Tensions on the Edge: What’s Happening Between Pakistan and Afghanistan

13 November 2025

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

Designed to Be Replaced: How Planned Obsolescence Fuels Waste in the Digital Age

The Streaming Divide: Why Pop Superstars Earn Millions While Most Musicians Struggle to Survive

Landmark Negligence Cases That Changed Personal Injury Law

The relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan has always been uneasy, but in recent weeks it has taken a serious turn. Cross-border clashes, air strikes, failed peace talks and growing accusations have pushed both nations into one of their most dangerous stand-offs in years. For many observers, the dispute has become a test of whether the region can avoid another long and destabilising conflict.

Helicopter flying over a sandy desert with rocky mountains in the background. Clear blue sky, conveying a sense of adventure and isolation.

A Fragile Border and a Growing Crisis

The Pakistan–Afghanistan border stretches for more than 1,600 miles across harsh mountains and remote valleys. It is one of the most difficult borders in the world to control. Communities on both sides share cultural and ethnic ties, yet it is also an area long associated with insurgency, smuggling and shifting alliances.

Tensions rose sharply in October 2025 after Pakistan accused militants based in Afghanistan of launching deadly attacks on its territory. The main group blamed was the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), an organisation ideologically aligned with the Afghan Taliban. Islamabad claims that the TTP uses Afghan soil as a safe haven to regroup and plan strikes. The Afghan government, run by the Taliban since 2021, has repeatedly denied this, insisting it does not allow any group to attack a neighbouring country.

In response to a series of cross-border raids, Pakistan carried out air strikes inside Afghanistan, reportedly targeting militant positions near Kabul and across border provinces such as Khost and Paktika. Afghanistan retaliated with its own artillery fire along the frontier, resulting in casualties on both sides.

Diplomatic Frustration and Failed Talks

The violence sparked international concern, prompting Qatar and Turkey to step in as mediators. Both countries helped broker a temporary ceasefire in mid-October, but the calm was short-lived. Within weeks, the agreement had collapsed, with each side accusing the other of breaking the terms.

Talks held in Istanbul were meant to restore dialogue, yet they ended in stalemate. Pakistan demanded firm guarantees that militants operating from Afghanistan would be disarmed or expelled. Afghanistan, in turn, accused Pakistan of violating its sovereignty with repeated air operations. Efforts by Iran to offer mediation have also yet to produce results.

This latest breakdown highlights a deeper mistrust between the two governments. Pakistan once saw the Taliban’s rise to power in Afghanistan as a strategic opportunity to ensure a friendly regime on its western border. Instead, the relationship has soured, with Islamabad viewing the Taliban’s inability to rein in the TTP as a major threat to its internal security.

Why the Situation Matters

The border conflict is more than a local issue; it has major implications for the entire region. Pakistan’s western frontier has long been volatile, and instability there risks spilling into its own border provinces such as Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. If the violence continues, Pakistan may face a surge of displaced civilians and renewed domestic attacks from TTP factions.

Camouflage uniform with Pakistan flag patch, "Special Services Wing" badge, and pencil in pocket. Hand holding a paper, suggesting readiness.

For Afghanistan, the fighting threatens what remains of its already fragile economy. Cross-border trade routes with Pakistan are crucial lifelines for goods, fuel and humanitarian supplies. When the border closes or becomes unsafe, Afghan markets suffer shortages and price spikes, deepening the country’s ongoing economic crisis.

Neighbouring countries are also on alert. Iran, which shares a long border with both Afghanistan and Pakistan, has offered to mediate out of concern that the fighting could spread or disrupt trade routes. Further north, Central Asian nations such as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are worried about militant movements and refugee flows across their southern borders.

Even China is watching closely. It has invested heavily in Pakistan’s infrastructure through the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship element of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. Escalating violence could undermine those projects and threaten Chinese personnel working in the region.

The Broader Picture: Security and Trust

Flags of Afghanistan and Pakistan on a detailed map with mountains, highlighted by warm sunlight, creating a diplomatic tone.

At the heart of the crisis is a question of control. Pakistan believes that the Afghan Taliban can restrain militant groups operating from within its borders, but evidence so far suggests that the Taliban either cannot or will not take decisive action. Some analysts argue that the Afghan leadership faces internal divisions, with hardline elements unwilling to confront groups that once fought alongside them.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s military leadership faces pressure at home to show strength. Repeated attacks by the TTP have killed hundreds of Pakistani soldiers and civilians over the past two years. Failure to respond decisively could be seen as weakness by a population already frustrated with economic hardship and political instability.

Both sides, then, are trapped in a cycle of accusation and retaliation, where every incident deepens mistrust.

Possible Futures

If diplomacy fails, further escalation remains a real risk. More air strikes or cross-border raids could ignite a wider conflict that neither country can afford. However, there are also reasons for cautious optimism. Regional powers, including Turkey, Qatar and Iran, have a vested interest in avoiding another prolonged war. Their mediation efforts, while limited so far, may keep communication channels open.

Trade could also serve as a bridge rather than a barrier. Pakistan and Afghanistan have both expressed interest in expanding economic cooperation through transit agreements and energy links. If stability can be restored, these could offer incentives for restraint.

The real test will be whether both governments can separate militant issues from broader political disputes. Without that, the ceasefire agreements will remain temporary, and the border will continue to be a flashpoint for years to come.

Impact Beyond the Border

The outcome of this conflict could shape regional security for the foreseeable future. A stable Afghanistan benefits not only Pakistan but also Central Asia and even Europe, which has faced migration pressures after every major Afghan crisis. Conversely, a breakdown in relations could fuel extremism, disrupt trade routes and draw in larger powers seeking influence.

For now, the international community is urging restraint. The question is whether Pakistan and Afghanistan can find common ground before local skirmishes evolve into something much larger.

Current Most Read

Watching the Watchers: Is Live Facial Recognition Fit for Purpose?

Paul Francis
May 8
4 min read

In an age of rapid technological advancement, surveillance is no longer a passive act. Live Facial Recognition (LFR) technology has moved from science fiction into the heart of modern policing and commercial security systems. Able to scan faces in real time and match them to watchlists within seconds, it promises efficiency, safety, and even crime prevention. But with these promises come serious questions about legality, accuracy, ethics, and trust.

Futuristic officer with glowing green eyes and circuit-patterned uniform in a neon-lit corridor, exuding a cool, technological vibe.

As this technology continues to spread across public streets and private retail spaces alike, we must ask: is LFR ready for widespread use, or is it running ahead of the safeguards designed to protect our rights?

What is Live Facial Recognition?

Live Facial Recognition (LFR) is a biometric surveillance tool that uses real-time video feeds to detect and identify faces. Unlike static facial recognition, which analyses images after an event has occurred, LFR operates live. Cameras scan crowds, extract facial features, and compare them to a database of preloaded images. If the system detects a potential match, it alerts a human operator to intervene or investigate.

LFR is being trialled and used by several police forces in the UK, including the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police. Retailers, stadiums, and event organisers are also deploying the technology in an attempt to identify shoplifters or detect banned individuals before trouble starts.

A woman's face on a monitor with blue facial recognition lines, surrounded by software interface text, creates a tech-focused atmosphere.

How Does It Work? A Closer Look

LFR involves several distinct technical steps. At its core, it is powered by artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms trained on vast datasets of facial images. The process typically unfolds as follows:

Face Detection

First, the system identifies a face within a video frame. This step uses computer vision models to detect facial structures such as the eyes, nose, and jawline. This is not identification yet; it is simply recognising that a face is present.

Alignment and Normalisation

Once detected, the system adjusts the face to account for differences in head tilt, lighting, or distance. This is known as normalisation. The aim is to ensure that all faces are processed in a similar format so that they can be compared reliably.

Feature Extraction

The system then uses a deep learning model, often a convolutional neural network, to extract features from the face. These are translated into a biometric template, a mathematical vector that represents the unique aspects of that person’s face.

Matching

This template is then compared against a watchlist. The system calculates a similarity score between the live face and each entry in the database. If the score passes a predefined threshold, the system flags it as a match. A human operator is usually involved at this stage to confirm or reject the result.

This entire process happens in seconds, enabling real-time surveillance across public or private spaces.

The Case For LFR

Proponents argue that LFR is a valuable tool for modern policing. It can identify wanted criminals, locate missing persons, and even prevent terrorist acts before they happen. In retail settings, it promises to reduce shoplifting and protect staff from repeat offenders. Unlike traditional methods, it allows for rapid identification without the need for physical interaction or delays.

The technology also allows for more efficient use of resources. Officers can be directed to individuals flagged by the system, rather than relying solely on observation or tip-offs. In theory, this reduces the burden on police and enhances public safety.

The Case Against LFR

Despite its promise, LFR is far from perfect. One of the main concerns is accuracy. Studies have shown that LFR systems are more likely to produce false positives for people with darker skin tones and for women. These errors are not trivial. A mistaken identity can result in an innocent person being stopped, searched, or even arrested.

There is also the issue of bias in training data. If an algorithm has been trained primarily on certain demographics, it will perform less effectively on others. In real-world conditions, such as low lighting or crowd movement, these problems can become even more pronounced.

Beyond technical flaws, legal and ethical questions loom large. In the United Kingdom, there is currently no specific law governing the use of LFR. Its deployment relies on a complex mesh of data protection laws, human rights principles, and operational guidance. Critics argue that this legal uncertainty leaves too much room for misuse.

A 2020 Court of Appeal ruling found South Wales Police’s use of LFR to be unlawful, citing insufficient safeguards, inadequate impact assessments, and the risk of discriminatory practices. The ruling did not ban the technology outright but signalled that current uses are walking a legal tightrope.

Potential Misuse and the Chilling Effect

One of the most troubling aspects of LFR is its capacity for mass surveillance. By scanning every face in a crowd, it treats everyone as a potential suspect. This blanket approach has been described as disproportionate and invasive by privacy groups such as Big Brother Watch and Liberty.

There is also the risk of function creep. A system introduced to identify serious offenders could, over time, be expanded to monitor protests, track political activists, or even control access to public spaces based on social or behavioural metrics.

Furthermore, the use of LFR by private companies raises concerns about data ownership and accountability. Retailers may share watchlists across multiple sites or even with law enforcement, all without the consent or knowledge of the individuals being scanned. This could lead to people being unfairly banned, blacklisted, or targeted, based on secretive and unchallengeable criteria.

Is It Fit for Purpose?

At present, the evidence suggests that Live Facial Recognition technology is not ready for widespread deployment. While it offers considerable potential, its use is outpacing the development of ethical, legal, and technical safeguards. In its current state, LFR is more likely to erode public trust than to enhance security.

Without robust legislation, transparent oversight, and significant improvements in accuracy and fairness, LFR risks doing more harm than good. Surveillance should not come at the cost of civil liberties or human dignity. As with all powerful technologies, its benefits must be balanced against the risks, and right now, that balance appears off.

LFR is a powerful tool with a fragile foundation. Its strengths lie in speed and scale, but its weaknesses—bias, error, and lack of transparency—cast a long shadow. Until these flaws are addressed, caution must guide its use.

In the race to embrace smart surveillance, we must not forget the human rights and democratic values that underpin our society. Watching the watchers may be just as important as watching the streets.

Images provided by Leonardo AI