutralizing hundreds of militants. These efforts demonstrate the state’s commitment on the internal front. However, the persistence of suicide bombings and drone attacks highlights that external sanctuaries still play a significant role. The true test for Pakistan now begins. Military action must evolve into a comprehensive strategy incorporating sustained diploma
